One In Five Employers Scan Applicants' Web Lives

Ned Nederlander writes "CareerBuilder's new survey finds: 'Of those hiring managers who have screened job candidates via social networking profiles, one-third (34 percent) reported they found content that caused them to dismiss the candidate from consideration.' Some red flags: content about applicant using drugs or drinking, inappropriate photos and bad-mouthing former bosses."

Comments

Only 20%??

[francisstp]

Why does every manager not screen all applicants? Takes 5 minutes.

Re:Only 20%??

[fishbowl]

"Your resume likely gets 20 to 30 seconds of eyeball time when a manager or recruiter is scanning through a pile of resumes looking for potential interview candidates."

Cool.... They then spend enough time on my online profile to find out that I've read as much literature as the average English Professor, they will see my publications, they will see me shaking hands with John Glenn, Tiger Teague and Ronald Reagan, they will laugh at my quotes, and then decide not to hire me because I've listed my religious view as "Episcopagan."

Their loss!

What About the Good Things?

[eldavojohn]

This summary leaves out the entire second half of the article:

On the other hand, social networking profiles gave some job seekers an edge over the competition. Twenty-four percent of hiring managers who researched job candidates via social networking sites said they found content that helped to solidify their decision to hire the candidate. Top factors that influenced their hiring decision included:

• 48% - candidate's background supported their qualifications for the job
• 43% - candidate had great communication skills
• 40% - candidate was a good fit for the company's culture
• 36% - candidate's site conveyed a professional image
• 31% - candidate had great references posted about them by others
• 30% - candidate showed a wide range of interests
• 29% - candidate received awards and accolades
• 24% - candidate's profile was creative

Some of the numbers on this article have to be wrong ... 22% shared sensitive information from their prior employer ... ?! What could that be?

Re:Interview process improvement

[ricebowl]

Employees'(or prospective employees') personal lives should be strictly off limits unless the employee voluntarily discloses the information as per professional interview guidelines(such as listing interests on a resume' or answering an interviewer's questions).

Why? The information's both public and readily available. If someone's application for employment is dismissed because they appear to be a drunken stoner that enjoys whining about former employers then...why should the prospective employer not be aware of it?

If it was something that they obtained through the use of private detectives, or contacting previous employers then, maybe, fair enough the applicant should be warned. But if they're stupid enough to post any form of incriminating material online what makes you think they'd heed the warning in the first place?

I do the same thing to my employers

[Zerth]

It helps me avoid the bad ones and possibly increase my chances with the ones I want.

One interview I casually mentioned seeing a really good performance by a local violin player. I hadn't actually gone, just read a review. I didn't mention I knew she was his daughter, either(she'd married, so different last name). I found that after googling him and finding it in the "thanks" section of her website. That got us to talking about classical music, music magnet schools, etc. After we "shared a common interest", I was a shoe-in compared to the rest of the candidates.

Fortunately, I don't work there anymore and he's since retired:) I did actually listen to some of his daughter's stuff, later, and she /is/ a good violin player.