According to a survey described in this article from CareerBuilder.com (which I found on Everton’s blog), one in four hiring managers have used search engines to find out more about prospective new hires.
When asked to divulge the types of information discovered on the Web that caused them to dismiss potential employees, hiring managers pointed to the following:
- 31% - candidate lied about qualifications
- 25% - candidate had poor communication skills
- 24% - candidate was linked to criminal behavior
- 19% - candidate bad-mouthed their previous company or fellow employee
- 19% - candidate posted information about them drinking or using drugs
- 15% - candidate shared confidential information from previous employers
- 12% - candidate lied about an absence
- 11% - candidate posted provocative or inappropriate photographs
- 8% - candidate’s screen name was unprofessional
Hiring managers said the following information discovered on the Web helped to confirm their decision to hire a candidate:
- 64% - candidate’s background information supported their professional qualifications for the job
- 40% - candidate was well-rounded, showed a wide range of interests
- 34% - candidate had great communication skills
- 31% - candidate’s site conveyed a professional image
- 31% - got a good feel for the candidate’s personality, could see a good fit within the company culture
- 23% - other people posted great references about the candidate
- 23% - candidate was creative
- 19% - candidate received awards and accolades
14 Comments
candidate’s screen name was unprofessional?
Word, Cynthia. I don’t like it one bit.
you know like “chickmagnet56″. says alot about a 50 year old guy.
I think it works more for the myspace users out there, especially the personality and drunk parts.
I’ve got to say that I would totally do this if I were in the position to hire someone. I don’t think I would put much weight on the screen name thing in particular, but I think that my overall impression of the person’s public (online) persona would be a significant factor in deciding whether I’d want to hire them or not, because it would probably be much more honest than what they would convey in an interview.
The key for me is this is the person’s public face; they have put this out there for the world to see. It would be very different if we were talking about trying to look through private messages or digging up dirt, but this is what the person put out there to represent themselves.
Also, I don’t think it should be used in a discriminatory manner either, and any non-work-related info should of course not be considered relevant. I acknowledge that this ideal standard of judgment would not be reality, but the same thing happens (opinions being formed) in other aspects as well (resume writing, personal interviews).
I mostly just think it’s something people need to be mindful of (for better or worse) when publishing their thoughts in a public forum like the internet.
i google everyone i interview. usually i find out interesting things to ask them about (like that they were a member of the worship club or something). it has never turned up something bad.
seeing as i employ entry level, part-time positions, i’ve gotten quite a few resumes with non-professional email addresses. i usually just mention to them that getting a second hotmail/gmail account using their real name is easy and important. nothing will ever compare to a resume i got while working for homestore. the email address printed on the resume was — no joke — thongrrl69@hotmail.com … i did not give her an interview.
I googled Nate, it was fun but he was annoyed.
The screen name issue is border-line for me, since I think it’s fine for the person to have whatever screen name they want, but I would agree that for professional use one should also keep a more plain looking e-mail address.
The main things in the negative list above that I would consider would be the work related points: qualifications (or obvious lack thereof), past behavior and/or comments about employers, and communication skills - if they have a blog and can’t (or don’t) spell correctly or construct proper sentences.
I can’t believe JB and NS would google people to find info on them. Not sure why I object but it doesn’t seem right to me for some reason.
You’d only be looking up info that people had made publicly available themselves. It’s not like you’re invading their privacy; you’re reading stuff they chose to publish.
come up with a reason why you object and i’ll tell you why you’re wrong.
seems like an invasion of privacy. as many things you can find out in google are there but the person might have given explicit permission for that information/link to be used. One might argue that there is an implied permission If one writes on a blog or whatever, I don’t happen to agree with that argument.
I don’t think that in this context anyone’s privacy is being violated. The information being discussed here is specifically stuff that the person has publicly posted (via a blog, primarily) about themselves, and have given everyone in the world permission to read.
Of course there are other types of online digging that may turn up more info than the person was willing to divulge, specifically stuff that they may not have personally been involved in posting but was posted nonetheless. That’s a more complicated issue, but even then I think as long as you stick to only information that would be relevant to their work life (which does not include most personal activities) you’re probably OK.
There are plenty of privacy invading practices that I would oppose (like drug testing), but that’s a whole other issue.
I always Google a potential hire. You do not need a loose canon on MySpace.com shaking her thing. You also may find other online resumes that do not match the resume the candidate submitted.