Recruitment panopticism

Microsoft reports in Online Reputation in a Connected World [PDF] that research in December last year found that 79% of US hiring managers and job recruiters in its sample - which may or may not be representative - reviewed online information about job applicants.

Most of those surveyed consider what they find online to impact their selection criteria. In fact, 70 percent of United States hiring managers in the study say they have rejected candidates based on what they found.

The MS survey involves interviews with around 1,200 hiring and recruitment managers and 1,200 consumers in the United States, the UK, Germany and France (all over 25 years old, half less than 30 years old).

MS claims that

+ The recruiters and HR professionals surveyed are not only checking online sources to learn about potential candidates, but they also report that their companies have made online screening a formal requirement of the hiring process.
+ Of U.S. recruiters and HR professionals surveyed, 70% say they have rejected candidates based on information they found online. Though not as frequently, respondents from the U.K. and Germany report the same trend.
+ Recruiters and HR professionals surveyed report being very or somewhat concerned about the authenticity of the content they find.
+ In all countries, recruiters and HR professionals say they believe the use of online reputational information will significantly increase over the next five years.
+ Positive online reputations matter. Among U.S. recruiters and HR professionals surveyed, 85% say that positive online reputation influences their hiring decisions at least to some extent. Nearly half say that a strong online reputation influences their decisions to a great extent.
+ Consumers surveyed have mixed opinions about the appropriateness of recruiters and HR professionals examining some types of online content. Most find it reasonable that recruiters and HR professionals check information on professional sites. There is greater concern, however, about recruiter scrutiny of photos, videos, and other personal content including blogs, personal social network pages, organizations they are affiliated with, financial information, and the like.
+ Consumers surveyed use a variety of methods to monitor and manage the information posted about them online. Most notably, they use multiple personas, search for information about themselves, adjust privacy settings, and refrain from posting content that they believe could damage their reputation.
+ Though most consumers surveyed do manage their reputation at least to some extent, there are a significant percentage of respondents (between 30% and 35% depending on nationality) who don't feel their online reputation affects either their personal or professional life. Consequently, they are not taking steps to manage their reputations.

The types of information claimed by survey participants as influencing their recruitment decisions include -

+ concerns about the candidate's lifestyle
+ inappropriate comments and text written by the candidate
+ unsuitable photos, videos, and information
+ inappropriate comments or text written by friends and relatives
+ comments criticizing previous employers, co-workers, or clients
+ inappropriate comments or text written by colleagues or work acquaintances
+ membership in certain groups and networks
+ discovered that information the candidate shared was false
+ poor communication skills displayed online
+ concern about the candidate's financial background.

Despite comments in my keynote at last Friday's Watch This Space Children & Privacy conference I don't entirely believe in Santa Claus. I am therefore inclined to raise an eyebrow in reading the MS report's claim that "Recruiters and HR professionals say they tell candidates if online content factored into their rejection", with 86% of those surveyed in the US claiming that they informed the candidate of the reason for rejection, 66% of those in the UK, 63% in France and 36% of recruiters and HR professionals in Germany. The nature of what unsuccessful candidates are told is unclear. Was it 'we found something on the net that we didn't like' or something specific? We didn't like your hair colour ... or your skin colour ... or that you've been frequenting the same legal but stigmatized locales as David Campbell?

Supposedly "Nearly 90% of U.S. recruiters and HR professionals surveyed say they are somewhat to very concerned that the online reputational information they discover may be inaccurate. An equal number claim they take steps to corroborate its authenticity".

However, the extent to which recruiters verify information and the effectiveness of those steps areunclear, as are opportunities for people to 'clear their names' if a factual error has been made or information has been misinterpreted. MS states that "The research did not investigate what steps they take to validate the authenticity of the information they find".

Such an investigation would have been more valuable, albeit more frightening, than simply generating an extended media release by asking recruiters whether they look at the web. Ideally we'd move beyond the pseudo-academic self-congratulation expressed as -

This research provides a solid foundation for understanding the expanding role of online reputation. It highlights areas of ethical and legal concern that need public discourse. It identifies new areas of conversation and negotiation for friends and family members so that as they use online tools, they do so in a way that respects the privacy and online reputation of others. And the research provides valuable insight into developing effective educational messaging and advice for consumers about how to protect and manage their online reputation.