In the United States and U.K., recruiters and HR professionals surveyed are likely to research candidate behavior online and report markedly high rates of candidate rejections based on their findings. Comparatively, only 7% of U.S. consumers surveyed believe information about them online affected their job search, while 70%% of U.S. recruiters and HR professionals have rejected candidates based on information they found online.
This study explores the attitudes of consumers, HR professionals, and recruiters on the subject of online reputation. Highlights of the study's findings include:
From the consumer viewpoint:
Of the U.S. recruiters and HR professionals surveyed, 75% report that their companies have formal policies in place that require hiring personnel to research applicants online, and 79% of U.S. recruiters check on online reputational data. In the U.S. 86% of male recruiters and HR professionals review online reputational data, though only 61% of women do so.
In the United States, 89% of recruiters and HR professionals surveyed find it appropriate to consider professional online data when assessing a candidate; 84% of them think it is proper to consider personal data posted online.
There are noteworthy differences between the types of sites that consumers surveyed think are appropriate for recruiters and HR professionals to examine and the types chosen to investigate.
Areas of online information that stir the most controversy among respondents in the United States when reviewed by recruiters and HR professionals for reputational information include:
Yet on average one in four U.S. recruiters and HR professionals surveyed reviewed these sites for applicant information. In fact, online searches by recruiters and HR professionals are so prevalent in the United States that only 2% of those surveyed did not research any of the types of sites listed in the table below.
Percent Of Recruiters And HR Professionals Who Use These Types Of Sites When Researching Applicants | |
Site Researched | % Professionals Using |
Search engines | 78% |
Social networking sites | 63% |
Photo and video sharing sites | 59% |
Professional and business networking sites | 57% |
Personal Web sites | 48% |
Blogs | 46% |
News sharing sites (e.g. Twitter) | 41% |
Online forums and communities | 34% |
Virtual world sites | 32% |
Web sites that aggregate personal information | 32% |
Online gaming sites | 27% |
Professional background checking services | 27% |
Classifieds and auction sites | 25% |
None of these | 2% |
Source: Microsoft, February 2010 |
Concerns about lifestyle, inappropriate comments, and unsuitable photos and videos top the list of reasons that those surveyed give for rejecting a candidate. But they also rejected applicants because of inappropriate comments by friends, family, and colleagues, or based on membership in certain groups.
U.S. Recruiters and HR Professionals Reasons for Candidate Rejection | |
Reason | % of Respondents Selecting Reason |
Concerns about the candidate's lifestyle | 58% |
Inappropriate comments and text written by the candidate | 56% |
Unsuitable photos , videos, and information | 55% |
Inappropriate comments or text written by friends and relatives | 43% |
Comments criticizing previous employers, co-workers, or clients | 40% |
Inappropriate comments or text written by colleagues or work acquaintances | 40% |
Membership in certain groups and networks | 35% |
Discovered that information the candidate shared was false | 30% |
Poor communication skills displayed online | 27% |
Concern about the candidate's financial background | 16% |
Source: Microsoft, February 2010 |
The good news for applicants is that creating a strong, positive personal brand online can have a positive impact on their applications. In the United States, 86% of human resources professionals surveyed stated that a positive online reputation influences the candidate's application to some extent; almost half stated that it does so to a great extent.
Though nearly 70% of respondents from each country reported they had not posted content (including text, video or photos) in the last six months they came to regret, only 39% of U.S. males and 54% of U.S. women said they always considered their online reputation when posting Web content.
Finally, of particular concern is the depth and breadth of information that recruiters are seeking about candidates. Traditionally, recruiters have had clear restrictions on the types of information they can ask candidates. This included restrictions on asking about their families, their affiliation to religious, political or other groups, their financial situation, medical condition, and so on.
Now, recruiters can easily and anonymously collect information that they would not be permitted to ask in an interview, and the survey found that recruiters are doing just that.
For more information, including charts, please visit Microsoft Data here.
Very insightful story and study. It underlines the real need for people to understand on a very deep level that you are "what you publish on the Web," as David Meerman Scott has often said.
Our online lives are open books and I'm sure the statistics will continue to grow in terms of how many employers, prospective peers and partners go to the keyboard as their first step in vetting our potential contributions.
I would post a response but then it would go into my online reputation.
Pete Cashmore my Social Media Hypster and biased self promoter at Mashable thinks none of us want privacy. That we want to expose everything about our life to the world. Of course this benefits him financially so of course he hopes this occurs. And of course he is wrong. This is the 37,967 nail in the coffin of his view waiting for 37,968.
Thanks for this important post! I might only add that being an open book could well work in your favor. Even in this economy job pursuits are two sided. Not only should the org. judge my fitness but, I should be doing the same. Is this the right org. for me? The person you are just might be incompatible with the organization that you are applying. For example your "right wing" views might be so extreme as to clash with a progressive "liberal" organization. Having the org. reject you early might save all involved future trouble.
I check out friend requests (google the person) before accepting and I often reject those I believe I will have problems with. Just because I knew someone in the 3rd grade does not mean we are compatible today. As well, just because you have a job and I want a job does not mean our coming together is a good idea. If you don't want me then it's probably a good idea because I probably don't want you.
This study needs to be shared with every high school principal and teacher so it can be forwarded to every student. Then have each and every one write a paper on the topic. Discuss. Then you can let them out of the room. ;)
I'm amazed at the amount of denial made apparent in these results. Despite warning after warning, it's quite clear that there's a disconnect between users' beliefs and the realities of today's job market. Thanks for pointing it out - yet again!
Another element that will show up in your online presence: whether or not you accidentally violate laws that pertain to confidentiality for your profession.
A JAMA study found medical students accidentally violating HIPAA (federal laws about patient privacy--that release you sign at your doctor's office) through postings on Facebook and other social networks: http://bit.ly/bN2uQD
We're active in social media spaces on behalf of our campus (Washington State University Spokane), which is growing as a center for education and research in the health professions and health sciences. What we learn in order to do communications in these new spaces will be shared with faculty, staff and students to help make them a little more aware of the dangers as well as the opportunities to establish a professional profile and credibility.
As far as what you post, there's always the test someone taught me for email: Would you want to see it on a billboard in your mother's neighborhood?
@BarbChamberlain
Director of Communications and Public Affairs
Washington State University Spokane
www.spokane.wsu.edu
@WSUSpokane
When will folks get it? Posting TMI online is comparable to leaving your personal diary on a park bench with the key in it "back in the day."
http://www.xkcd.com/137/
It used to be that only businesses, nonprofits and other organizations had to invest in reputation management. Now, with so much of our lives online, it's something everyone needs to pay attention too. It's amazing that so many still don't "get it."