What place does social media have in our assessment of potential employees?  The temptation to see behind a name is great, to find the “real” person hiding beneath the facade.

Whether we like it or not, all of us are increasingly living out our lives online. As the world around us becomes increasingly driven by digital technology, we find ourselves having to create a digital identity to utilise the services available to us. The downside of this is that we’re all being asked to risk a certain level of privacy when we divulge information about ourselves to third parties.

This debate about what is and isn’t public information has hit the headlines in recent months, with Mark Zuckerberg having to explain how Cambridge Analytica was able to farm the Facebook data of millions of individuals out to corporations and political parties. It’s against this backdrop that we need to examine the use of social media for pre-screening applicants.

As we’ve pointed out previously, there’s no hard and fast overall rule about checking the social media accounts of candidates if they’re publicly visible, but there are a number of legal risks and issues involved. There are certain types of information that can’t be legally considered in a hiring context, and this is the information you’d expect to protect individuals against discrimination – religion, marital status or ethnicity, for example. Moreover, the reality is that you can not unsee what you have seen and this can put you into tricky territory when it comes to hiring.

Because it’s almost impossible to view a Facebook account without gleaning some of this information, simply looking at a Facebook page during pre-screening can leave the process open to legal issues. Even if an employer doesn’t take any of this information into consideration, it’s very difficult to legally prove that certain types of information haven’t affected a particular decision.

Another consideration is the effect that social media screening will have on your employer brand. The war for talent continues unabated, so any hiring practice that potential applicants find abhorrent could have detrimental effects on your ability to find the best people. When an applicant submits their application, and is told their social media profiles could be considered during the screening process, you might find that many applicants simply don’t follow through.

One study asked 175 students to apply for a research position, and then told half of the students that their social media profiles had been screened for professionalism. These students were far more likely to report the selection procedure as being unfair, and found the employing organisation much less attractive. Combining this with other research that indicates that employees who feel they’ve been treated unfairly are much less likely to accept a job offer, and more likely to quit, and we can see why it’s so important not to use practices that create a feeling of unfairness.

LinkedIn profiles provide a happy medium for employers and applicants, as they’re considered publicly available information about an applicant’s employment history and experience. Some application processes even offer the option of using a LinkedIn profile to pre-fill forms. In the professional world, LinkedIn is seen as being the new repository of CVs and resumes.

However, using LinkedIn isn’t a perfect process, as there is still a level of bias that can creep in based on the use of photos and other identifying information on a profile. If an automated pre-screening process can simply crawl a LinkedIn profile to check the accuracy of information provided by an applicant, without considering profile photos, gender, marital status or race, the screening process could be considered a fair and reasonable use of a social media profile.

It’s a brave new world when it comes to data privacy and social media, but that doesn’t mean organisations have any excuse for behaving unethically during the pre-screening process. The best approach is up to each individual organisation, but it should be noted that there are significant downsides for a business using social media for screening, including legal risks and potential damage to your employer brand.

Ghosting the job interview is in the news.  What is ghosting exactly?  Basically it’s a frustrating procession of no shows of candidates and it may be strong employment numbers driving it.  The following CNN story does a great job of exploring the issue.

It’s worth being aware of the ghosting trend.  What can you do about it in the near-term if you’re dealing with it –well, that part’s not so clear.  Read the excerpt here:

Chandra Kill had scheduled face-to-face interviews with 21 candidates to fill some job openings at her employment screening firm. Only 11 showed up.

“About half flaked out,” said Kill. “They seem so excited and interested, and then they don’t show up or call and you are left wondering what happened. A year or two ago it wasn’t like this.”

With the US unemployment rate at its lowest in 18 years,and more job openings than there are people looking for work, candidates are bailing on scheduled interviews. In some cases, new hires are not showing up for their first day of work.

“We are in a unique situation where there has definitely been a shift in the employment world as far as supply and demand,” said Susie Willingham, director of talent acquisition at CareHere, a health care company.

“We are all fishing from the same pond and people have choices now and have the opportunity to really explore different positions and roles and levels of compensation. And with that choice, you have people changing their minds midstream — it can be very frustrating.”

She estimated that approximately 1 in 10 candidates aren’t showing up for interviews, and that no-shows are more common among lower level roles.

Read more here.

Do you ever think of the on-demand workforce?  New advances in digital technology are making traditional workplaces a thing of the past. While many workers now have the option to work remotely outside of their office, many businesses are beginning to adjust their workforce models to take advantage of a more agile contingent approach.

According to research by IDC, the mobile worker population is now made up of more than 1.3 billion people, which is 37.2% of the global workforce. Meanwhile, contingent workers now make up 20% of the Australian workforce, as freelancers, consultants, and contractors continue to take the place of full-time employees.

Massive growth.

The massive growth in the on-demand workforce is giving organisations greater agility but they need to be aware of the risks. The recent case of a rogue contractor in Queensland illustrates the worst-case scenario for a small business. When a small trade business trusted the contractor with a work truck and a company credit card, he stole the truck and racked up a $23,000 bill at Bunnings. To make matters worse, Bunnings then claimed the business owner was liable for all of the transactions.

The lesson here is clear – regardless of whether you consider a contractor, freelancer or consultant one of your employees in the technical sense, by law they are your responsibility. That’s why employers need to investigate and understand how they plan on adapting their recruitment, and in particular their screening processes, to reflect the changes brought about by the on demand workforce.

We know that the shift in the global workforce is being reflected by many employers reducing their screening practices. But there needs to be a realisation that the matter how you classify an individual on your own books, they are a representative of your brand, so they’re just as capable of causing significant damage as one of your own employees. In fact, well-known businesses that rely on a contingent workforce such as Uber and Lyft have suffered some of their biggest PR disasters due to negligent and criminal behaviour by their contractors.

Application of standards.

Also important to remember is that employers need to apply the same standards to a position that will be filled by a nontraditional worker, or else they could be subject to allegations of biased treatment of contractors over full-time employees – a potential minefield considering Australia’s industrial relations legislation still prioritises traditional employment contracts.

Ultimately though, employers need to remember that background screening of on-demand workers is a mandatory part of their due diligence. In the years to come, many precedents will be set for cases of negligence where organisations haven’t exercised reasonable care in determining if a contractor or freelancer is unfit for the position.

For companies challenged by a reputational crisis, there is good news –the path to better days starts with people.

It’s worth sharing a recent story from Business Insider Australia on big changes happening at Commonwealth Bank, where a series of public issues has challenged its image.  Its new CEO, Matt Comyn, is rolling up his sleeves and building recovery on simplifying structures, getting back to basics and, above all, relying on people to build a solid future.  It is precisely because of this dependence on people that it is so important that best practice employment screening be front of mind.

Here’s an excerpt from the article:

Matt Comyn, the Chief Executive Officer of the Commonwealth, has taken a key step on the path to restoring the reputation of Australia’s biggest bank, announcing six appointments and changes to the Executive Leadership Team.

The restructure is the second announcement today in his simplification of the bank, bringing the CBA back to its core banking businesses. He earlier outlined plans to demerge the bank’s wealth management and mortgage broking businesses.

He says the new team members bring a strong mix of deep experience in banking, risk management, digital transformation and cultural change leadership.

Read the rest of the story.