Social Media Screening: Guidance for Individuals and Organizations

Social Media Screening Guidance for Individuals and Organizations

Courtney Shelton Hunt, PhD

Founder, The Denovati Group

©August 2014, All Rights Reserved

1 Social Media Screening

©Courtney Shelton Hunt

The Denovati Group

August 2014, All Rights Reserved

Introduction

Social media screening (aka social screening) has become a common practice among recruiters and

hiring managers, as well as some coaches and college admissions offices. This white paper

consolidates and updates previously shared guidance about this practice, providing

recommendations for both individuals and organizations. It is primarily focused on job candidates

and employers, but it can be applied to students, athletes, admissions offices and coaches as well.

Social screening has become an almost commonplace recruiting and hiring practice. Employers are

“googling” job candidates and searching social networking sites as part of their pre-employment

background checks, and admissions counselors and coaches are using similar practices to make

acceptance decisions about prospective students and athletes.

Results of a recent CareerBuilder study (http://goo.gl/MEoLqh) indicated that over half of the

employers surveyed rejected applicants because of their social media content. Reasons included the

obvious, like posting inappropriate photographs, information about drinking and drugs, and criminal

behavior, to things that may not seem to be deal breakers, like poor communication skills and

“unprofessional screen names.” The study found that social media activity worked in candidates’

favor as well, by demonstrating things like well roundedness and creativity.

A similar study, focused on college admissions, was conducted by Kaplan Test Prep in the summer of

2013 (http://goo.gl/XWNEfM). Although the percentage of admissions offices engaging in social

screening was not as high, they are also on the rise. A related article in the New York Times

(http://goo.gl/oHChmR) reveals that the reasons to reject – and accept – students based on their

social media activity are similar to those used by employers (and be sure to check out the comments

– almost 600 of them – to see what readers had to say about the practice).

College coaches also use social media to evaluate recruits (http://goo.gl/bK1leh). As with job

candidates and college applicants, the classic “knowledge, skills, and abilities” combination is

increasingly not the only criteria by which people are being evaluated and judged. Off-duty conduct

(where permissible by law), as well as general communication (what you say, how you say it, and

where, plus what you share) often provide additional insights into whether to accept or reject an

individual.

I was recently interviewed for an article entitled How Social Media Content Hurts Job Seekers

(http://goo.gl/LdKtbo), which prompted me to consolidate and update the guidance I’ve previously

shared about the practice of social screening into this white paper. The guidance is primarily focused

on job candidates and employers, but it can be applied to students, athletes, admissions offices and

coaches as well.



The Denovati Group


Contents Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1

Social Screening Basics ........................................................................................................... 3

Third-Party Screening Services ............................................................................................... 3

Guidance for Individuals ........................................................................................................ 4

LinkedIn ..................................................................................................................................... 5

Twitter ....................................................................................................................................... 5

Facebook ................................................................................................................................... 6

Other Social and Digital Platforms ............................................................................................ 6

Google Alerts ............................................................................................................................. 6

Social Media Clean Up ............................................................................................................... 7

More on Privacy Settings ........................................................................................................... 7

Limit Access to Your Accounts ................................................................................................... 7

Think before You Speak ............................................................................................................. 8

Guidance for Recruiters and Hiring Managers ......................................................................... 8

"Not Illegal” Doesn't Mean “Ethical” ........................................................................................ 9

Just because You Can, Doesn't Mean You Should ................................................................... 10

Two Wrongs Don't Make a Right ............................................................................................. 10

Remember the Law of Unintended Consequences ................................................................. 11

Is Turnabout Fair Play? ............................................................................................................ 11

You Reap What You Sow ......................................................................................................... 11

If You're Going to Do It, Do it Right ......................................................................................... 12

Conclusion........................................................................................................................... 13



The Denovati Group


Social Screening Basics

The most common approach to social screening is to enter an individual’s name and certain other

defining characteristics (e.g., city, current/former employers, schools attended) to narrow the search.

These searches can be conducted through search engines like Google or Bing, or on specific

platforms like LinkedIn. The results will include any and all information that is publicly available, even

from sites that are generally considered private. Social screening can also occur as a result of general

brand monitoring (e.g., looking for references to an organization on Twitter) and through asking

candidates to provide their social media names (more on that later).

For most job candidates, social screening is generally a later-stage activity, depending on the

recruitment processes used. Because it is resource intensive, it usually occurs when the pool of

candidates has been narrowed down significantly, and often just prior to an offer. By that point the

candidates have already been screened on traditional criteria (e.g., skills, experience) and employers

are focused on identifying factors that can create significant risks for them (e.g., engaging in illegal

activity, disclosing confidential information, extreme bigotry). Minor indiscretions and lapses in

judgment are unlikely to impact an offer decision.

Employers can engage in social screening directly, with recruiters (both in-house and third-party), HR

representatives, and/or hiring managers doing the searches. They may also employ a background

checking service (aka a third-party screening service) to conduct the searches on their behalf.

Third-Party Screening Services

When a background checking service is used, the searches must be compliant with the Fair Credit

Reporting Act (FCRA). Here are the main compliance elements of the FCRA from a hiring perspective

(see http://goo.gl/3Ks7YF for a fuller explication):

• Job candidates must formally agree (i.e., in writing) to a background check in advance.

• If any negative information is found, the third party must undertake steps to ensure its

accuracy.

• If an employer intends to take an adverse action against a candidate based on negative

information that’s been discovered, it must provide the candidate with a copy of the third-

party’s report, along with a statement of his/her FCRA rights, and allow the candidate to

respond and/or dispute the decision.

• Any information that is determined to be false after the fact must be deleted from the search

records and the report.

What does this mean for job candidates?

• They’re given fair warning that a prospective employer is going to conduct a digital search,

which gives them plenty of opportunity to conduct their own searches for publicly-available

information to see what information/activity might be attached to them.



The Denovati Group


• If the official search produces negative information that they believe is false or misleading,

they have the right and the opportunity to address those findings. There’s also a well-defined

dispute resolution process they can follow if an employer decides to take an adverse action

that they believe to be unfair.

Social screening searches conducted by background checking companies cannot be indiscriminate,

unfocused, and exhaustive; rather, they should be specifically focused on criteria defined in advance

by an employer that are job-relevant and legally-defensible:

• They should only search for PUBLICLY available information. They should not access

information that is private (e.g., password protected and/or not generally available on the

internet).

• Information that doesn’t correspond with the pre-defined criteria should be removed from

the search results, as is information that is legally protected at both the federal (e.g., gender,

age, religion) and state (e.g., sexual orientation) levels.

• Although initial sweeps are likely automated, negative results should be carefully screened

by human beings and verified to ensure their accuracy before being included in a report.

• In conducting their searches, screening companies can only go back seven years, per the

FCRA. Any information they find that's older than seven years cannot be included in their

results.

Contrary to what some people think, these screening companies do not create a database of results

that can be accessed for future searches. Each social screen is conducted independently, based on a

specific employer’s criteria. To comply with the FCRA, the companies must keep search results for 7

years, in case of disputes and/or legal action, but that data is not available for any other purpose.

Though the practice of social screening by third parties has been criticized (and in some cases

vilified), the risks for both candidates and employers may be much greater when social screening is

not conducted by an FCRA-regulated third party. More on that later.

Guidance for Individuals

The risks to individuals based on their digital identities and activities exist regardless of whether

employers and third-party companies engage in social screening. Information about us is shared

publicly in cyberspace all the time – both by ourselves and others. It is incumbent upon all of us to

monitor our digital identities and take appropriate action to manage them (e.g., fixing our privacy

settings, using strong passwords, deleting inappropriate content, abiding by the rules of civility), even

when we’re not actively on the job market. In fact, it’s probably a good idea to act as if we are always

on the job market, even when we are gainfully employed with no intention of leaving a

job/organization. Individuals with a unique set of skills that are in high demand are always fair game

as passive candidates. And as many people can attest, anyone can involuntarily become an active

candidate at any time.



The Denovati Group


In Dressing for Success in Cyberspace: Give Yourself a Digital Make-Over (http://goo.gl/4FaMO0), I

provide an overview of the steps individuals should take to create and maintain a strong professional

brand in cyberspace. The following recaps and extends some of that guidance, particularly for job

seekers.

LinkedIn

LinkedIn is the main platform used for professional social networking. Here are some key things to

keep in mind:

• Make sure you have a robust profile that focuses on your professional activities, connections,

and experience.

• You certainly want to present yourself in the best possible light, but you should not

misrepresent your background, accomplishments, and/or skills.

• Even though LinkedIn provides the ability to include some limited personal information (e.g.,

marital status, date of birth), there’s no good professional reason to do so.

• In addition, you should think carefully about information you share regarding your hobbies,

as well as the groups you join, the comments you make, and the items you share.

• If your network is public, make sure you’re thoughtful about the people you connect with.

• Always be cognizant of your professional identity and how it’s represented by your

information and activities.

For more on creating a strong LinkedIn profile and leveraging it for professional purposes, check out

our LinkedIn platform guidance (http://goo.gl/WVPbZK).

Twitter

Twitter is used for both personal and professional purposes, so it can be particularly tricky. Here are

some key things to keep in mind:

• If you’re going to have a public account (and most people do), make sure your Twitter handle

(account name) is professional, your photo/image is appropriate, and your page is designed

well.

• You shouldn’t feel compelled to tweet, but if you do remember that quality is more

important than quantity.

• As with your LinkedIn activity, be aware of how your tweets reflect on your professional

identity.

• Your followers and those you follow are a reflection of you as well. Make sure you’re

comfortable with what your Twitter relationships may say about you.

• If you want to use Twitter for both personal and professional reasons, you may want to

consider creating two Twitter accounts to separate and better manage your identities and

activities.



The Denovati Group


For more on creating a strong Twitter profile and leveraging it for professional purposes, check out

our Twitter platform guidance (http://goo.gl/cKz9e8).

Facebook

Although you can use Facebook as part of your career management efforts, most people use it

primarily as a personal platform. And though some folks see no problem blending the personal and

professional, I advise against it. Specifically, I recommend restricting your network to personal

relationships rather than professional ones, and making sure you properly establish your privacy

settings so that only certain information is publicly available.

Even with tight privacy settings, you should still be able to use Facebook to learn about organizations

and opportunities, promote yourself as a professional, and make connections. You don't have to

friend anyone to have a professional exchange with them on Facebook. And commenting on posts or

exchanging messages with others won’t give them access to your profile information.

Additional recommendations:

• Review the photos in which you’ve been tagged, and check the profiles of the friends who’ve

tagged you (you may need to have someone else do this). If their profiles are unprotected,

you may want to untag yourself. You may even want to ask them to delete the picture(s).

• Review and pare down your list of friends. Unfriend folks you don’t really know, as well as

folks you only have a professional relationship with (connect with them on LinkedIn instead).

• Double check the pages you’ve liked and the groups you’ve joined (or been added to). Delete

yourself from any pages/groups that could poorly reflect on you as a professional.

Some people may advocate establishing two (or more) Facebook accounts to separate the personal

and professional and further protect one’s privacy. Doing so is a violation of Facebook’s terms of

use, however, so I advise against it. Instead, leverage a platform like LinkedIn for your professional

identity.

Other Social and Digital Platforms

If you have accounts on other social media sites (e.g., YouTube, Flickr, Instagram, Tumblr,

SlideShare), and/or you have a blog, define where the public/private boundary should be drawn for

each and make the necessary changes to your account profiles and/or content. Err on the side of

conservatism – something that may seem harmless to you could easily be misinterpreted by

someone in a way that’s harmful to your interests.

Google Alerts

Set up Google alerts on your name, similar to what a prospective employer might search on. Make

sure you are satisfied – or can at least live with – the information contained in the resulting links. If

you don’t like what you find, take whatever action you can to clean up your digital presence.



The Denovati Group


Social Media Clean Up

I provide some tips on what to do in the Dressing for Success in Cyberspace guidance referenced

earlier (http://goo.gl/4FaMO0). Additional tips can be found in the articles below, and by running a

search like “social media clean up.”

• Swear Off Social Media, for Good or Just for Now (http://goo.gl/eJs0IC)

• New Offering for Job Seekers: Fewer Embarrassing Social Media Photos

(http://goo.gl/2F0tZM)

More on Privacy Settings

Even if you have tight security settings, never assume any digital communication is truly private. Your

connections may feel no obligation to maintain confidences you share via social networks. In fact,

some of them may have a duty to report activity that appears to violate laws and/or policies (for that

matter, so may you). Always act as if even private digital information can become public.

Also, given how often various social platforms change, be sure to recheck your settings at least once

a quarter.

Limit Access to Your Accounts

It’s hard enough to manage the risks to which you might expose yourself through your own actions,

so why would you want to increase that risk by giving other people access to your social media

accounts? In addition, it’s important to remember that on personally-focused platforms like

Facebook, you have a responsibility to not just protect your own privacy but also the privacy of the

people to whom you’re connected. With that in mind:

• Do not share your login credentials with anyone except those you trust completely (e.g., a

parent or your life partner). In addition, be sure to log out of your accounts when you step

away from a computer, even if it’s not a shared device. And finally, make sure to lock mobile

devices and tablets, and consider not having sites remember you automatically on those

devices (thereby limiting access if they get lost or stolen).

• Do not provide a prospective employer your login credentials for any of your social

networking sites. The only activity they should be concerned with is that which is publicly

available. If they wouldn’t expect unfettered access to your home, photo albums, personal

correspondence and diary, they don’t need to see your private digital activity. More on that

later.

• Similarly, you should respectfully decline to log in during an interview and share your activity

in person (this is what I call shoulder screening). Even if you are willing to share your

accounts with them, the people in your networks haven’t agreed to have you share

information about them without their knowledge/consent. With your social networking

activity, it’s not just your privacy that’s at stake.



The Denovati Group


• Don’t connect with people from prospective employers/recruiters on your personal social

networks. For that matter, you should limit your personal connections with any people you

only/primarily know professionally (e.g., bosses, colleagues, clients). It’s best to have a high

threshold for allowing a professional connection to become a personal one.

Think before You Speak

Just as in the physical world, you will be judged on a whole host of factors in cyberspace. And since

digital activity lacks the context and nuance that in-person interactions provide, those judgments –

rightfully or wrongly – can be harsher. Because anything you share on a digital platform either is, or

can become, public, remember to:

• Present yourself and your ideas in a positive, civil manner.

• Use good grammar and check for typos.

• Abide by the explicit and implicit norms of a given platform/community.

• Make sure your contributions and comments on public forums are substantive.

• Don’t use foul language or make off-color comments (including jokes) that could be

construed as offensive.

• Know the rules and play by them. This includes laws (e.g., defamation), contracts (e.g.,

confidentiality agreements), employer policies, and community guidelines.

• Take the higher ground – and stay there. Maintain civil discourse at all times. Avoid swearing,

salaciousness, sarcasm and snarkiness. Don’t engage in or dignify personal and ad

hominem attacks. Keep your emotions in check and focus on facts. Take conversations offline

when necessary.

• Remember that even though the flow of information in cyberstreams may be rapid, the pool

into which they end up doesn’t evaporate. Old activity can come back to haunt you if it’s not

purged. Always think before you tweet, blog, comment, provide a status update, etc.

Guidance for Recruiters and Hiring Managers

Although social screening can be a very powerful hiring tactic, it is far from being risk-free. Just

because cyberspace offers a new playing field, it’s not a brand-new ballgame. The old rules (e.g., anti-

discrimination laws) still apply. Social screening can in fact increase employer risks, because each

digital search leaves a discoverable trail and creates new documentation and tracking

responsibilities.

The risks associated with social screening include cases of mistaken identity, fake or prank accounts

and activity, and inaccurate information. There are also a host of compliance issues to be managed

with respect to laws at the federal, state and local levels. In addition to obvious laws like anti-

discrimination, employers must also consider things like the Fair Credit Reporting Act (if a third-party

is used to conduct the checks) and the Stored Communications Act (check out this legal update from



The Denovati Group


Mayer Brown to learn more: http://goo.gl/9fPJ1t). And beyond the legal issues are ethical and

cultural considerations that organizations should not ignore or be too quick to dismiss.

A couple of years ago there was a big brouhaha about employers and colleges asking individuals to

share the login credentials for their social media accounts. The purpose was to access privately-

designated areas to look for information, activities, and/or relationships that might create risk for an

organization, such as gang-related activity, racial prejudice, or a tendency toward violence. This

practice wasn’t widespread at the time, and it’s now all but nonexistent, but nonetheless there has

been an ongoing effort since then at the state level to pass laws banning it (for a current update on

where things stand with various states, check out http://goo.gl/8at9Jr).

What got lost in much of the kerfuffle over this extremely rare practice is the need to discuss

practices that are far more commonplace and occupy grayer areas of right and wrong. These

practices include shoulder screening (asking a person to log in and then viewing content and

relationships they’ve designated as private), friending job candidates for the purposes of checking

out their personal activity (using either a real or fake identity), and browsing an individual’s account

without their knowledge or consent.

Employers (and third-party recruiters) who want to employ a sound approach to social screening

should consider the following.

"Not Illegal” Doesn't Mean “Ethical”

Some people assert that a wide range of social screening tactics are acceptable because there are no

laws forbidding them. Given how long it takes us to develop rules (in terms of both policies and laws)

for the challenges we face in both organizations and society, we should be wary of relying too

literally on what is/is not legal to guide our actions. History is replete with examples of laws emerging

in response to ethical failures (like the practice of requesting login credentials, noted above), many of

which caused a great deal of harm before they were stopped.

By the same token, we can’t rely on people’s individual morals and values to help them determine

proper behavior. Individual morality varies widely, not just in terms of specific values, but also in

terms of moral maturity and sophistication. Rather, we should rely on our collective sense of right

and wrong, which helps us define normative expectations for acceptable/unacceptable behavior.

When we face circumstances that present new ethical challenges, we must rely on our shared ethical

foundations to determine the new norms that should emerge. One of those collective norms, which

was evident in the responses to the news about login credentials, is that we all have a right to privacy

– not just in the physical world, but in cyberspace. If we wouldn’t ask someone for the keys to their

home so we can learn more about them, why do we think it’s appropriate to ask them to give us the

keys to their social network accounts?



The Denovati Group


Just because You Can, Doesn't Mean You Should

Digital data is so pervasive and easy to access that it’s tempting to adopt the mentality of “anything

goes” and “everything’s fair game.” It’s challenging, to say the least, to resist the urge to snoop

around and dig for digital dirt. But when we create “physical world” analogs for our cyber activity,

the dubiousness of these practices should become evident immediately. For example, most

recruiters and hiring managers would never consider:

• Following an individual and eavesdropping on their personal conversations, even in public

spaces.

• Staking out an individual’s home, watching who comes and goes.

• “Spillover spying” on an individual’s family and friends, whose actions have little to no

relationship with the organization and pose few if any risks.

• Wandering around a person’s home, checking out their property, looking through their

windows, or going through their mail and/or their garbage.

• Entering the individual’s home (even if the door is open or unlocked) and rummaging

through drawers, examining photo albums, checking out their movie and music collections,

reading their personal correspondence.

Similarly, they wouldn’t consider it appropriate to access an individual’s email activity, their online

banking information, or other digital activity outside of social media. The same standards should

apply to all of an individual’s personal information and activity, regardless of where it resides.

Two Wrongs Don't Make a Right

Many people try to explain or justify their social screening tactics by emphasizing that they’re looking

for red flags that would indicate an individual might bring harm to other individuals, either inside or

outside an organization, and/or damage the organization’s reputation or brand. They see their

efforts as part of a defensible risk management strategy.

Every organization has a right to protect itself, its brand, and its stakeholders, but that doesn’t give

them carte blanche to engage in pre-emptive actions that can themselves cause harm, not just to the

individuals whose actions they’re scrutinizing, but also to the organization and individuals they’re

ostensibly trying to protect.

Related to this idea is the notion of “blaming the victim” by claiming that individuals who don’t

implement the proper safeguards have no right to be upset when information and activities they

consider private are accessed. It’s absolutely true that people are responsible for protecting their

own privacy; however, a lot of people haven’t realized that yet, or they haven’t figured out how to do

it. And as we all know, the terms of use and privacy settings on many social media sites – especially

Facebook – can be confusing and onerous, and few if any of us are able to perfectly lock them down.

If we can agree that an unlocked door doesn’t justify a robbery and a woman walking alone at night

isn’t “looking for trouble,” we should be able to apply similar standards to the ways in which people

may make themselves vulnerable (often unintentionally) in cyberspace. It’s also important to



The Denovati Group


remember that we’re all dependent on and vulnerable to the actions of others, so we will never have

perfect control.

Remember the Law of Unintended Consequences

Many of the activities intended to manage risk create risks themselves, some of which can be greater

than the initially-targeted risks. Poking around an individual’s social media activity is like opening up

Pandora’s box. Some of the biggest risks include:

• Accessing protected-class information (e.g., race, religion, age) and/or protected speech

(e.g., whistle-blowing and concerted activity), and/or becoming aware of lawful off-duty

conduct (e.g., drinking, smoking, political activity)

• Viewing activity for which you have a duty to report (e.g., stealing, underage drinking,

harassment, threats of violence)

If a prospective employer takes an adverse action against an individual (i.e., not hiring them), it could

be fairly easy for that individual to provide prima facie evidence that they may have been

discriminated against based on their protected class status, their protected speech, and/or lawful off-

duty conduct. The burden would then shift to the employer to prove that the adverse action was

based on defensible factors.

And if an individual were to cause harm to him/herself and/or someone else, the resulting

investigation would very quickly evolve into questions about what certain authorities knew, or

should have known, that could have prevented the harmful act. It’s hard to claim plausible deniability

when you’ve friended a job candidate, and/or there’s clear evidence that you’ve explored their social

media account.

Is Turnabout Fair Play?

How would recruiters, hiring managers, and others in positions of power and authority feel having

their own activities scrutinized to the degree they may be subjecting others? Would they pass their

own tests? Do they have no skeletons in their closets? Are they completely open books?

Similarly, how would they feel if they were subject to “spillover spying” themselves, when the activity

of someone in their digital networks is being scrutinized? Would they want to be informed that

information and activities they’ve designated as private are being reviewed? Would they want to be

asked for their consent first? Would they provide that consent?

Simply put, we need to think about the Golden Rule and consider the potential hypocrisy of

subjecting other people to a set of standards we could never live up to ourselves, or a set of actions

we would find objectionable if they were applied to us or our loved ones.

You Reap What You Sow

Requiring access to an individual’s personal information and activities is inherently distrustful, which

breeds further distrust and undermines both the longevity and the quality of relationships. That in



The Denovati Group


turn is likely to impair individual performance, diminish morale, and create/perpetuate a

dysfunctional organizational culture.

When that distrust is evident even before a relationship begins, it increases the likelihood that an

organization won’t be seen as an employer of choice, thereby undermining its efforts to attract the

best possible candidates and/or win the war for talent.

If You're Going to Do It, Do it Right

Managing Digital Era risks is critically important for organizations of all types. Concerns over

negligent hiring and the desire to do appropriate due diligence before hiring someone are valid

arguments for conducting social background checks, but employers shouldn’t let the relatively easy

access to digital data lead them to act in ways that are not in their long-term best interests.

Employers who are seriously concerned about their negligent hiring risks need to develop social

screening processes that are global, internally consistent, ethical, and legally-defensible (at the

federal, state, and local levels). Their searches should be based on bona fide occupational

qualifications (BFOQs) and job-specific education, skills and experiences, and should properly address

risks such as adverse impact and adverse selection. Furthermore, it must be clear that social

screening provides important information that can’t be learned from the applicant review, interview,

and reference checking processes. Finally, the processes should also include steps to insure that

legally-protected candidate information that is not job relevant is not revealed to decision makers.

Although we are still defining best practices in this area, there is emerging consensus that we should:

• Focus on information and activities that are generally perceived and/or intended to be

public.

• Balance the need to protect the organization and its brand with the individual rights of

candidates.

• Develop sound policies and procedures for accessing and reviewing social media activities of

job candidates.

• Create and implement sound and legally-defensible social media policies and make sure both

individuals and people in positions of authority are properly trained about what they mean

and how to comply with them.

For a host of reasons, it may be best to use an FCRA-compliant third-party screening service and

incorporate social screening into the regular background checking process. When employers engage

in social screening on their own, there are likely to be fewer checks and balances and a much greater

risk of discrimination using legally-indefensible criteria and inaccurate/unverified information.

Background screening companies offer disciplined, systematic processes that insulate employers and

produce relevant, verified results. In addition, from the candidate’s perspective, the process is

transparent, with built-in accountability and the ability to address negative results.



The Denovati Group


Even if a third party is not used, employers should consider duplicating as many of the FCRA-required

steps as possible, including providing candidates with advance notice and having them formally agree

to have their public activity searched, and employing notification and dispute resolution processes.

Social screening should not be conducted by a hiring manager or someone involved in making the

final decision. Instead, an independent group should conduct the searches and evaluate the results,

redacting all irrelevant information before sharing them with decision makers. The searches should

focus ONLY on publicly available information.

Finally, since they are a significant source of vulnerability, organizations must make sure that hiring

managers are properly educated and trained about what they can and cannot do when evaluating

and deciding on candidates for specific jobs. Among other things, they should NOT ask candidates for

their login credentials for their social networking accounts or ask them to log in during an interview

and share their activity in person.

Conclusion

The fundamentals of candidate screening haven’t changed in the Digital Era, but the potential risks

and rewards of social screening are game changers. Individuals who misrepresent their qualifications,

say/do things that reflect poor judgment, and engage in dubious and illegal activity are much more

likely to have their poor choices exposed when information about them is shared in cyberspace.

Similarly, employers who have traditionally played fast and loose with the law when screening

candidates now have a greater chance of having their methods be revealed and challenged. Even

employers who don’t intentionally thumb their noses at the law are vulnerable if they don’t develop

defensible processes for leveraging the new technologies.

We’re still in the early phases of determining the proper balance between the rights and

responsibilities of employers and individuals. It's therefore incumbent upon all of us to evaluate the

ramifications of digital technologies in reasoned and reasonable ways to determine where the lines

should be drawn and the best ways to move forward.

Though not everyone will agree with my conservative approach, I think it’s best to err on the side of

caution. Please let me know if I’ve missed or misrepresented something. I welcome other people’s

insights, healthy debate, and questions. The more we talk about these issues, the faster we’ll come

to consensus on a set of best practices that are practical, legally defensible, and ethical. Since I am in

the US and this post is written from the US perspective, I especially welcome input from folks in

other countries.

Recruiting & HR

Social Media Screening: Guidance for Individuals and Organizations