dotRED is comprised of industry professionals from advertising, marketing and
technology backgrounds. We listen to you and help drive your business forward.

The Whole Truth

Give your Facebook a haircut and get a real job

This may not come as news to some, but it’s more than just school mates and old flames looking up your Facebook / Myspace / Linkdin page – your next employer is getting in on the act too. While initial studies by Harris Interactive show that only 22% (double that of 2006) of employers use social network sites to screen candidates, the trend is on the rise with an additional 9% stating their intentions to start (careerbuilder.com).

The logic behind it is obvious; to get a more complete picture of the candidate and develop a more robust screening process, but is this crossing the line? Ross Dawson (CEO – Advanced Human Technologies / Chairman – Future Exploration Network) says “the report emphasizes the downside for applicants, saying that one third of hiring managers rejected candidates based on what they found.”

As mentioned earlier the screening practise is gaining popularity and should be more prevalent, it’s a “no-brainer” and “an indictment of the profession that just one fifth of hiring managers use an obvious source of information about applicants” declares Dawson. By extension the same could then be said for the fact that only 16% of candidates reported adjusting their page’s content to make it more ‘employer friendly’.

The research also gives cause for optimism – 24% of hiring managers report that content viewed on a candidates page convinced them to make the decision to hire. And interestingly, the CIA and Ernst & Young (amongst many more joining the fray) have been leveraging the networking power of Facebook for years – Ernst & Young’s career page has over 18,000 ‘friends’.

Your Profile - Do’s and Don’ts Top concerns for employers:

• 41% - candidate posted information about their drinking or using drugs
• 40% - candidate posted provocative or inappropriate photographs or information
• 29% - candidate had poor communication skills
• 28% - candidate bad-mouthed previous company or fellow employee
• 27% - candidate lied about qualifications
• 22% - candidate used discriminatory remarks related to race, gender, religion, etc.
• 22% - candidate’s screen name was unprofessional
• 21% - candidate was linked to criminal behavior
• 19% - candidate shared confidential information from previous employers

Top marks from employers

• 48% - candidate’s background supported qualifications for the job
• 43% - candidate had great communication skills
• 40% - candidate was a good fit for the company’s culture
• 36% - candidate’s site conveyed a professional image
• 31% - candidate had great references posted about them by others
• 30% - candidate showed a wide range of interests
• 29% - candidate received awards and accolades
• 24% - candidate’s profile was creative

(Data courtesy of CareerBuilder.com, 2008)