返回列表 发表时间:2021-08-17    浏览次数:813

社会化媒体背景调查 - 这一观点的时代已经来临

正如我们在讨论“完美背景检查-超过其部分之和”,还有的是包括求职者的众多方面进行彻底的外观进行背景调查的许多组件。大多数只能显示单一的角度。

例如,指纹可以提供需要确认逮捕记录重要数据,但它并没有公开有关候选人的工作经验的信息。参考和教育背景调查都证实学校教育和相关工作经验至关重要,但只字不提应聘者的录用资格; 一个I-9验证呢,但是这一切都一样。事实上,许多最经常实施背景调查的不简介候选人的个性或性格。

但候选人仔细审查的社会媒体存在的可能。

社会化媒体搜索可以提供一个候选人更全面地了解

一个人的微博,Facebook的帖子,LinkedIn的个人资料,以及其他社交媒体活动纵观可以识别与工作相关的行为是有帮助的,其他背景调查不能。可对应聘者的社交媒体页面中透露了一些行为可能在工作环境中的一个潜在的雇主被视为有毒的。这可能是他们对某些种族或宗教或性取向的不容忍。这可能是一个激进的,甚至暴力的政治立场。它可以是任意数量的观点或态度,可以在工作场所产生负面影响。

而这样的信息可能对特定行业或工作尤为重要。参与公共交通的雇主可能不舒服的候选人,其职位提倡使用违禁药物和过量饮酒。一家律师事务所会对吹嘘自己犯罪或鼓吹违法的候选人的帖子很敏感。医疗提供者可能希望避免雇用强烈反对接种疫苗和其他医疗程序的人。

有毒的行为严重伤害任何组织。在由基石按需进行的一项研究[1] 在一个团队中的20人只是一种有毒个人-总类只有5% -可高达40%,降低生产效率,使员工对团队54%以上可能离开。事实上,一个坏苹果可以毁掉整串苹果

而且它可以对雇主的底线产生巨大的影响。根据社会人力资源管理协会(SHRM),使得差的雇佣成本可高达$ 240,000个(包括间接成本,如降低生产率,丢失时间招募和培训,对员工士气的影响)。

想象一下,如果媒体发现某大公司的 C 级高管发布的令人反感的推文会发生什么。在收入和声誉方面,煽动性帖子可以——并且已经——使公司付出沉重代价。

应该敲响警钟的社交媒体行为和态度类型

以下是一些如果候选人在社交媒体上做出的行为,可能表明他们有可能滋生工作场所毒性:

  • 犯罪:可能表明候选人参与犯罪或支持他人犯罪的帖子(包括模因、照片、卡通、来自合法来源的文章)

  • 暴力:可能支持或煽动暴力的帖子

  • 偏见:可能包含种族主义、性别歧视、同性恋恐惧症、种族诽谤、刻板印象或其他形式的不容忍和仇恨言论的帖子

  • 性别歧视:可能表明基于性别的偏见、刻板印象或歧视的帖子

  • 非法药物或物质:可能宣传非法药物或使用非法药物/滥用处方的做法的帖子

顾虑

在考虑审查候选人在社交媒体上的公开资料时,请谨慎行事。例如,当雇主在候选人的最早阶段仔细阅读候选人的 Facebook 页面时,例如,个人的种族、性别、年龄、政治和宗教观点以及其他个人信息可能会立即变得显而易见。当然,根据联邦、州和一些地方法律,此类信息不能用于做出基于就业的决定。即便如此,如果候选人没有被录用,他们可以质疑该决定,争辩说雇主使用在检查个人社交媒体资料期间获得的个人信息所引入的偏见。

注意:LinkedIn 等网站可能会在其个人资料被查看时以及由谁查看时通知其成员。

请记住,许多州和地方政府辖区已通过调节或限制雇主对应聘者的社交媒体的个人获取法律。

正如我们下面看到的,在系统的新进展与人类监督使用自动化流程可以促进社交媒体的背景调查,同时仔细适用的标准和规范守法。

DIY或离开它的利弊?

如上所述,如果审查正常,并符合适用的法律进行,社交媒体可以揭示很多关于候选人的有价值的信息。有些公司可能会决定进行自己的研究。

贵公司有关规定对应聘者的社交媒体/网络搜索的策略,并已将它与适用法律律师事务所精通审查?如果不是,这样做将是一个明智的举动。

即使您是按书本进行搜索,该过程也可能需要大量时间,并且需要一个人的服务,他们不仅知道要忽略什么、要注意什么以及在招聘过程中的时间进行这样的搜索。要问的太多了。

自动化流程的价值

由信誉良好的第三方进行的自动化社交媒体检查现在正在将先进的自动化流程与人工监督相结合,以帮助确保合法合规并积累以下方面的有用信息:

  • 责任

这样的系统可以将一组一致且可记录的标准应用于检查。严格的人工检查可能不一致甚至有偏见,违反平等就业机会保护类要求。

  • 效率

与人监督一个自动化的背景调查就可以按一个人工审核需要,升级只为人工审核危重病例的一小部分时间(基于雇主的标准),检查数以千计的社交媒体帖子。

  • 准确性

仅人工审核可能容易出错,并且当数量很大时可能会遗漏关键信息。如上所述,可能会出现错误鉴定。与人监督帮助自动化流程可确保更高的识别精度。

结论

与人的监督是审查候选人的社交媒体和其他基于互联网的媒体简介可以揭示求职者的相关信息的自动化方法。请记住,信息收集和决策基础上作出的信息可以合理地连接到一个不利就业行动。信息发布和您在其基础你的决定必须直接关系到考生能否有效地履行工作要求的能力。

牢记这些最佳做法:

  • 了解相关劳动法和可能的公平信用报告法(FCRA)合规性要求时,配合第三方

  • 确保只有公开可用的个人资料和信息进行访问。

  • 知道什么样的标准将被用于标记潜在不良信息

  • 知道如何正确有效地使用这些数据

  • As we discussed in “The Perfect Background Check – More Than the Sum of its Parts,” there are numerous components of a background check that comprise a thorough look at a job candidate’s numerous facets. Most only reveal a single perspective.

  • For example, fingerprinting can offer vital data needed to confirm arrest records, but it doesn’t expose information about a candidate’s job experience. Reference and education background checks are vital to substantiate schooling and pertinent job experience but say nothing about a candidate’s employment eligibility; an I-9 verification does, but that’s all it does. In fact, many of the most often-practiced background checks don’t profile a candidate’s personality or character.

  • But a careful review of a candidate’s social media presence may.

  • Social Media Searches Can Offer a More Holistic View of a Candidate

  • Taking a look at a person’s tweets, Facebook posts, LinkedIn profile, and other social media activity may be helpful in identifying job-relevant behavior that other background checks cannot. Some behavior that may be revealed on a candidate’s social media pages may be deemed as toxic in a work environment by a prospective employer. It could be their intolerance of certain ethnicities or religions or sexual preferences. It could be a radical, even violent political stance. It could be any number of views or attitudes that could negatively impact the workplace.

  • And such information may be particularly important to specific industries or jobs. An employer involved in public transportation may not be comfortable with a candidate whose posts advocate the use of illegal drugs and excessive alcohol use. A law firm would be sensitive to posts from a candidate who brags about having committed crimes or otherwise advocates breaking laws. A medical provider may wish to avoid hiring a person who stridently opposes vaccinations and other medical procedures.

  • Toxic behavior can seriously hurt any organization. In a study conducted by Cornerstone OnDemand[1], just one toxic individual on a team of 20 people — a mere 5% of the total group — can lower productivity by as much as 40%, and make employees on that team 54% more likely to leave. Indeed, one bad apple can spoil the whole bunch.

  • And it can have a powerful impact on the employer’s bottom line. According to the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), the cost of making a bad hire can be as much as $240,000 (including indirect costs such as lowered productivity, lost time to recruiting and training, and impacts on employee morale).

  • Imagine what would happen if the media finds an offensive tweet made by a C-level exec of a large corporation. Inflammatory posts can — and have — cost companies dearly in terms of revenue and reputation.

  • Types of Social Media Behavior and Attitudes that Should Ring an Alarm

  • Here are a few behaviors that, if made by a candidate on social media, could indicate their potential to breed workplace toxicity:

  • Crime: Posts (and these include memes, photos, cartoons, articles from legitimate sources) that may indicate the candidate was involved in a crime or supports crimes committed by another person or persons

  • Violence: Posts that may support or incite violence

  • Prejudice: Posts that may contain racism, sexism, homophobia, racial slurs, stereotypes, or other forms of intolerance and hate speech

  • Sexism: Posts that may indicate prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination on the basis of sex or gender

  • Illicit Drugs or Substances: Posts that may promote illegal drugs or the practice of using illegal drugs/abusing prescriptions

  • The Concerns

  • Tread carefully when considering scrutinizing a candidate’s public profile on social media. When an employer peruses a candidate’s Facebook page in the earliest stages of the candidacy process, for example, the individual’s race, gender, age, political and religious views, and other personal information may become immediately apparent. Of course under federal, state and some local laws, such information cannot be used to make an employment-based decision. Even so, if the candidate is not hired, they could challenge the decision, arguing bias introduced by the employer’s use of personal information obtained during the examination of the individual’s social media profiles.

  • Note: sites such as LinkedIn may notify its members when their profile has been viewed and by whom.

  • And remember, that many states and local jurisdictions have passed laws that regulate or restrict an employer’s access to a candidate’s social media profiles.

  • As we’ll see below, new advances in systems that employ automated processes with human oversight can facilitate social media background checks while carefully abiding by applicable standards and practices.

  • DIY or Leave it to the Pros?

  • As mentioned above, if the review is done properly and in compliance applicable laws, social media can reveal a lot of valuable information about a candidate. Some companies may decide to conduct their own research.

  • Has your company defined a policy concerning social media/internet searches on job candidates, and has it been reviewed by a law firm conversant with applicable laws? If not, doing so would be a prudent move.

  • Even if you’re doing your search by the book, the process may take a great deal of time as well as require the services of an individual who not only knows what to ignore, what to look out for, and when in the hiring process to conduct such a search. That’s a lot to ask for.

  • The Value of Automated Processes

  • Automated social media checks conducted by reputable third parties are now incorporating advanced automated processes with human oversight that help ensure legal compliance and the accumulation of useful information in terms of:

  • Liability

  • Such a system can apply a consistent and documentable set of criteria to the check. Strictly manual checks may be inconsistent and even biased, violating equal employment opportunity protected class requirements.

  • Efficiency

  • An automated background check with human oversight can review many thousands of social media posts in a fraction of the time that a manual review takes, escalating only critical cases for manual review (based on employer’s criteria).

  • Accuracy

  • Manual-only reviews may be prone to error, and critical information may be missed when volume is high. As noted, misidentifications may occur. Automated processes with human oversight help ensure greater identification accuracy.

  • Conclusion

  • An automated process with human oversight that reviews a candidate’s profile on social media and other internet-based media may reveal pertinent information about a job candidate. Remember that the information gathered and the decisions made based on that information can reasonably be connected to an adverse employment action. The information posted and upon which you base your decision must be directly related to the candidate’s ability to effectively perform the requirements of the job.

  • Keep in mind these best practices:

  • Understand relevant employment law and possible Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) compliance requirements when engaging third-parties

  • Ensure only publically available profiles and posts are accessed.

  • Be aware of what criteria will be used for flagging potentially adverse information

  • Know how to properly and effectively use that data

  • [1] Cornerstone Report Details Effects of Toxic Employees in the Workplace


  • 背调项目-2-02.jpg