To screen or not to screen: The ethics of social media in hiring

Picture this: you’re 22 and you’ve been on X (Twitter), Instagram and Facebook since you were legally allowed to set up an account at 13 years old.You’re applying for a job. You think the interview went well; you did your homework and were prepared for all the questions. You get the phone call. An offer! Subject to references, which you aren’t worried about. A few days later, the telephone rings. You’re surprised and upset to hear they are withdrawing their offer after a social media screening process. They don’t specify what has raised a red flag, and you’re perplexed. Like many of your generation, you have lived your life on social media since you were a child. Avoid the legal pitfallsSocial media screening is controversial. Almost half (45%) of recent job applicants in the UK and Ireland don’t want employers to check their social media profiles, according to research from Zellis. Getting it right is tricky. As Paul Griffin, partner and head of employment and labour, EMEA, at law firm Norton Rose Fulbright, says: “As well as data protection issues, there are concerns that viewing an individual’s social media could indicate that any recruitment decisions are based on discriminatory factors.”Griffin explains: “Most employers try to ensure that any application form does not contain information relating to protected characteristics. However, viewing an applicant’s social media may disclose information relating to the applicant’s age, sexuality, race, religion, disability, pregnancy or relationship status. Being aware of this information could lead to inferences of discrimination and make it more difficult for an employer to defend any claim for discrimination by an unsuccessful applicant.” Why use social media screening?While it may be divisive, the reality is that most employers are going to use every tool at their disposal to make sure that they’re hiring the right person for the job. They are acting on the information they receive. In some cases – YouGov put the figure as high as 36% back in 2017 – these checks have led to employers rejecting applicants. Hiring the right person for the job saves the time and cost of having to re-hire down the line and improves retention. It also mitigates the risk of reputational damage. “The main advantage of social media screening is reputational,” says Jagriti Patwari, director at employee screening company Eurocom C.I. “It is becoming especially prevalent in heavily regulated industries, such as financial services, where people are often responsible for large sums of money or other financial products. While they are not mandated yet, the Financial Conduct Authority strongly suggests that employers should be doing those searches on candidates.”In roles which come with a great deal of responsibility, social media screening is becoming obligatory or strongly encouraged. For example, schools are now obliged to conduct social media searches at the interview stage, Patwari says. It’s also common for public-facing roles, such as broadcasters and chief executives. Getting it rightSocial media screening isn’t going away. So how can employers make sure they use it appropriately? Employers must be careful to only use information which is relevant to a candidate’s ability to do the job. They should avoid the temptation to casually Google someone and scroll through their social media pages. “Be aware of the risk of unconscious bias creeping in,” cautions Aliya Vigor-Robertson, co-founder of Journey HR. “With businesses being so busy, a lot of people would outsource this service. That removes some of the blurriness.”Griffin agrees, adding: “If employers do want to carry out vetting, they could reduce the risk by using a third party to carry out a background check, or a different department within the organisation, to ensure that any protected characteristic information is filtered.”A social media screening company would look at any social media a candidate has which is in the public domain. Social media screening by an independent third party ensures the – often extensive – information is filtered through a neutral lens. Patwari explains: “The things that generally get reported on in a social media screening process are all the negative things: any swearing, violence, racism or discrimination indicated. There are also some positive traits that are reported on: if they do any charity work, for example. But nothing to do with their actual personality would come up.”The cost of screening is coming down. Where in the past, companies might have required an employer to screen all its employees, Eurocom C.I. makes one-off screenings possible, lowering the cost to employers and allowing them to hand-pick the employees they want to screen. When so much of our lives are lived online, it’s no wonder that many organisations are choosing to screen employees. But it’s important HRs are careful to avoid crossing the line. They should only look for red flags instead of being drawn into the personal details of someone’s life. Screening should be conducted carefully by an experienced neutral party who understands the law. Eurocom C.I. Ltd delivers employee screening services to both organisations and individuals. They operate to all the recognised employee screening standards including those of BPSS, the FCA (Financial Conduct Authority) BS7858, the NHS and Local Authorities. Find out here how Eurocom C.I. Ltd can help streamline your recruitment process. Book a call with Jagriti Patwari by following this link or email jagriti@eurocomci.co.uk.

To screen or not to screen: The ethics of social media in hiring

Confirm cancellation

Interests

Interests