

Microsoft: 70% of HR managers turn down job candidate based on online reputation - cwan
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/adjunctprofs/2010/03/online-reputation-can-cost-someone-a-job.html

======
m_eiman
Blogspam; article closer to the source:
[http://blogs.technet.com/privacyimperative/archive/2010/01/2...](http://blogs.technet.com/privacyimperative/archive/2010/01/27/microsoft-
releases-a-study-on-data-privacy-day.aspx)

Actual researchy stuff: <http://www.microsoft.com/privacy/dpd/research.aspx>
(PDF and PPT)

------
holdenc
If an HR manager can deny you the job, it's not worth having.

~~~
HeyLaughingBoy
Please expand on _why_ you feel this way. That sentence is essentially
meaningless.

OK, I disagree: our HR people are excellent first line filters and save us
wasting our time. If a candidate doesn't make it through HR it's because they
either lied on their resume/cover letter, give off really bad vibes (we've
found that every time the HR person ignores this, we turn the candidate down
for the same reason), or is fundamentally unsuited to working on a team.

I'd much rather have HR not schedule a tech interview if there's already a
good reason to pass. And, yes, non-technical reasons are _excellent_ reasons
to pass on an otherwise good candidate. Do you really want to work with a
smart person who drains everyone's morale?

~~~
holdenc
Reasons why "if an HR manager can deny you the job, it's not worth having":

HR managers are corporate bureaucracy, and if they are making critical hiring
decisions you can assume the company is bureaucratic.

HR managers go by charm factor, like it or not. When you only need the very
brightest, the charm factor is less important.

HR managers like to believe they maintain a corporate status quo, which is a
dangerous thing. And most often this means instituting policies of blandness
and conformity, even via hiring selections.

------
spudlyo
Another reason I'm glad that my professional persona and my Internet persona
are completely separate.

~~~
pmiller2
In my case, I'm glad both my first and last names are incredibly common, to
the point where I'm almost un-Google-able unless you already know quite a bit
about me.

------
nostrademons
And how many people are hired based on online reputation?

My last two paid jobs I got through someone I met online, and in my last
employment process, it sounded like blog & homepage were a pretty big factor
in the decision to hire me.

~~~
jcl
FWIW, from the original article (see m_eiman's link):

 _Reputation can also have a positive effect as in the United States, 86% of
HR professionals (and at least two thirds of those in the U.K. and Germany)
stated that a positive online reputation influences the candidate’s
application to some extent; almost half stated that it does so to a great
extent._

------
rajat
Online reputation can certainly get you a job; why should it not lose you one?

If you participate in an open source project, you are likely to get a boost in
an interview with a knowledgeable company. It certainly does with me when I've
hired someone. Now, if someone at the company goes and looks at your code in
that open source project, and says "Yikes! That's some pretty awful code!",
then you've got a problem.

People have been getting jobs and losing opportunities due to reputation
forever. This is just an extension to existing processes; nothing really new.

------
abennett
HR folks are known for wanting only the blandest of employees and probably
will look for any reason to disqualify a candidate whose "lifestyle" is cause
for concern. Still, it's a shockingly high number and makes me wonder what
else might fall under that "lifestyle" category.

~~~
pw0ncakes
It probably has to do with the fact that HR decisions don't have much of an
upside. If you make a good hire, it reflects well on him. If you make a bad
hire, people question your judgment.

You have an upside in hiring if you'll directly work with the people you hire.
If you're in an entirely different department, there's no real benefit. HR is
just the gatekeeper.

------
pw0ncakes
What's utterly creepy about this is that employers aren't required to divulge
that they made their decision based on unreliable online material. They should
be. If a company wants to reject Jason M. Smith because someone posted on
4Chan that Jason W. Smith is an asshole, then fine, but they should be
required to admit to their rationale with a straight face.

~~~
tjic
Since when does anyone owe you information about how they make their
decisions? If I dump a girl after four dates, I may tell her exactly why ...
or I may say "I just didn't feel that spark". It's nicer, and easier, than
saying "the more you talked, the more I realized that you've got a grating
accent, I don't think much of your family, and your behaviors aren't in line
with your stated life goals".

Giving a full length run down of my decision making process just opens the
door for a conversation that I don't want to have, and isn't going to make
anyone happy.

Now, if I can reject someone as a candidate for the position of my wife after
four dates without a long discussion, then why can't I reject someone for the
position of engineer after zero ?

------
JimBastard
I think most people are missing the point here.

Sure some people will get rejected for having inappropriate content associated
with their name, but the lack of having a good online persona is way worse
then having a bad one.

What do I mean? Do you have a professional blog? Are you an active commenter
on any professional mailing lists or forums? Do you help run or maintain any
open-source projects? Does googling your name reveal a comprehensive history
of your career?

I know personally that I get most job offers directly from my github account
and linked in account.

------
zackattack
I can't wait til legislation gets passed and the law catches up. It seems like
a great way to weasel through anti discrimination laws.

~~~
tjic
Speaking as the owner of a small company, I think that the government has
absolutely no basis for telling me that I'm not allowed to make one of the
most important decisions for my company based on all the data I can get.

If a quick google of a candidate showed a blog post where he's railing about
his current job "fuck this employer, I'm going to trash the database on my
last day and put a lot of bugs in the source code", then I WANT TO KNOW THAT.

A law that says that I can't know that is BS, and I'll find a way to comply
with the letter of the law while still getting the information I need.

~~~
raganwald
Speaking as the citizen of a country with a constitution, I have no comment
about candidates who rail on their current job but I would be disturbed if
employers started disqualifying employees based on critieria prohibited by law
in my jurisdiction (Ontario).

For example, what if an HR employee can see from their public facebook page
that they appear to be a fan of LGBT organizations and are interested in same
sex people?

This exposes the HR person to information that is illegal to gather in an
interview and illegal to use as the basis for job discrimination. You can also
use marital status or interest in having kids if you prefer... Doing
background checks that are not strictly work related is a huge issue. Your
example is work related, so I empathize with your desire to know about it. But
looking into non-employment behaviour opens up a huge can of worms... For
employees and employers.

~~~
JustinSeriously
If an employer was a discriminating kind, they'd already have access to a lot
of information they would need, even without the internet.

Your sex and race are instantly apparent, age and many disabilities can be
guessed, national origin can be figured from an accent, and marital status can
be seen by looking for a ring. Even religion can be discerned in some cases,
for certain orthodox members.

I agree that employers being able to easily see an employee's sexual
orientation might not be a step in the right direction, but I don't think it's
opening up a huge can of worms. It's an already opened can of worms.

