Print This Post
Sep
29
Once again, I’ve read HR Magazine’s articles in the print edition before its available online. Given that Oct. 1 is Monday, I don’t know – don’t you think it should be available by now, in this day and age? What’s particularly odd about the lag is that the print edition includes, on page 7, an entire page of “SHRM Online highlights” – none of which are available yet, even though I have the print version in hand. For example, an online-only article titled, “Facebook Face-Off: workers surfing the Internet social networking site Facebook during the workday could be costing employers millions of dollars in wasted time” isn’t here at the link listed in the print edition, which I have. Boo.
In any case, I’ll try to come back here and include the links once they’re up – but no guarantees.
The October issue (which I assume will be highlighted on this link in the next couple of days and be archived here) includes three article of distinction for bloggers in its “HR Technology Special Report” section:
1. “Counting on Collaboration” focuses on the variety of tools available for connecting on work projects through computer software. I’m typing now from the hard copy:
Today’s collaborative tools fall into two broad groups: tools created for a web-based function, and collaborative platforms designed for various disciplines from supply chain management to HR processes to general knowledge sharing.
The first category, known as Web 2.0, includes blogs…and wikis.
[snip]
Web 2.0 provides some of the building blocks for the second category-collaborative platforms, which include HR areas such as recruiting and performance manangement. Most of this software is built on Internet open standards, including, in the case of HR-specific products, the tags and schemas developed by the HR-XML Consortium….
Honestly? You’ll have to wait for the link on that one because I don’t have a clue as to what the couple of sentences after that one means, let alone get my fingers to tap it out on the laptop keyboard.
The mag provides a “A Glossary of Collaboration Tools” which, I’m extremely excited to note, I actually knew all of (bad sentence sorry very much writing like I talk, or think): blog, collaboration platform, instant messaging, podcast, RSS, Search engine, video conferencing, web conferencing, whiteboard, wiki.
Other than that platform paragraph, I’m feeling proud of myself for knowing these terms. But now I can’t decide: am I that far ahead, or so many others – who should be up to speed, I would have thought – so far behind?
2. “How Deep Can You Probe?”
An issue that will never die so long as the Internet exists: “Many employers are going online to check out job candidates. But does the practice carry hidden risks?”
Oy.
Okay – well – what new can we add to what’s already been discussed in the Ohio blogosphere on this topic?
According to data quoted in the mag’s article that cites the 2007 Advances in e-Recruiting Leveraging the .jobs domain survey by SHRM (survey available only to members):
…nearly half of the HR professionals who responded run a candidate’s name through a search engine like Google or Yahoo! before making an offer. About one in five of those HR professionals [10% of the total number who responded] who conduct such searches said they have disqualified a candidate because of what they uncovered.
Some 15 percent of the HR professionals who responded to the SHRM survey said they check social networking sites like MySpace and its fast-growing competitor Facebook to see what a job candidate has posted…Some 40 percent of survey respondents who don’t now go to the sites say they are “somewhat likely” or “very likely” to visit them in the next 12 months. In most cases, checking such a site only takes a few moments.
Don’t we know it?
How many responded to the survey?
Surveys were emailed to 3,000 randomly selected SHRM members and yielded 450 responses. In addition, surveys were sent to 1,050 organizations that use a “.jobs” domain and yielded 152 responses. The survey results examine differences among .jobs and non-.jobs organizations by organization staff size and employment sector.
Well, then, in regard to concerns about what is the industry standard? These numbers go to HR professionals. Do HR professionals work in formal political party offices? I don’t know, and I’m not sure that’s even relevant.
What’s relevant is that these kinds of resources exists, the resource is being used by people who hire people and more people who hire people expect to be using these resources in the near future.
So people who want to be hired? For any job? You need to be aware too.
3. “Blogging for Talent”
This article addresses “recruitment blogs” and includes a tips sidebar for corporate recruitment blogs. Examples of such blogs include those done by T-Mobile’s WirelessJobs and Microsoft’s JobsBlogs‘ and Backstage at Accenture (that one is kind of fun).
Final wise idea:
Employers with successful blogs think of them as conversations with those who contact their sites and make sure that corporate language is not used in place of the blogger’s own voice.
In any kind of blogging, is there really anything else?
By Jill Miller Zimon at 12:18 pm September 29th, 2007 in Blogging, Business, Marketing
Comments
3 Responses to “Googling applicants becoming standard, says HR survey”
Leave a Reply
2010 WE Magazine 101 Women Bloggers to Watch
Category Specific RSS
Pepper Pike Cleveland+ Politics Women Ohio Elections Law Jewish
by Tips and TricksNews Now
[...] You can read the rest of this blog post by going to the original source, here [...]
Well, all I’ve got to say is with what I’ve already got on me on the Internet, this bookstore had better pan out
My take on this: I think if HR people are predisposed to hire or not hire someone, they’ll find whatever they need to reinforce that decision on the net, IF they Google after the interview. I wonder, however, if more HR people are using Google prior to scheduling interviews – I think that might be seen as a time saver. However, I think if HR people don’t know what they are doing they could be writing off people in error. First, there are a lot of people on the net with the same first and last names and sometimes its hard to tell who is who. There is a Keith Gottschalk who is a somewhat renown South African poet. I think we’d probably get on well if we met. In this case I think its obvious but for a lot of people it may not be so obvious. The other bit of information is using Intelius to pre-screen employees but the expense of using Intelius makes it hard for smaller employers to use in volume.
Totally agree around the same name problem. I was Jill Miller for a long time – so, it cuts both ways. If they only Google Jill Zimon, they might miss stuff from when I was younger (good good!) but then they’re also going to capture a ton of stuff that has zero to do with this particular Jill Miller.
Likewise, as you know I’ve said before: policy. Each employer, no matter who it is, mustmustmust have a policy and apply it absolutely uniformly. Otherwise, they’re really opening themselves up to problems.
And then, there’s the whole idea that it’s a crutch. In most cases, people are honest on their resumes and then you meet them. People in HR should be able to vet other people out, instinct – it’s their job to do that, yes? Relying on Google to help you decide? No. Using it as one of many, many factors, sure. So long as it is just one component and,again, used the same way every single time.