Does recruiting on Facebook make you biased?
September 28, 2009 by Sam NarisiPosted in: Hiring, HR Tech, Special Report - Tech
As more employers use social networks to recruit, many lawyers warn the practice could get companies sued. Are they right, or just overreacting?
The biggest concern: Users of social networking sites are primarily Caucasians age 20-40. For example, on LinkedIn, only 4% of users are African-American, and just 2% are Hispanic, according to the latest data from Quantcast.
As with all social networking sites, usage declines in older demographics.
Recruiting on those sites can cause problems, says attorney Pamela Devata in Workforce, because it could have a disparate impact on groups without a large social networking presence.
That may be especially true with LinkedIn, which lets users create online connections with people they know. They can then find other people by seeing their contacts’ contacts, their contacts’ contacts’ contacts, etc.
The problem is, finding candidates that way could leave HR with a very homogeneous group.
What’s the danger?
Not all HR experts have the same concern about social networking. As many of those who’ve commented on the story point out, the same complaints can be made about a lot of traditional recruiting strategies. For example, most newspaper readers are white, so therefore recruiting via classified ads could have a disparate impact.
The same goes for referrals, a time-tested hiring strategy. In 2004, an employer was sued by a group of minority applicants who claimed the company’s referral practices were biased.
Nearly all new hires were referred by current employees. Nearly all of the referred applicants were white. The company tried having the case tossed on the grounds that it was just choosing from the applicant pool made available. But the judge refused, ruling that hiring only through referrals had a disparate impact on some groups of applicants (Cite: EEOC v. Caril Buddig & Co.).
Use a variety of sources
So is recruiting through social networking sites really dangerous? It could be.
But probably not much more than some other recruiting methods. The best solution is to find applicants in a variety of places to get a diverse candidate pool.
What do you think? Is recruiting on Facebook, LinkedIn and other sites likely to lead to legal problems for companies? Is the strategy worth the risk? Let us know in the comments section below.
Tags: bias, Facebook, LinkedIn, social networking
HRMorning.com delivers the latest HR news once a week to the inboxes of over 200,000 HR professionals.
follow us on Twitter
join our group on Facebook
September 29th, 2009 at 9:07 am
I think that using social networking sites may be dangerous, IF these sites are your sole means of recruiting candidates. Why not go further and eliminate potential legal problems? Run an ad in the local newspapers and post your opening on your state employment agency website. Posting with the state employment office is free and depending upon the size of a company, running an ad is a minimal part of your H/R budget.
September 29th, 2009 at 11:51 am
Does Recruiting on Facebook make you biased? well, no? nothing can make anyone biased. But, does it have the potential to allowing that human subconscious bias to appear, especially when one sees those pictures of individuals doing things that just make you go, just glad that isn’t my kid?
No matter how we try to sugarcoat it, we all have a human tendency To have a gut reaction to images on the internet, and to make a subjective judgment is a human reaction that unfortunately many of us are unable to conquer, even if we try to deny it ourselves.
As Recruiters or HR managers we must remember to utilize All available tools for our recruiting efforts. Only utilizing one as a predominant tool creates problems as well. The local business rag in your neighborhood, can ultimately be a problem to find your new employee, if the neighborhood is a predominately white, or black – young, male or female community.. In other words, if there is a potential for only finding a specific group of individuals, it will severely impact another group, then that recruiting tool is unfortunately not diverse enough..
This story created a lot of grumbles on other sites by H.R manager.. Gosh, sometimes I wonder though, What did H.R do prior to the internet
September 29th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
If talents are truly the best way to assess job candidates for fit, performance and value, then the focus of all hiring should be directed more to the “inside” of a candidate than the “outside.” Most hiring managers are impacted by unintentional biases for or against people – it could be age, gender, ethnicity or age. Facebook not only presents conversations, comments and posts, but also presents visual information including pictures and videos. All of these can impact the hiring manager. Dr Richard Rodriquez coined a term, “homosocial reproduction” when it comes to hiring – that we assess and choose others based on how closely they resemble us – we replicate us in the workplace. It could be in gender, age, ethnicity or other criteria. Facebook can bring this more significantly into the hiring formula and ideally it should not. Using talent assessments, reviewing significant work experience that shows talents in action, and summarizing value provided are the right and bias-free job candidate assessments for fit. None of these are better presented in Facebook than in a strong talent-based resume.
I believe there is too much potential for intentional and unintentional bias in using Facebook. Require your job candidates to supply the three critical pieces of information you need on a talent-based resume to make the right decisions: what they are great at, how they have used what they are great at and what value they have created. In other words, talents, fit and value. Lose the pictures and videos. They distract the process away from talents; they encourage you to consider things that legally must not be considered in the hiring process and distract the process to look for fit, performance and value.
September 29th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Jay – at one time that was what people stated about newspaper ads for job postings – then it was that way for Career Builder, Moster etc. . .
If used properly and balanced it is one more tool at our disposal.
September 29th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
If it is a problem, it should not be. Hiring managers do not control the demographics of website usage, and no one is restricted from activity on Facebook.
September 29th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Any source of candidates you use is going to be statistically favored by one group or another. I agree with Scott. We cannot control the demographics of any publication’s usage.
The article even mentions that the newspaper is slanted toward whites. The newspaper is a legally acceptable means for legal notices. Is that biased?
Where does this end? Will we be required to start cold calling people based on demographics and ask them if they want a job rather than advertising and letting people come to us?
Seriously though, I believe in using multiple avenues for recruitment to get the best pool of applicants. I think this way you get a variety of people from all walks of life. I don’t care what’s on the outside. The work ethic is what matters to me.
October 2nd, 2009 at 10:28 am
This is easy. It is another example of a lawyer trying to make something out of nothing. That is how they usually make their money.
Why is only recruiting on social networks not immoral or illegal or any other negative thing? Because anyone can list themselves. Even if you don’t own a computer, there are plenty of ways to get listed (libraries with internet access, internet cafes, etc.).
Therefore, what is the differance between this and decades ago when you would actually have to go to a special service to get your resume made up because you didn’t own a typewriter?
If you still don’t get it, ask yourself this. What’s next? Companies being called out for only considering candidates who actually apply for the position? What about the candidates who don’t know about the opening or are qualified and just didn’t send in a resume? Shouldn’t they be considered for the position too? The point is, if you are looking for a job, you should be on these sites. OR, if you don’t want to be on these sites, that’s fine, just don’t complain when that is where others get employment.
If you still don’t get it, why can’t a company be looking for someone resourceful and up to date with technology enough to realize that they should be on facebook? If that is a requirement of the position, then of course they will only be looking on facebook.
October 5th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
After reading Bruce’s post, it is MHO time for laws to be in place that Recruiters should be mandated to learn employment law before they become recruiters.. H.R for that matter to.
The fact that some don’t even understand the basics of reasonable accommodation, or adverse impact is shocking.
Yes, Bruce, companies could be called out for only considering candidates who applied for a position utilizing Only a specific resource. Let’s use an example here – You live and work in the Chicago Suburbs, an all Black neighborhood and you utilize only the local newspaper to advertise your open positions. You therefore will lower the chances that White individuals who could and would be experienced for the position to be aware of this open job, and therefore, you would be limiting the applicant pool. And yes, the EEOC can find you negligible from this action, or lack of action as in this situation
A company can also be found guilty of discrimination if they Only use Referrals from their employees as a means of hiring.
Many people do not have computers, nor have the ability to get to them. Not many people are even willing to utilize computers, and of course there many disable but qualified candidates who may not have access either. It is for the Employer to make accommodations for their employees, not the other way.
Seriously, the fact that recruiters are arguing fact and don’t understand the why these protections are necessary is Extremely scary, and even more sad.
October 5th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Janey –
What if I am unwilling to use a computer, read a newspaper or go to a job agency – is it still your fault.
For people whom refuse to use computers – that is their own phobia and since they are not employed by me – I have no obligation to provide any type of accomodation. This is especially the case if the position requires the use of a computer.
October 5th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Reasonable Accommodation is on the Employer Ed, not on the Employee. The employer must make sure that they have provided ample and fair opportunity for accessibility for their opportunities.
Ed, with respect, you are right this is America, and you don’t have to do anything you don’t want to.. which means you don’t HAVE to provide accommodation, but, then recognize, in this very litigious time, if you don’t and there is an investigation, if the Legal Body who is investigating you determines that you were not utilizing fair means to gain access to all candidates, and that you candidate base had an unfair representation of say minorities, women or disabled… etc.. or if there was a complaint by an individual who needed Reasonable accommodation and you did not provide it, then unfortunately the cost of Not providing Accommodation will cost you a pretty penny..
Lastly, why do people blame the Attorneys for trying to educate? They didn’t make the laws? They are just attempting to provide Awareness of what is already in existence. They taking the time out to write something to let you know, is just that, them taking the time out to let you know something which You obviously didn’t.
Personally, I am glad for these laws, especially when I read comments like yours. It helps one realize that someone has to protect the innocent, cause obviously it is all about the making the placement, no matter how, no matter what, and no matter who gets hurt in the process.
October 5th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
Came across a very interesting piece of information that would be interesting for All H.R people
Cut and Pasted from the EEOC’s website
15-VI EQUAL ACCESS TO JOBS
A. RECRUITING
Who ultimately receives employment opportunities is highly dependent on how and where the employer looks for candidates. Accordingly, Title VII forbids not only recruitment practices that purposefully discriminate on the basis of race but also practices that disproportionately limit employment opportunities based on race and are not related to job requirements or business needs.(80) For example, recruiting from racially segregated sources, such as certain neighborhoods, schools, religious institutions, and social networks, leads to hiring that simply replicates societal patterns of racial segregation. http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/race-color.html
October 6th, 2009 at 7:35 am
Janey –
You missed my point completely –
An employer is not legally bound to reasonably accomodate applicants based on their phobia of a computer. If a potential applicant does not use computers that is their fault – not the organizations.
We are legally and morally bound to provide reasonable accomodation to our employees – not potential applcants.
I should sue your company Janey – for not hiring me. I never saw a posting for an open position for your company – so you obviously did not try to reach all possible canidates.
October 6th, 2009 at 7:38 am
KarenM. –
You can argue that any source is racially segregated or biased. That is why you use as many sources as possible that tend to draw the most qualified applicants.
Only going to one source would be ignorant anyway.
Using Social Network sites as PART of your package of tools is not biased or discriminating.
October 6th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Ed,
the Fact that there are applicants that don’t have access to computers – which predominately are diverse candidates based upon statistics – and there are those who are Physically limited in regards to access of computers, Therefore the Company must make sure that their jobs are accessible to ALL.
Do you seriously believe that reasonable accommodation is only for Employees?
Wow! Wow, and WOW! That is extremely shocking. Yes, Ed, employers AND recruiters Must create reasonable accommodation for candidates, applicants as well as employees. It is the cost of doing business.
Back to my previous comment, there really should be a regulation in place that individuals should not be allowed to be recruiters w/o first having to be educated and certified on the employment laws in their state, as well as federal.
Ed, some sources have the potential to create more of a risk of discrimination, than others – this is based upon personal Action and in this case lack of knowledge. This is called a potential for Adverse or Disparate Impact
Let’s look at a scenario. You have two almost similar candidates – One is overweight and has pictures that demonstrates that they drink. The other candidate is not overweight, very attractive young lady, and she has pleasant pictures on the internet. The overweight candidate has 10 years experience, and the young lady has 5
You are a fit recruiter, and have an aversion for overweight people. You now go ahead and ignore the candidacy of the overweight gentleman, hey, he isn’t a protected class right? how will he know? The gal get’s the job.
What you didn’t know was that the overweight guy was that gal’s boss. He knows he had more experience, and he also knows that you were on his blog last night, as he was able to determine that from your IP number – easy to track that information by the way. He now has Cause to go to the EEOC for An ADA discrimination case, or maybe even Age.
Sure, you didn’t intend to discriminate, but last time I checked one was found guilty of discrimination not by intent but upon one’s actions, and the pattern that one has in how one Selects your candidates for interview. Not only the how did you find these people? but, out of all of these Why did you choose Him, and not Her?
Yes, by the way, being overweight can be covered by the ADA. This was a longwinded scenario to demonstrate how easy it can happen, and not because one automatically thinks of discriminating, but sometimes being privy to too much information that has Nothing to do with Ability can create problems.
And Yes Ed, you are right, any one source does have the potential for discrimination, but we must remember that there are some that have more potential than others.
October 6th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Janey –
Wow, Wow and WOW –
What are all the sources you post one single job opening with? Please list them all so that we can all be as contientious as you are.
Also – WOW – WOW – you missed my point again in that – social network sites should be one approach that is a part of your overall plan.
By the fact that you complertely ruleout the use of facebook you are intentioanlly avoiding a complete group of people.
Also – I wrote something a bit incorrect – No business has the responsabiltiy to make reasonable accomodations to Pre-applicants – those that have not even applied.
Can you please describe how we must accomodate someone you do not even know exists?
If we get an applicant that has issues – we then accomodate that individual with the entire application process.
You still have not answered my question regarding the sources you used to post your last opening. Waiting for that.
WOW
October 6th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
This is fun Ed, hopefully, there is something to gain from this. Maybe a better understanding of the Employment laws which are in place to protect not only the candidates and applicants, but also the Employer from unnecessary legal expense due to lack of information and knowledge.
1- fyi, facebook is a Social Network
2- what is a “pre”- applicant Ed? do you mean someone going to your site to apply for your job? Nice word. Not sure how it applies within the world of H.R!
3- may I direct you to Target’s lawsuit regarding accessibility for the blind ffor individuals who wanted to USE their site. 6M$ was the payout. Accommodation starts from the Start for All who come to your site to consider an opportunity to work with your company as a client, applicant, or even a vendor.
4- Utilizing Any social network due to the personal information that is Not Employment related creates a risk for adverse impact.
5- Common Sense is utilized – but now I must ask, are your questions not going off track of the subject matter.
This post is about how Social Network Sites have the potential for creating the potential for discrimination. Not only because of limiting your recruiting from one source but also because of the issues that one gains too much information that is Not Employment or job related.
Therefore if there is an investigation, the focus will be not only on the How or Where Did you get the Candidates, but Why did you choose the select few out of the candidate pool.
October 6th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Janey –
A pre applicant is some one that has yet to apply – how can you know what to accomodate if you do not even know who is out there?
You still have not listed the sources you used for your last opening? Not truly off target – you state Social networkl sites are biased, discriminatory or whatever – so I want to know what you use and make my judgement about teh typical population that would utilize that source!
You are taking Target quite out of context – Target did not allow any other method of applying other than their computer terminal – that is a no brainer.
Yes the social network craetes risk – but so does meeting an individual in person – you can obviously see tat they are heavy during an interview, or that they have a wedding ring on their hand, or they have the yellow staion of a smoker on their teeth, or their sweat is a bit alcohol like in odor. There is risk in every aspect of HR –
Why do you fear social networking sites?
Soon you will be sued for avoiding using them. Most young applicants today live on those sites.
October 6th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
Ed,
are you arguing for the sake of arguing? Trying to stay with the conversation at hand -this really has nothing to do with the potential for adverse impact and discrimination on social networks now does it?
But, to go back to the aspect of Internet and recruiting, to which you made the point – If a company is Utilizing ONLY the internet as a recruiting source they are therefore Not making reasonable accommodation for the individuals who do not have access to computers. The EEO and OFCCP have addressed this as an areas of potential adverse impact and systemic discrimination.
No, I did not take Target out of context, and they did have other resources.. they just did not make reasonable accommodation for the blind.
At least Ed, when a candidate get’s an opportunity to interview, there is an acknowledgment of their experience, and of course in the interview, they will be able to determine if they were being rejected due to discrimination.
Personally, Ed, I fear these sites because of people like you, who go to them with no respect or understand of employment law, but believe that anything goes.
I have respect for these sites, and think that they should remain exactly what they are PERSONAL networks. We don’t need our potential or future bosses being our big brother – and there are some things that should be just left alone, and private. We don’t need McCarthyism in the work place for goodness sake
The PERSONAL network is not a reflection of a person’s persona in the workplace. It is how they are when they get home and let loose, and are hanging out with their friends.
The personal network does not present information about how a potential candidate does their job, and how well they can apply those skills. They have nothing to do with the Job, or the career and unfortunately too many people in our industry think that they are the Recruiting God’s and can decide and judge who and who wont get a job based upon personal judgments and prejudices.
Your questions are important, but, they come with a lot of defensiveness and a need to fight and justify something that can create harm. As KarenM asked earlier, it makes one wonder, is it a lack of knowing how to recruit outside of these sites that create a fear or hostility towards to this information?
FYI, under 30 is not a protected Class..
Fear of loss, and a lack of knowledge can create hostility, which leaves one to wonder.
October 6th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
FYI Ed,
My company utilizes many means to recruit candidates. We have a wide range of individuals whom we have outreach through our recruiting efforts.
Due to the legal implications, the company, like 80% of corporations throughout the U.S, we do not allow our recruiters, hiring managers, or H.R to utilize the Social Networks for background or informational checks, or for recruiting purposes
Recruiting is utilized through direct recruiting, college recruiting, networking at career and social events, national and local newspapers, referrals and many other creative, and diverse practices that allow for us to have a strong public presence.
Hope that helps
October 7th, 2009 at 7:53 am
Janey –
I believe that you must be daft – I never stated that social network sites should be a sole source – but clearly stated that they could be a good PART of a company’s tools. I have always stressed that point.
Your personal fear of using SN sites is not truly based on your perception of how other individuals might use them – but in all honesty – your fear that you would use them innapropraitely. What does your perception of what I would do have to do with you or your actions? Nothing – You are trying to rationalize your fears as best you can. People like you feared use the use of the internet in the begining – now it is the most commonly used recruiting tool. You most likely were afraid of using Career Builder or Moster.com when they first appeard on the scene.
The personal networks display a lot of information about what an employee does at work while you are not standing over their shoulder. You can also see if they are a potential risk (so you can screen more effectively during an interview) and you can get a flavor of their personality as it relates to your corporate culture. Will their persoanlity (whom they are) fit in the workplace. One’s abiltiy to do the work is only part of what you should look at when recruiting – will they also fit in with your oprganization.
Both you and KarenM are deflecting – it is your fears of the SN sites that is causing your issues. How do you think we recruited before SN sites became a PART – notice I said PART – of our package of tools?
Your FYI statement shows that you believe only 30 and under use SN sites – you are very wrong in that statement and this shows your complete lack of knowledge regarding these sites.
My package of available tools grows as technology grows – allowing me to reach more and more people.
When is the last time you researched the demographics of SN sites?
Your complete fear of SN sites – does leave one to wonder.