I figured that the conversation had evolved enough to make this a post of its own:
Every now and again at work, this question comes up. Say you are given a resume for a person you will be interviewing. Is it okay to do a Google search on that person before the interview? How about after? Does it depend on the success of the interview? What if the panel that interviewed this candidate can't agree on whether to hire or not?
My opinion later. :)
Every now and again at work, this question comes up. Say you are given a resume for a person you will be interviewing. Is it okay to do a Google search on that person before the interview? How about after? Does it depend on the success of the interview? What if the panel that interviewed this candidate can't agree on whether to hire or not?
My opinion later. :)
8 Comments:
At 9:46 PM,
Anonymous said…
If an interviewer had Googled you when you were interviewing for your current job, would you have still got it?
At 1:07 AM,
zandperl said…
I always presume a couple individuals on the search committee will do a Google on me, but will not particularly bring it up to the technologically challenged, and they will not do it as a group or in any way add it to my file. If they knew someone I'd worked with previously, I'd expect them to talk to that person, it's no different from that.
Meanwhile, I realized a semester ago that my union activity now appears under a Google for me. This is a little bit vexing as *every* return on my name really *is* me, so I can't help but wonder if this will prejudice future employers against me.
At 5:25 PM,
Seven of Two said…
A quote from one of my favorite musicals comes to mind:
"See all the parts and none of the whole." -- Georges Seurat, "Sunday in the Park With George."
I think that's what you'd be likely to get from pre-Googling a job applicant. You may find, for example, a rant the applicant posted, but you may not find anything that enables you to put it in context. The applicant may never have written a follow-up, or they may have posted it somewhere else and Google hasn't grabbed it.
It's an incomplete picture, so it's unfair.
After the interview, you can place what you find in the context of what you know about the person professionally. At that point, it's really a part of checking references.
At 5:40 PM,
j said…
Zandperl nailed the reason why I think this is unethical: you can't prove the John Q. Heimerdinger that you interviewed is the same John Q. Heimerdinger that you have found on the internet. I think that if the interviewee has components of their personality that will make them difficult to work with, these will likely make themselves manifest in the interview. (And if not - well, every group gets a few bad apples now and again.) Otherwise, I don't care (or really want to know, even) if my co-workers engage in strange behavior, so I don't think it's relevant that an interviewee does.
If I had been Googled during my interview process, I would have still been hired. My name returns very little that is interesting. Actually, I possibly would have been hired with additional enthusiasm, as there is someone with my exact name who has won several technical awards, but is unfortunately not me. :)
At 9:09 PM,
Jessica said…
Unless they truly hate scrapbookers (which many people do) I think I'd be good. I don't think I'd do that myself, but even if I did, I'm not easily offended. I drop waaay too many f-bombs to throw stones at other bloggers.
At 12:21 AM,
The Poor Barn Mom said…
Kris' boyfriend (you remember Kris, J) actually got turned down for a job due to his myspace page. It had a skull and crossbones or something or other on it and they said that it showed he was a Satan worshipper or some such bullshit. Moral of the story: they can look you up by e-mail address on myspace. So if you reveal your mass murderer tendencies on your myspace, use an fake e-mail address to start out at myspace. That way you can still get that job as a police officer when you reveal your REAL e-mail address to them.
Boo!
At 12:17 AM,
j said…
{giggle!} Jess, I tried to think of a group of people who hate scrapbookers, and the only ones who came to mind are the nihilists from the Big Lebowski... you know, the people standing in the bowling alley parking lot wearing all black screaming "WE BELIEVE IN NOTHING! NOOOTHINNNNGGGG!!!" (Or something, I can't quote the movie precisely.)
Isn't being a Satan worshipper a protected religious right? I mean, as long as you're not sacrificing virgins or anything illegal, who should care? Of course, this is my same point about homophobia - why would anyone care who other people (especially strangers!) sleep with? - but apparently some people are very concerned with such things. Which strikes me as sort of perverted.
At 12:19 AM,
j said…
giggle, again... is Target a Satan-worshipping company??
Post a Comment
<< Home