http://news.smh.com.au/net-reputation-could-affect-career/20080302-1w80.html

That funny email name, those crazy photos you posted on Facebook or MySpace may not be seen only by your friends.

According to a recent British survey on how your internet reputation - or NetRep - affects career prospects, one in five employers have searched for personal information online about a prospective employee, with more than half of these, 59 per cent, saying it influenced their recruitment decision.

One quarter of these net-savvy HR decision-makers admitted they had rejected applicants based on information they had found online.

Peter Cunningham, the country manager of Viadeo in Britain, the business networking site which commissioned the survey, is not surprised by the findings.

"When you are recruiting, there is still an element of risk. You have the CV, you meet them and ask for references, but you want to make sure what you have seen is correct, so it's very cheap and easy to type someone's name into Google and see what comes up."

The problem, says Cunningham, is that so many people don't see the danger.

"Employers are never more than a few clicks away from your wild holiday photos or personal discussions with friends, which may end up having a huge impact on their recruitment decision."

That's interesting FD.  How many prospective employees haven't got the job, because companies are delving into their private life.  You would be an idiot, if you were seriously in the job market, and left incriminating material on your Facebook or My Space.   But then on the other hand - why haven't you got that right?

There are some real bastards on the Internet, and not all of them are employers.

I'd like to see what these potential employers were looking for - someone not like them? My experience in the workplace is that employers send racy e-mail jokes, and some surf porn sites in worktime. A crackdown on this came because it was rampant (I formerly worked for the government).

What I'd really like to know is how they judge someone's character by what they post or put on personal sites. I see double standards here.

I'd need a concrete example of why an employer would reject a potential employee, and how they make this judgement. Isn't this like snooping into what some does in their private time, and would most likely never do at work? If you drink ten schooners in your off-time, and behave like a larrikin - does this mean you're going to do the same at work?  Short of serious crimes, how do they make this judgement?

It's a bit like calling up your references and asking personal questions about you - eg your personality.

freediver wrote on Mar 4^th, 2008 at 5:16pm:

It's a bit like calling up your references and asking personal questions about you - eg your personality.

I still don't see how what someone posts on the Net can make any difference. That's why I asked for concrete examples. People sometimes adopt "cyber-personalities" which is not how they are in real life. I can fully understand ASIO doing this sort of checking, but not Woolworths. Interesting, the Wollongong City Council expected integrity from their employees, but we are now seeing the blatant corruption that went on, the double standards. See the recent ICAC reports. So, did they "screen" who was employed? I'm probably arguing against myself here. Maybe they should have checked all this before hiring. And maybe the Internet could have revealed all this beforehand. But I'm otherwise wondering what criteria they use for making these judgements, for example, on someone who posts "wild holiday pics"? What are "wild holiday pics"? Crocodile hunting? I need more specifics, because this phrase is vague. Maybe someone who parachutes in off-time while working for an insurance company? Or someone who smokes while working for an anti-smoking board?

What if the person has a clear criminal record? They don't have to go on the Net to check this. They can't hide it. How does "Net behaviour" correlate to a clean criminal record?

I need enlightenment here. Good arguments.

You're not a HR person are you? There's a lot that goes into selecting employees. For example you need someone who will fit in with your corporate culture. You can't always judge this from an interview alone.

freediver wrote on Mar 4^th, 2008 at 5:47pm:

You're not a HR person are you? There's a lot that goes into selecting employees. For example you need someone who will fit in with your corporate culture. You can't always judge this from an interview alone.

HR, or HSR? I'm not sure what you mean.

Human Resources. The people who do the recruitment for large companies.

freediver wrote on Mar 4^th, 2008 at 5:56pm:

Human Resources. The people who do the recruitment for large companies.

I'm familiar with that. I worked for Australia Post for 16 years. The HRs were very competent (hired on contract), sometimes hiring people for truck driving who didn't even have a car licence. The people who really need to be investigated are the HRs, most of whom wouldn't know one end of a truck from another! B-U-R-E-A-U-C-R-A-C-Y it is called. These twerps with a Class One licence decide who shall drive trucks! LOL.  

So far, so good.  ::)

PS: "Wild holiday pics" very revelant!!

How about drug references, photos of stuff you stole from work, bitching about colleagues behind their back, taking a sickie on Monday because you are too drunk or hungover or out fishing, deranged rants, stalking etc? While your online personality may be a bit different, it will still reveal some basics about your personality that may not come out in a formal interview.

freediver wrote on Mar 4^th, 2008 at 6:14pm:

How about drug references, photos of stuff you stole from work, bitching about colleagues behind their back, taking a sickie on Monday because you are too drunk or hungover or out fishing, deranged rants, stalking etc?

You know some of the bosses I worked with?  ;D

What HR should do is investigate current employees/employers, starting at the top. But do you think any government organisation is going to employ HR to investigate them? We need an ICAC organisation to independently scrutinise all corporate practices, which should include checking the hard drives of all managers to see what they've been up to, and whether their wives know what they do while "working back".    

http://adage.com/talentworks/article?article_id=125512&source=cmailer

Companies have cultures
This is true of even the bland ones. All of the following come into play: energy, décor, animals, civility, wardrobes, alcohol consumption, workload, communication. Do your due diligence and then decide if the place is right for you.