We Googled You
“We Googled You”
Summary:
In the case study “We Googled You”, the hiring manager must take a pragmatic approach to the situation. The reality is that it is not difficult to uncover online information that could call a candidate into question. Fred needs to sit down with the HR professional, gaining agreement to bring Mimi back into the office to discuss the situation. This is a solid first step to understanding Mimi’s current position, and will give Fred the benefit of seeing how Mimi handles a difficult situation. If Mimi’s position hasn’t changed, then Fred must consider this in assessing her viability as a candidate for the position. If her views have changed and Fred feels she is a finalist candidate for the position, Mimi will have the opportunity to update her position in online forums, to avoid negative press that may arise if she is named to the position. There are very likely many other well-qualified candidates for the position; Fred needs to consider them as well – even if only as a point of reference for assessing Mimi’s candidacy. Fred needs to tap HR for support in vetting those candidates and bringing them in for interviews. If Hathaway Jones wants to meet with success in their flagship store in China, Fred needs to offer the position to most qualified candidate, instead of ‘settling’ for the candidate with the best connections.
John Palfrey, Jr.
There is no reason to fear bringing Mimi in based on the results of a Google search based on the legal advice of Palfrey. An issue would arise only if Hathaway Jones unfairly discriminated against Mimi. I agree with Palfrey’s thoughts – hiring standards may have to be reassessed; otherwise, companies may lose out on strong candidates by focusing too much on an individual’s online presence, without checks and balances. Bringing Mimi in to offer her perspective is the right first step in assessing the situation and its impact on her candidacy. It is important not to rushing to judgment.
Summary:
In the case study “We Googled You”, the hiring manager must take a pragmatic approach to the situation. The reality is that it is not difficult to uncover online information that could call a candidate into question. Fred needs to sit down with the HR professional, gaining agreement to bring Mimi back into the office to discuss the situation. This is a solid first step to understanding Mimi’s current position, and will give Fred the benefit of seeing how Mimi handles a difficult situation. If Mimi’s position hasn’t changed, then Fred must consider this in assessing her viability as a candidate for the position. If her views have changed and Fred feels she is a finalist candidate for the position, Mimi will have the opportunity to update her position in online forums, to avoid negative press that may arise if she is named to the position. There are very likely many other well-qualified candidates for the position; Fred needs to consider them as well – even if only as a point of reference for assessing Mimi’s candidacy. Fred needs to tap HR for support in vetting those candidates and bringing them in for interviews. If Hathaway Jones wants to meet with success in their flagship store in China, Fred needs to offer the position to most qualified candidate, instead of ‘settling’ for the candidate with the best connections.
John Palfrey, Jr.
There is no reason to fear bringing Mimi in based on the results of a Google search based on the legal advice of Palfrey. An issue would arise only if Hathaway Jones unfairly discriminated against Mimi. I agree with Palfrey’s thoughts – hiring standards may have to be reassessed; otherwise, companies may lose out on strong candidates by focusing too much on an individual’s online presence, without checks and balances. Bringing Mimi in to offer her perspective is the right first step in assessing the situation and its impact on her candidacy. It is important not to rushing to judgment.