Three quarters of recruiters use LinkedIn for promoting job vacancies and seeking candidates, a new survey shows, although employers have been advised that Facebook and Twitter comments may reveal more about potential staff.
According to a new RecruitPack survey, commissioned by Nuage Software, 74% of the 121 recruiters surveyed said they use LinkedIn for promoting vacancies and seeking candidates.
Less than a third (28%) of employers ask to view a job candidate’s Facebook feed during an interview, while only 3% ask to view a candidate’s Twitter activity.
Nuage Software managing director David Wilson says jobseekers tend to cast themselves in a good light across their social networks, so recruiters shouldn’t place too much weight on them.
“Whether it’s a blog or a tweet, candidates are more aware than ever that their image and reputation are at stake,” Wilson says.
“Employers need to use specific screening questions and psychometric profiles to get a better picture of the applicant’s skills, qualifications, experience, attitudes and interpersonal strategies.”
And while resumes are a standard part of the recruitment process, the survey shows 50% of respondents say resumes only “sometimes” provide quality information.
According to Wilson, this is not surprising.
“Resumes are primarily a marketing tool designed to get the applicant into the interview. They typically contain enhancements, exaggerations, omissions and even lies,” Wilson says.
“Often the resume is written by third-party professionals and laced with keywords to trick resume-scanning software.”
Wilson says LinkedIn profiles are also a primary marketing tool for jobseekers but are subject to wider scrutiny than resumes, and may therefore contain less exaggeration and enhancements.
“[However,] users of Facebook and Twitter are less guarded in their comments, and may reveal more than they would on LinkedIn,” the report said.
Again, Wilson says recruiters need to use well designed, specific screening questions to uncover information that may be absent or obscured in a resume or LinkedIn profile.
The report also reveals some findings in relation to interviewing and reference-checking.
“The telephone interview is an economical and practical way to refine the shortlist, and is well represented in this survey,” it said.
“At the other end of the scale, panel interviews require a relatively heavy commitment of resources and are practised less frequently.”
“The type of interviewing is less important than the quality of the interview technique.”
With regard to reference-checking, the report acknowledged it can be both “frustrating and rewarding”.
“Everyone is busy and it can be a trial just to contact the referee. Then there are the privacy and litigation concerns that stop some companies from giving references at all,” it said.
“However, every now and then a check has saved [a recruiter] from a bad hiring decision and that alone makes it all worthwhile.”