On speaking to a range of recruiters in the Melbourne area during the period March to May 2009 I found quite a mix of responses to this question. It is generally accepted in the industry that recruiters have, wherever possible, performed background searches. Let's face it, they can't rely on candidates to tell the whole truth about themselves. In a majority of cases this is not a problem, and who would want to know every little detail anyway? However, the cost of hiring an employee is significant and recruiters have their own reputation to uphold.
Traditionally, background checks have involved consulting referees prior to forwarding a shortlist of suitable candidates on to a client. In addition, more informal approaches have been adopted as well, such as speaking to someone who knows someone etc., which was always easier in smaller communities and niche areas than for general roles in large cities. Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn are all easy-to-access social networking sites which make background searching easier. Others come and go as well, but at the present time these are the sites accessed most often.
So, we know they do it, but just how widespread is the practice? Unsurprisingly, the responses I received fell into always, never, and sometimes categories. Those who fell into the 'always' category tended to be involved in recruiting for professional and executive roles where the stakes are high - large salary packages are involved, high levels of responsibility and security access. This was particularly widespread in niche areas such as finance, IT and HR.
Graduate recruiters would not admit to undertaking background searches across the board, but most agreed that they often perform background searches in the final stages, and especially when they are trying to separate two or more excellent candidates. On-hirer firms also fit into the ‘sometimes’ category. Recruiters who sometimes performed background checks using social networking sites were those sourcing candidates for retail, hospitality and administration roles, while those in the 'never' category included short term filling and blue collar roles. The reason cited most often was a lack of time, urgency of placement and the belief that it didn't really help with their decision making process.
Interestingly, of those who said they always performed background searches, around half said this did not make the selection process easier. It seems that if you dig deep enough you will find the dirt on anyone. Working out exactly which dirt relates to employment suicide is another big issue, with responses as varied as those undertaking the searches.
Generally it was accepted by all recruiters that jobseekers should be cautious about what they show the world. Examples abound describing how successful candidates have had offers withdrawn after an unfortunate activity was recorded and/or applauded on Facebook. The recommendation is that, if you must use the web to document everything you do and are, keep that one private, for viewing by your friends only. Have another that is available publicly to present you in the best possible light.
