In this episode, we dive into the growing reality that your social media presence is part of the job application process. I'm joined by Susie Thompson, founder of Security Watchdog, and Martin Hardy, founder of Right2Socials, to discuss how and why employers screen candidates online, and what they're really looking for when they check your feeds
Participants
- Emily Slade - podcast producer and host, Prospects
- Susie Thompson - founder, Security Watchdog
- Martin Hardy - founder, Right2Socials
Transcript
Martin Hardy: Whether you like it or not, it's now here. Employers are actually checking graduates and job seekers in terms of their professional, for their professional reputations.
Susie Thomson: I'm Susie Thomson I was the founder of Security Watchdog. And Security Watchdog is one of the largest background checking businesses in Europe. I'm now a consultant to the screening industry. So I'm the generalist. I've got about 35 years experience in background checking. And I've had the real pleasure of working with the lovely Martin Hardy here over the last 10 years. Over to you.
Martin Hardy: Yes, so I'm Martin Hardy. I'm the founder and executive director for Social Media Consulting Limited, which is Right to Social's brand.
Welcome to Future You, the students and careers advice podcast brought to you by Prospects.
Martin Hardy: So for students and graduates especially, social media is often the first impression that employers get. And that's why we have a lot of passion around this to support youngsters, to support... job seekers into getting the right roles.
Susie Thomson: And we absolutely love background checking. It's a really dry subject for some people, but we adore it. And it was over a cup of coffee where we thought, do you know what, we want to give something back. We want to smooth pathways for young people to get into employment. And we feel that people don't know enough about this particular subject. So he's the expert. I can talk the talk. So we thought this was a really good combo to kind of pass on the word.
Emily Slade: Yeah. So what is Right2Socials?
Martin Hardy: Yeah, so Right2Socials is an employability brand. So it's designed specifically to help, like I say, graduates or job seekers to understand what their social media profile looks like in the context of an employer and then to change that profile if they wish, but first of all to understand it, then have the ability to learn how to improve that profile in the eyes of an employer. So it's a Right to Socials provides education material, also benchmarks against other candidates and other locations, demographics, so that you can basically what you look like in terms of an employer screening and then adapt accordingly.
Emily Slade: Amazing. And is this a new problem that we found a solution for or is this something that has been... It's been there since the dawn of Instagram in 2007.
Susie Thomson: It's a great question. I mean, if you look at the sort of tenure of social media checking in the industry, how long has that industry been going on for you?
Martin Hardy: We were established in 2010, so it's now 16 years.
Susie Thomson: Yeah, and you were one of the first, weren't you?
Martin Hardy: Were one of the first. So, but we met in 2016-ish time.
Susie Thomson: And we saw that social media checks were on the up, that they were becoming the check of choice for employers, but that the audience, i.e. the individuals, the recruits, the candidates, probably were not aware of what their profile should look like or what to avoid or, you know, offensive language, et cetera, that we may all have committed to in our youth, not thinking through. that audience was really unaware. So I think with the advent of Martin's product and also the social media industry, we're now wanting to say, hey, be aware, just like you're aware when you have a credit check, be aware that there's a social media check coming and it is the check of growth. And we've seen it rise over the last five years. And I wouldn't be surprised, Emily, with my background screening hat on, is if that became the main check of the future.
Emily Slade: Yeah. Which is really interesting when you think about it as social media is social media. And it was sort of invented, you know, you think back to the Facebook to enhance communities and put your express yourself online. And it sort of felt like a safe space, especially when it first dawned of like how fun we can all just experiment and have fun on here. This is sounding not scary. I don't want to put that tone on it, but it's evolved so much that it almost doesn't feel like it's what it was. It's not social anymore. Like, can you still express yourself online or do you have to have that filter now?
Martin Hardy: I mean, it's a reflection of somebody in a digital world, right? So it's a real reflection of somebody in a digital world. And yeah, back in the early days, because I remember when we set up the company and we established that, yeah, there's a concern here. Employers are going to start being concerned about what's posted online. And, you know, a little bit of history. We started the company with the intention of supporting parents and, very much an educational brand. And it was soon, came to light that if employers really adopted this, the parents would be very concerned. Okay. Now, what's happened in the last 10 years is social media vetting has matured. It's now a very mature product. Almost all background screening companies are carrying out social media checking. vetting. Susie, no wonder you're the, you know, about to be the PBSA's global chair, because Susie was one of the early adopters with Security Watchdog. That's when we first kind of collaborated together and saw what was coming. And I think we shared that vision. And so, but it's now matured. So what we're trying to do, particularly with Right to Socials, is create that balance and fairness so that candidates and employers both get what they need, but in a very fair and compliant way. Okay. And so, and we're going to go into a bit of depth today, I'm sure.
Susie Thomson: And if you think about it, Emily, we all have a digital life and we all have a physical life. And And those two should run to harmonise together. But sometimes our digital presence goes haywire and needs to be corrected. And it's when you have those haywire moments and you don't realise what you're actually putting down on the socials could be detrimental to your future employability. That's not fair, you know, and we want to make sure that it is absolutely fair, hence, and our collaboration on this.
Emily Slade: Yeah, fantastic. Let's dive in. So we've sort of touched on it, but from your experience, how often do employers check candidates' social media before making hiring decisions? And what is it that they're looking for?
Susie Thomson: So if I could start off on that one, I think you're seeing, as I mentioned, this is the growth check. And I think 2026 is going to be a monumental year for social media checks as the one that employers actually choose to safeguard their reputation. Statistics, do you have statistics around how many organisations are currently using it?
Martin Hardy: Yeah, we've got some stats. So about 70% of employers screen candidates social media. So that's in a, it's in a wide sense, that statistic in the sense it's not just about a, like a behavioural check, but it could also be using social media to check that candidate in general, like what do they look like online? Yeah. So it's less formal, but it's also, so that's 70%. There's one in three employers have rejected a candidate because of their online content. And about 45% say they've hired someone because of their positive online profile. So we're not just talking here about negative behaviours, right? What employers are looking for is this balance. What does this individual look like online? You know, overall, it's not just about the negative.
Emily Slade: Yeah, that's really interesting to point out, actually.
Susie Thomson: Yeah, it absolutely is. So they're looking for that individual's professionalism. They're looking for their tone. Other positives that they could possibly want to see, the individual's judgment in certain scenarios. That's important as well. And no, we're not going to get it always right, have the right judgment, but that is what employers are looking for.
Martin Hardy: And they're not trying to catch candidates out. This is not the purpose. You know, I talk about red flag hunting. That's not what it's about, right? We definitely don't look at it from that perspective. Employers are looking for that. Reassurance. So they're looking for those behaviours to be, like negative behaviours like aggression, et cetera, being eliminated from a profile so that it doesn't, yeah, they want that reassurance.
Susie Thomson: I think you'll find with your customers, Martin, and forgive me if I've got this right, but so many of them are focused on the importance of culture. They've invested massive amounts in their brand and their culture, all sorts of internal engagement. They want to make sure that the individuals joining their organisation share the same values, can be absorbed into the culture of the organisation without any red flags. And that's where that social media check is so important.
Martin Hardy: Yeah, 100%. Like you said, it's a mirror of somebody's real life.
Susie Thomson: Yeah.
Emily Slade: Completely. And so we're not talking about like, you've gone for a bottomless brunch and you're pictured with a prosecco. That's not going to not get you employed.
Martin Hardy: Well, it depends on how much prosecco. No, the key thing here is it's not, it's about behaviours, it's not about lifestyle, it's not about, you know, it's absolutely fine to demonstrate your lifestyle online. Employers understand that people are real, right? And especially today, they see that it's a reflection of your real life online. So going on holidays, having fun, you know, that's all healthy and the employer looks at it from a healthy perspective. And Susie already touched on culture, you know, that might be something they really want. It's within the organisation, so it's the other elements of things like aggression or arguments online and exposed hate speech. This sort of ranges from very simple things like just, you know, behaviours that don't fit the culture of the organisation. having an open argument online is never a good thing. But it can go right through to, links to prescribed organizations, terrorist groups, violent gangs. So we see a whole range of what is out there. But employers are really looking, like I said, focused on the cultural aspects. Does this person fit my organisation holistically?
Emily Slade: So I suppose to follow on to what I was asking just now, are there common misconceptions as to what risky behaviour is? I think everyone watching this is probably clicking on to check that they are allowed to have a cocktail with the girls and not get employed for it. We are talking about that more severe behaviour that is showcased online. And Again, out of curiosity, is there, if you are anonymous, if you are working through an anonymous username, profile picture, will that still catch you?
Martin Hardy: Over to you. Okay, so two very separate things there. So So the first thing is on misconceptions. So one obvious misconception is that you have to be squeaky clean online, right? And everything has to be boring and perfect or professional, okay? That isn't, you know, quite often employers are actually looking for candidates who demonstrate behaviours which are outgoing and social and, you know, So it doesn't have to be professional and it doesn't have to be boring. That's a misconception. So going out, travelling, joking with friends, all completely normal and accepted. Nothing wrong with those kind of things. And the employees won't be looking to... scrutinise that. They're actually probably quite pleased about that. What catches people out isn't necessarily their personality, but it's their behaviour, right? So you can be outgoing, you can be showing that you're going to social events, etc. But the behaviour that you demonstrate within those social events, a bit like real life, because all we're doing is putting real life into a digital world, right? So if you were to go to a party, and got exceedingly drunk and caused damage or difficulties, that is a behaviour you wouldn't be accepted in real life.
Susie Thomson: People started bullying somebody.
Martin Hardy: Bullying somebody. Yeah, exactly. Even just having a fight or an argument, which just isn't socially the right values that the company's probably looking for. So if you're expressing that online. So it's the best, and that's the key thing. Behaviour is more than personalities. Employees are expecting personality to be shown in social media checks. And just a point on the risk, it's not lifestyle content that causes the risk, it's the patterns of poor judgment. Just one other thing as well on the myth side, old posts. So, you know, oh, hang on, I did that when I was 18 and now I'm 28 and I made that post. And so old posts matter because most grads have a good 8 to 10 years of online history now. So it's quite substantial behavioural pattern online. So it's important to make sure that if you're refreshing or looking at your profiles, you don't believe, you don't make the assumption that old posts don't matter, because they do. And it helps build up a picture of somebody over a period of time. The other thing is I like to say that social media vetting has matured a lot over the last four to five years. AI has come along and technology is now driving the power of social media vetting, right? So you might think that keeping a pseudonym or a profile private might not be picked up, or particularly if you're using a different username or, you know, trying to keep a pseudonym running or on your social media. You might think it's not picked up, but there's so many ways of picking up a link between profiles, tags and location settings and followings and followers. And technology is sweeping, the outputs there. So I wouldn't take the risk. You should bear that in mind when you have alter egos online. as well, because the technology and the maturity of the checks these days is quite advanced.
Emily Slade: And then off that, if you deleted your social media, can it still be found?
Martin Hardy: Companies with good practice in the vetting industry should not be using recorded versions of the web or historic posts, which are not currently online. They should be live checks because Again, legislation also dictates this in a little while. individuals have the right to be forgotten. So deleting an account is a right under the legislation to any candidate should think about, you know, maybe that's an easy option, just delete it. But most don't want to do that. They've got their history on there, okay, especially 10 years of history. So they might not want to do that. The better approach is to look at security settings, refresh the tags in your content, are you tagged here, there and everywhere? Get rid of some of the tags, clean up a little bit of the historic content as you see it publicly, very important publicly. So no screening company should be using private messaging or private content, because again, that would breach privacy regulation to say. So it's only publicly available information. So make sure you look at that in a public way, not in a private way. And consider it from that perspective. What is public? What is my behaviour look like? Do I have some of those things I've mentioned already, aggression or these kind of red flags and curate it accordingly. But it doesn't have to be professional and boring, just to be clear. Leave the personality to get the bad behaviour.
Susie Thomson: Yeah. Talking about those risks. Martin, when we were together and say we brought on a new contract and the requirement for that employer was social media checks, we would work alongside you to identify the risks that were specifically important to that particular employer. But there was some consistent risks. There are a couple of them that you could just call out that actually make folks understand what to look out for.
Martin Hardy: Yeah, I think some of the common ones, explicit content, explicit language, nudity, endorsement of drugs, illegal substances, those are three key ones. And then we get into the further, some of the more extreme ones, you know, connections to prescribed organisations, illegal organisations. involvement in gangs, etc. So it kind of ranges from that. I think another little myth is it's okay to post memes and gifs and all these lovely things with a bit of humour in there, but be careful about what the, you know, there's a difference between what humour looks like when you're with your friends and what humour looks like in a third-party context posted online. So when an employer is looking at it, they may not find it so funny. Yeah, because it's also out of context, could be out of context. So, just be a little bit careful. It's memes, gifts, they're funny, employers laugh as well, right? it's a normal behaviour. However, do they want that kind of, if you like, humour in their organisation? It might be distasteful.
Emily Slade: When we talk about cleaning up our digital footprint, that's not going to... that you are entitled to do that. You're almost recommended to do that. And it's just about sifting through your old posts, as you've said, refreshing tags, updating things, keeping the personality, and then just really thinking about how it looks and keeping perhaps inappropriate humour to the private group chats, that sort of thing.
Martin Hardy: Yeah, just touch on what you said there, role is also key, right? So one of the things we encourage candidates to look at is what are the roles you're applying for, right? So what roles will you be vetted for? There's a difference between a role in financial services versus education, for example. And the employers will look for different behaviours in those scenarios. So, you know, and the confidential information might be a very important thing for many organisations. But you might be leaning down the fraud route or, asking for money route, open to bribery route. If you're looking at financial services and in education, you might be looking at harm to children through the keeping children safe and education guidelines, you know, so they're the Department for Education guidelines for social media vetting. So they're very different. Harmful to children include things like intolerance, teacher standards, meeting rule of democracy, rule of law, these kind of things. So it does differ by industry. And I think that's something we established early on is what are actually your clients.
Susie Thomson: Yeah.
Martin Hardy: What are the employers looking for in each industry sector and make sure it's tailored towards those things. So that's important for the candidates to know because they're obviously going to come out of uni, they're going to be going into education or financial services. So understand the ethics of that industry that you're applying for roles in, and therefore you can help. That will help you understand what is important for social media vetting and what they might be looking for.
Emily Slade: Yeah, definitely. Do certain platforms have more weight than others? Like LinkedIn, you're sort of expected to be professional. Whereas TikTok, you might be a bit more social. Is there any sort of difference across the platforms?
Martin Hardy: Yeah, there is a difference. I mean, you're on LinkedIn, right? We're on LinkedIn.
Susie Thomson: We are on LinkedIn, yeah.
Martin Hardy: I don't know how much you're on X or.
Susie Thomson: You won't find me there.
Martin Hardy: And funny enough, you won't find me there either. So yeah, there is a difference, obviously, in maybe two ways. So LinkedIn obviously is the recognised professional site. Okay, so I think I've got a stat here on LinkedIn, which is that 92% of recruiters use LinkedIn. Okay, so LinkedIn is obviously an important site, both for sourcing candidates as well as vetting candidates. So to make sure again, those behaviours. So as long as the candidates have express what they're passionate about, right? LinkedIn is great for that. You can get involved in conversations, you can post, you know, social values, items that you're passionate about. So that's an important thing to do. When it comes to things like TikTok, X, Instagram, I think first thing to note is they are definitely involved in the screening process, okay? So if anybody thinks it's LinkedIn is only the thing allowed, that's just a myth. That's just, it's an important part of the checks for the employer, but socials, then when you talk about the Insta, Facebook, TikTok and X, for example, they're very definitely YouTube, right? They're all involved. And it can even go into the degree of e-commerce. So, you know, what are you trading online? And many flags come up where I give you a couple of specific examples, teachers trading in knives or blades or things like this. So these are real life examples. I thought you were going to be like someone had a really good vintage page. I was watching knives. Now we have real, posting messages about schools burning down or, anti-religious messages. I haven't seen this, it's very evident why employers need to carry out the vetting. And we should remember this is all in the control of a candidate. Yeah, The candidates, this is the candidate's profile. This is the candidate's choice. So what we're encouraging is, first of all, learn through the right to socials concept, learn about it first and then fix it up.
Susie Thomson: Interesting, you mentioned TikTok. I had, I've spoken about three parents in the last week who said, I'm really concerned about that video that my teenage daughter has put up on TikTok. I said, for goodness sake, speak to them, get them to take it down. They just don't realise the damage. that that's going to do going forward. But I'm hearing more and more about TikTok.
Martin Hardy: It's kind of mixed with it depends on the age groups as well. So TikTok does tend to be a little bit younger in terms of his age group. You know, we can touch actually.
Susie Thomson: You say that these individuals were 19 and 17 on TikTok.
Martin Hardy: That is younger.
Susie Thomson: Oh, right.
Martin Hardy: Perfect. 18, but thank you. It's a good, thing to pinpoint, right? So when we're talking about 18 to 25, yeah, TikTok seems to be quite a popular app. I mean, a couple of things to recognise, the screening process does involve those socials, right? That's the first thing. The technology used in these screening now is high-powered, right? So, you know, even somebody says, you know, we get, I think we get often flagged content where somebody's making a funny video on TikTok and there's music playing in the background, which is full of racism or hatred. So, and it's a trend and it's, you know, it's all fun and social, but what they don't realise is the content they're playing in the background, making the funny video, which is a rapper song or something, you know, you'll find that often they get flagged for those kind of things because it because it shows their acceptance of that kind of language and behaviour. So it's not so much they've created that content because it's a rapper or a musician or something, but it's actually been used in producing the video, which is maybe a funny video, but unfortunately it gets flagged.
Emily Slade: Yeah.
Martin Hardy: So maybe then it's a little bit toxic. In that regard, people can slip into these behaviours.
Emily Slade: It's very quick trends, isn't it, that people almost thoughtlessly jump on?
Susie Thomson: Absolutely.
Emily Slade: And that's probably where you're going to get. Yeah, absolutely where you're going to get trapped.
Martin Hardy: It's consumption based as well. So because of the algorithms within some of these apps, you tend to find that content becomes normalized. So if you're fed constant, you know, videos which include that kind of content, you might normalise that and think that, well, that's actually just a trend. That's, I don't need to worry about that. That's just everybody's doing it, right? So be careful of that kind of, that's what I'd say is be careful of that kind of, make sure a trend isn't actually just trending you, not a trend of the site.
Emily Slade: That's really, really good advice. I always keep that critical setting in the back of your mind. Always be aware of what you're looking at.
Martin Hardy: 67% also check Instagram. with employers. So 92% of recruiters using LinkedIn, 67% also checking Instagram, and about 45% check TikTok specifically for younger candidates, and younger being 18 to 25.
Emily Slade: If you do not have social media, in that if you do not have an Instagram account, a TikTok account, are you almost at a disadvantage in that do employers, are employers then That's a great question.
Martin Hardy: Would you say the bias comes into this? So you shouldn't be worried, right, if somebody's not on social weekends? I mean, as an employer.
Susie Thomson: As an employer, I wouldn't be worried. But you've got deeper insights into it. I mean, could that candidate, for example, have scrubbed, deleted all their accounts? and therefore they don't have a profile or would that they've done that?
Martin Hardy: About bias, so Susie's just mentioned that, right? So you shouldn't be discriminated against because you choose not to have social media. That's the first thing. Okay, so employers should respect that. You shouldn't, yeah. So you shouldn't be We've just said, right, we're not on social media, etc. So, should I be discriminating? Absolutely not, from my perspective. However, it's important to recognise that a social media vetting is to check what is actually online, not what could be online, should have been online, might have been online, etc., right? So if somebody has deleted every account that they have online, And it might be just for the purpose of the job, right, for applying for a job. If they've done that, first of all, it's their right, their right to be forgotten, their right to do that under the privacy legislations. And secondly, the screening company shouldn't be using content that's not online. Okay. So it's a safe zone for both the individual and the employer, because the employer is looking for what is online, not what's not online. If you look at their risk is their brand or their and that third parties look at that candidate's profiles and don't see anything, risk isn't there. It's not something I encourage as a tactic to delete your accounts, et cetera, just to be, in fact, I say, get online, enjoy yourself, just follow the rules of good behaviour, et cetera.
Emily Slade: I think a lot of it is, well, not a lot of it, but I like mine personally was like, you know, it's the mental health reasons and the the going more analogue reasons, trying to bring back 2002 makes sense, like that sort of thing. Whereas like I think I would have been worried if you hadn't. just confirmed all of that, but I would look suspicious for just trying to like get into cross-stitch instead of being on TikTok. Does that make sense? Which feels unfair, but actually it's not unfair because of course they just want to make sure that if they employ you, someone doesn't look you up and you're reflecting their brand and about what actually?
Martin Hardy: It's actually a couple of good things there, you know, mental health or general health issues, you know, also other things like prescribed, sorry, protected characteristics, right? Race, political ideologies, sexual orientation, all of these things are protected under the discrimination laws, right? So an employer should never be utilizing that kind of information for making a decision. One of the good things about what we call the professional social media vetting is that it removes that bias from employers by You're not going to look at somebody's, the employer's not going to look at somebody's Facebook or X or, you know, LinkedIn per se. They will rely on the vetting process from the professional company like ourselves to say, here's the results of that vetting and there's nothing to see here.
Susie Thomson: So you're the independent, aren't you?
Martin Hardy: Yeah, so we remove that potential conscious or unconscious bias creeping in.
Emily Slade: And are you able to sort of explain what that looks like if a couple of things were flagged, like you mentioned the music? in the back of a TikTok video, is that video presented to the employer and then they are able to make a decision off of that with all the context. So if there's an intersection, for example, of a protected characteristic and something that might be flagged, let's say possibly a stereotypical example, but you're in a Pride parade in a fairly revealing costume, that feels like an intersection of potentially virgin on nudity, which would be flagged, but it's within this context of like expressing your rights, official event. And so the employer would then look at that and make a decision from there.
Martin Hardy: Correct, yeah. So, it's important to that to realise that only the flagged content gets reported, so it's not the general accounts, and you know the employer doesn't get to see. Every single thing. Yeah, it's only the conduct. And it's also then placed into what's called risk classifications. So typically on a particular industry like education, for example, there would be 8 classification risk classifications. So explicit content, not having British values or teachers not meeting teacher standards, being intolerant. So this is about usually about 8 clear risk classifications. They'd be different in financial services, like I said earlier, and so on. And that content, those specific posts or interactions, it could be retweets, they could be likes, they could be people will use different ways of expressing themselves online. It's only those specifics that will get flagged to the employer on the report. And again, the right to socials allows you to get your own report. So you can get you need to get visibility of that prior to the employer seeing it. So that's really good. And those risk classifications, of course, you've mentioned a couple of edge cases. So, you know, an easier example, I think, to understand would be a political ideology. So you might like Conservatives or Labour or Reform or whatever you like, and you might express that online. Those will not get reported per se. But if you start getting aggressive and violent towards others, Yeah, so just.
Emily Slade: Starting question and comments, that will be pulled out, but just going and leafleting for your political party.
Martin Hardy: Depending on the context, it could be that would be redacted for the employer. So maybe the ideology gets redacted. So you can't identify maybe a political party or something like that, but the language will still be flagged unless there's a direct link. So if you, know, you're literally threatening an MP. It's difficult to, it's difficult to remove that ideology.
Susie Thomson: What about likes? Liking something? How is, yeah, how is that picked up?
Martin Hardy: It's put into risk categories. So if somebody likes a hated, hate speech, some, I don't know, let's say there's some anti-Semitism posted and you're liking it, okay, never a good sign because you're showing your behaviours as supporting what is potentially racism or hatred towards, a protected characteristic of religion or whatever.
Susie Thomson: So, such a grey area, though, isn't it?
Emily Slade: I was just about to ask, like, there have been what I would consider very disrespectful comments made online...
Susie Thomson: Where do you draw the line? It's a very delicate area.
Emily Slade: By people in governing bodies of certain countries. But also they hold a very high up position. And so, or for example, there are some authors that have some very strong opinions online that might be considered hate speech by some and by others activism. And if you're liking these, who decides whether it's hate speech or activism?
Martin Hardy: I honestly sometimes wish myself that standards would be higher at these, because it sets higher standards. But, you know, the check itself is objective, right? We look at, like you say, risk categories in the context of a role and an employer. And it doesn't matter who it is, whether, you know, these senior people that tend to post maybe hate, they'd be flagged. Some of them would have a very long report, I would guess. But in the end, it's up to the data controller and the law, which is the employer in most situations, to decide what's relevant or not. So as a social media check, we're here, we're there to report the facts. It exists online. And then the data controller, so we would be a data processor, the data controller, which is the employer under the GDPR regulations, UK GDPR, They would make the decision based on that information. And they may just override that and make the decision to employ or not. I wouldn't take the chance myself.
Emily Slade: Yeah. At what stage of the application process is this happening? And is that down to the employer? Like they can do, obviously, let's say they get 600 CVs in, they're going to interview 20 people. Do those 20 people get vetted or are we just vetting people? once we get down to the final like 2.
Susie Thomson: It's usually at the point of offer that vetting starts. So you need the candidate's consent, so that all has to be agreed. And the offer isn't concluded until the vetting's been concluded. So the whole background checking process is going on in tandem. And once the results are through, then that's confirmed. So That's the stage.
Emily Slade: And when you're then one of the three, like one of three rejected people, we've completed our checks and we've decided we're not going to go forward with your blah, blah, blah. Are you able to find out why? Are you able to find out which videos, what it was exactly, why they don't think you're a good fit for it?
Martin Hardy: Super juicy area. Again, I love it. The recommendation in general is that the screening happens at the latest stage of the process, right? So that it doesn't become an influential factor of the first stage where somebody just says, well, I've seen somebody, I've seen a post on the social media, I'm not having that person. It should be holistic. There's lots of checks and you can name them all, right? Criminal records checks.
Susie Thomson: Oh, yeah, financial probity, which is a credit check. You've got sanctions list, you've got employment, you've got education. I can rattle them all through, there are so many, absolutely.
Martin Hardy: So there's, so, and we actually produce about 15 different types of social media, like vetting checks, online checks, right? So even within the social media part, there's lots of checks, types, right? Because it's open source intelligence. So it's fair game, public information that the employees are concerned about. Let's talk about what a candidate can rely on. So the first question is, let's say you're coming out of university and you're going into an industry or you have an intention to going into an industry, first thing to do is educate yourself to say, what are the industry-specific mandates in this area? And there's enough information on things like the Right to Socials blogs and the likes where you can find that information quite easily. There's also some resources on the Right to Socials dashboard for the individual to find out that information. So learn about it first of all, educate yourself. The second thing is, what does that mean? Some industry sectors like the Department for Education, they've stated that checks should be done at shortlisting. Okay, now that's a little bit different to how most checks, most employers will do it. They'll do it at final stage and they'll see that as the right way to do it. But the Department for Education says it should be a short distinct because they're concerned about the welfare of the children. So they're saying, let's just VAT these people out. Now, of course, it's not mandated in the sense that they get punished, that the employee gets punished if you don't, if you only do it at final stage. But there is punishment if they don't do it. do it at all, okay? So it's very much at the discretion of the data controller, the school or the university or whoever's screening to decide whether they do it right at the end, only for the final candidate selection or whether they do it earlier on in the shortlisted process. So I would say for a candidate, don't take the risk. in the end, it doesn't change the scenario. Yeah, but it's going to have a one way around that. So, and in its perspective, look after the healthy things we've talked about today, and then that will mean they're covered. And it doesn't matter. In fact, do it six months before applying for the role. Don't wait.
Susie Thomson: That's great. That's a good idea.
Martin Hardy: Don't wait till you're putting a CV in front of somebody, because possibly you've already been spotted and seen and, you know, by any way. So I would say it's at any time. So legislatively, so there are some minor kind of guidance around associations and authorities that force some requirements. And then from a privacy perspective, coming back to the question you asked, are they allowed to see the report? This should never be a covert thing, right? The employer should not treat this as being a They should be very transparent. In terms of, you mentioned consent, specifically in this area, and this is the rights of the candidate. So the employer, from a risk assessment for a role, will be assessing what consent they need to get. Now, actually under the UK GDPR, all you need is a lawful basis to carry out a check, okay? So on a strict case, So it might be safeguarding of children, it might be fraud, prevention of fraud, it might be because the individual will be managing high value assets. So there's lots of different reasons an employer will choose what is the lawful basis. And the UK GTPR lists about 7 or 8 different options. They range from things like public tasks, which means it's mandated by government, or it might mean it might be something like legitimate interest. That's quite a common one. So they have a legitimate interest to protect their brand, their assets, etc. So legitimate interest is the lawful basis. On that basis, you don't need consent as such. It's well recommended in the industry. You should get consent anyway. But very importantly for social media checks, especially, The processor is going to process special category data under UK GDPR. Race, gender, etc. Okay, so slightly different to a DBS or something like that, which is binary. Do I have a criminal record or not? When you've got this massive online portal that expresses you in different ways. And so consent is absolutely necessary for special category data processing. And that's where you get into the fine detail of the legislation to say a good screening, professional screening company will ensure the consent is changed before. Absolutely, yeah.
Susie Thomson: And that's what the PBSA, the Professional Background Screening Association, absolutely endorses. Consent is key.
Martin Hardy: So hopefully that takes it into a bit of depth, but the candidates' rights are clear that if there is a negative decision, if there's an adverse decision being made, they have absolutely every right to ask the employer For a copy of their report.
Susie Thomson: And would not a discussion have happened in advance between employer and candidate to explain? why there's been a negative and would that not be that's responsible employment, isn't it?
Martin Hardy: Yeah, I mean, what would you say from a general perspective, you know, because I already said it should be holistic, it's vetting, it's not just about the social media shack, it's you know, you might have the best sales guy in the world with the best history and you know, and then he's made some silly posts online. You know, the employer might look at it holistically and say, well, actually, let's deal with those posts. So you show the candidate the report, discuss it with them. So again, good employers will engage with the candidate on, particularly on minor content and actually resolve the issue. I mean, that's what the transparency is about, right? So see the report, learn what you look like, learn what the employer is using, and you can do that through the right to socials platform. Fix up what you, what you, you think is a risk for you, get the job. And if there's a, if you don't get the job, perfectly acceptable to ask why. So even if the employer doesn't offer a social media vetting report, you can ask for it. And we as a business and an industry, we encourage transparency. This is not covered. And it should not be a surprise to the candidate. It's their profile. Yeah. I think that's it, isn't it?
Emily Slade: If you're thinking of like a tweet from 2009, that's when you might be like, yeah, exactly right, yeah. That's really nice as well, the thought that you can sit down with your potential future employer and be like, here's what was going through my mind when I did that. It won't happen again.
Susie Thomson: Absolutely. That's a good employer.
Martin Hardy: Is it a stat time? Shall I throw in a stat?
Susie Thomson: Yeah. He loves his stats.
Martin Hardy: The key thing is by 2030, it's estimated that 90% and more of employers will be expected to use automated digital screening. So that's huge. And that early digital reputation management improves hiring assessed by three to four times. Okay. So these are all, these are not our stats. These are published by professional bodies and associations that have gone into these. So your digital identity is basically going to become as important as your CV. So I would say treat your digital identity as an asset, okay?
It's not something to fear or ignore. We've just talked about that. It's something you can shape and own it, as you said earlier, right? Really own it. A few small changes, whether that's reviewing privacy or being mindful about, you know, what's public, sharing things that you genuinely care about. We didn't talk too much about the positive things, but, share what you're genuinely, positive about. Share it online because it certainly shows you as in the right light.
Susie Thomson: So it can be used for a force for good, can't it?
Martin Hardy: Absolutely it can, yeah. And it can have a massive impact over time. So remember that time doesn't, you know, there's no cut off here. Again, we've chatted on the sidelines about the history, you know, it's 15, 10 years. of history is important to curate. And the earlier you start, the better. So that, you're not waiting for the job application and just doing it then. Take control now. It's not going away. 90% of employees are going to be screening digitally. Take control, own it.
Susie Thomson: Yeah. Do you know, Martin, I have a vision of you and I being in schools and advising kids of today on actually making sure that their digital profile is what it should be. Wouldn't that just be a great, great outcome?
Martin Hardy: Yeah, absolutely. That would be fantastic.
Emily Slade: Yeah, just as important as the understanding of AI.
Susie Thomson: At the same age.
Martin Hardy: So the closing line, I'd say, is your future self will genuinely thank you for it if you own it and do something about it.
Emily Slade: Amazing. Thank you so much for your time today, guys. Thank you very much.
Martin Hardy: It's been fabulous to be here.
Susie Thomson: Yeah, As you can see, we're passionate about the subject, so great that we could give something and, you know, help folks along the way.
Martin Hardy: 100%, yeah. Thanks again, Emily.
Notes on transcript
This transcript was produced using a combination of automated software and human transcribers and may contain errors. The audio version is definitive and should be checked before quoting.
Find out more
- Discover how employers really see you online - and what to do about it.
- Get advice on social media and job hunting.
- Head to iTunes or Spotify to leave us a review.