The Social Network For The Recruiting Industry
Wednesday Wisdom: Do you Tattoo?
- Rating:
4.8 after 7 votes
Dear Claudia,
I recently submitted a highly qualified candidate to a search and the hiring manager called him directly for a pre-screen. While they were talking on the phone, the HM did some snooping on the Internet and found this candidate’s Facebook page, complete with pictures of his near full-body tattoo. It turns out the HM doesn’t like tattoos, so he closed the candidate off. I’m pretty angry over the whole thing, because candidates with this mix of skills are very hard to come by in any economy. The HM is an idiot, but isn’t this also a form of discrimination? I’ve seen the candidate in an interview setting, and he looks completely professional (nothing shows below the wrist or above the shirt neckline). How can I get the HM to rethink his decision?
Amazed by the Stupidity
Dear Amazed,
Isn’t it funny how recruiting (matchmaking, really) always seems to be dancing with personal bias? Everybody has a bias in the hiring process, even when they try hard not to: the Hiring Manager, the candidate…heck, even your own bias as a recruiter (what you think the HM needs, or even your own likes and dislikes in personality types or communication styles) screens folks in and out of the pipeline. It’s just how the human brain works: we categorize things that are similar, and we tend to perceive what we expect to perceive.
In and of itself, bias isn’t a bad thing. But it’s good to keep in mind the domino effect it has: bias influences what we perceive about the world around us, and what we perceive influences how we choose to behave. And behavior most often gets us into trouble: social norms evolve to help people understand how to play nicely with others in the sandbox; legal systems evolve to provide consequences when we cross the line.
So is this manager discriminating against the candidate? You don’t say if the company has a tattoo policy -- but if they do, and if that policy is applied equally to both men and women in the workplace, there’s no foul here. Employers have the right to implement grooming and dress policies to protect legitimate business interests.
But if this is nothing more than a Hiring Manager’s bias affecting his decision making process, you have two choices: reason with him, or take your most excellent candidate and market him to the competition. I’m guessing that this difficult-to-find skillset will be most interesting to Managers who couldn't care less about body art but are highly biased toward market dominance.
Happy recruiting!
**
In my day job, I’m the Head of Products for Improved Experience, where we help employers use feedback to measure and manage competitive advantage in hiring and retention. Learn more about us here.
Do you have a question you'd like answered in this weekly forum? Drop me a line!
I recently submitted a highly qualified candidate to a search and the hiring manager called him directly for a pre-screen. While they were talking on the phone, the HM did some snooping on the Internet and found this candidate’s Facebook page, complete with pictures of his near full-body tattoo. It turns out the HM doesn’t like tattoos, so he closed the candidate off. I’m pretty angry over the whole thing, because candidates with this mix of skills are very hard to come by in any economy. The HM is an idiot, but isn’t this also a form of discrimination? I’ve seen the candidate in an interview setting, and he looks completely professional (nothing shows below the wrist or above the shirt neckline). How can I get the HM to rethink his decision?
Amazed by the Stupidity
Dear Amazed,
Isn’t it funny how recruiting (matchmaking, really) always seems to be dancing with personal bias? Everybody has a bias in the hiring process, even when they try hard not to: the Hiring Manager, the candidate…heck, even your own bias as a recruiter (what you think the HM needs, or even your own likes and dislikes in personality types or communication styles) screens folks in and out of the pipeline. It’s just how the human brain works: we categorize things that are similar, and we tend to perceive what we expect to perceive.
In and of itself, bias isn’t a bad thing. But it’s good to keep in mind the domino effect it has: bias influences what we perceive about the world around us, and what we perceive influences how we choose to behave. And behavior most often gets us into trouble: social norms evolve to help people understand how to play nicely with others in the sandbox; legal systems evolve to provide consequences when we cross the line.
So is this manager discriminating against the candidate? You don’t say if the company has a tattoo policy -- but if they do, and if that policy is applied equally to both men and women in the workplace, there’s no foul here. Employers have the right to implement grooming and dress policies to protect legitimate business interests.
But if this is nothing more than a Hiring Manager’s bias affecting his decision making process, you have two choices: reason with him, or take your most excellent candidate and market him to the competition. I’m guessing that this difficult-to-find skillset will be most interesting to Managers who couldn't care less about body art but are highly biased toward market dominance.
Happy recruiting!
**
In my day job, I’m the Head of Products for Improved Experience, where we help employers use feedback to measure and manage competitive advantage in hiring and retention. Learn more about us here.
Do you have a question you'd like answered in this weekly forum? Drop me a line!
Tags: bias, dear claudia, dear_claudia, perception, recruiting, tattoos, wednesday wisdom
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Tom Dimmick on
-
Dear Claudia -
I believe that clients, within the scope of applicable employment laws, have the right to determine the reasons for accepting or rejecting a candidate. Frequently, we as recruiters have to deal with the consequences of their decisions. In this case, I agree with your recommendation to market the candidate elsewhere. If the candidate is really that good and is also uniquely qualified, placement is only a matter of time.
From a candidate side, I often marvel at the choices candidates make as they venture out into the recruiting world. Pictures on MySpace and Facebook must be appropriate to the position being sought and candidates need to know that hiring managers and recruiters will check them. In a competitive market place like this one is, all candidates and recruiters need to make certain that hiring managers are not given an excuse to say "no".
Tom
-
Permalink Reply by KarenM on
-
Good responses Claudia and Tom
Which makes me wonder, how many recruiters will take the time to remind their candidates to modify their profiles.
Personally I cannot wait for the Government to allow the candidate to have more privacy on the internet, but until then the reality is that companies will unfortunately make judgments on candidates based upon subjective bias rather than objective qualifications - (and they wonder why they can't find good, quality skilled candidates????? )
Anyways, till then, there are unfortunately many who still believe that what's online stays online, and that their Privacy "rights" take precedence.. so, I wonder, how many of us recruiters will maintain objectivity? educate our candidates about the reality of their "privacy" and allow them to be prepared for the hardships of looking for employment?
Or would we be subjective as well?
-
Permalink Reply by Jerry Albright on -
Sorry Karen - but you are once again looking to the GOVERNMENT to "protect" us from ourselves, aren't you? It really surprises me to see someone in this business - a business which is really quite an entreprenerial field - to look to the government as much as you. Not trying to start a flame war here - just a reasonable dialogue about your need to be protected so much by the government. Very odd, really.....
But on to this recruiter's situation.
How about this? "Look dude you are obviously interested in making sure anyone with a PC is fully aware of your gorgeous tatoos. Tatoos are important to you - otherwise you wouldn't be advertising them. I've got some good news for you. It turns out you wouldn't be happy working with my client because the manager doesn't like tatoos and since they are an important part of who you are - this isn't going to work out. Aren't you glad we found out BEFORE going to work there?"
No need for the government to solve these issues.
-
Permalink Reply by Amitai Givertz on -
Jerry, the government protecting the privacy of candidates means different things to different people, does it not?
Jerry Albright said:Sorry Karen - but you are once again looking to the GOVERNMENT to "protect" us from ourselves, aren't you? It really surprises me to see someone in this business - a business which is really quite an entreprenerial field - to look to the government as much as you. Not trying to start a flame war here - just a reasonable dialogue about your need to be protected so much by the government. Very odd, really.....
-
Permalink Reply by Rayanne on -
Ooooo.... we have the makings of a very interesting discussion here. I just received information regarding this webinar in my inbox: http://www.avantresources.com/lifediscrim_webinar.html
Given the growing numbers of individuals that sport alternative hairstyles, numerous & visible tattoos, and multiple & varied piercings, this will definitely be an issue we see more and more often.
Employers like Disney still have very strict policies about tattoos and even facial hair. Potential candidates need to be made aware that their online presence is sure to be reviewed by any savvy recruiter or HM. If they are ok with what is represented then they should be ok with a company that is not ok with what they share or allow visible to all the world. Jerry's answer to the candidate is right on. It is good news for both parties..., retention folks, retention.
-
-
As an individual who has lived in Europe, as well as the Caribbean, both extremely socialist (not the same as communism), I can say quite effectively, especially seeing what has been occurring in America this past couple of years, even more-so this last year.. I am more afraid of big Business than I am afraid of big government.. We are driven by the dollar, barring corruption the Government isn't driven by the dollar, the government is here to take care of it's citizens - and at the most part it has done a fair job.
Actually jerry, based upon many of the comments here on these networks, someone has to protect the interest of the candidates, even if it has to be the Government, as it appears unfortunately that many recruiters are more interested in the might dollar rather than than the interest of the individuals we represent. --- fyi, please don't jump to conclusions.. I am NOT for Government regulation.. though I appreciate standards and guidelines created where there are none, and especially when there is a distortion of what is considered to be a value system in an industry that has none.. Pro SELF regulation.. which is overseen by the government.. IE the medical system
There has just got to be a reason why the FTC has considered the employment industry to be the 14th most complained about industry in the United States! I am sure it isn't because we are so altruistic http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2008/02/fraud.shtm
Is it really weird to care about the best interest of people?
Rayanne and Claudia, here is an interesting twist regarding Corporate Policies --- Religious accommodations: Must you let employee wear a nose ring? http://sn.im/kqopf
-
Permalink Reply by Jerry Albright on
-
But Karen - this issue is not about needing to be protected. Isn't the candidate responsible for the image they create for the world to see? But now you're saying the government needs to step in and "protect" them from the reaction by employers for those images?
Sorry but I don't agree with needing Big Brother at every turn - especially when it comes to the ramifications of individual choice.
-
Permalink Reply by Maren Hogan on -
How about from the candidate's perspective (something I think Jerry touched on a bit). If you are constantly being told that social media is a way to promote yourself and make yourself more visible, shouldn't you take the good with the bad?
You do what you have to do. I had all kinds of facial piercings when I worked for a highly conservative Christian newspaper. But I had to take them out and wear long skirts in 90 degree weather to work in an Albanian orphanage and you know what? Not once did I complain because those piercings were my choice.
I've also warned candidates about nose rings pre-interview and watched them dig them furiously out of their nose. That is NOT awesome to watch.
-
Permalink Reply by Rayanne on
-
hahahahahaha.... thanks for the roll. The Stupid Sandwich... I feel a post coming on. "All over your chin"
Sandra McCartt said:Dear Amazed,
It sounds like to me you took a bite of the "stupid" sandwich yourself. Did you look at your candidate's facebook page before you sent him to see what ,if any ,crazy stuff he had out there to create his "brand". This one really got carried away with branding himself it sounds like. Had you done that and gotten a full dose of a cat, who, in some people's opinion ,is into self multilation and exhibitionism, what then? Now you got yourself several options. Did you ask what your client's dress code, internet use, and conduct policies were so you knew the culture. Stupid or not it's their railroad and they get to blow the whistle. since you took a bite of stupid yourself Jerry's answer is the only way to go. If you had really known your candidate and your company there were some prior and proper preps to prevent a piss poor performance.
Options to keep from taking another bite of the stupid sandwitch.
A. Internet search result not pleasant, quick call your candidate and say, "Listen Picaso, while i am into body art myself, some folks may not appreciate that Monkey waving out of your butt that you have on your facebook page so my question is: Is this job more important to you than branding yourself as a candidate for the circus. If so how about we put the monkey under cover. If your candidate thinks that his right to express his love for his mother, three girlfriends , a fire breathing dragon along with his stint in the Marines and the monkey on the internet is more important than gainful employment move on to option B. If he says , "oh crap, i got drunk in Singapore and did that, wish i hadn't but i really want this job" . Your question is, are you amenable to taking that off your page, wearing long sleeve shirts summer and winter and never making the evidence of a big drunk in Singapore known to your co workers? Candidate says, "absolutely" Move on to option C.
Option B. Determining that Picaso is into a self defeating mind set of self expresssion. Find a company that thinks the Monkey is funny, the hiring manager has a prison tat on his neck and roll with your candidate.
Option C. Determining that your candidate has matured a bit since he expressed himself on his backside and thought only his rat pack looked at his brand, make sure the mess is off the net, make sure he understands that the company culture is ultra conservative, make sure that his facebook page has a business pic, a pic of his wife and kids on the way to Easter mass and a picture of his mom and grandmother as well as notation of his distinguished service medal. Make a call to the HM, tell him that your candidate got stupid and had some extensive body art done while he was serving the country overseas ,is aware that it needs to be covered up and is willing to be sure it is at all times. Refer the HM to the facebook page or assume he will look at it, send the resume and set up the interview. Pray that your candidate is telling the truth. Pray that the HM will see another side of the candidate and be able to evaluate him on the basis of his interview, his skills and think you are a brick for making full disclosure.
You can't fix stupid on the part of your candidate or your HM but you can keep from taking a bite of the sandwich and having stupid all over your own chin.
-
Permalink Reply by Slouch on -
This is the government speaking - we will not allow your children to listen to Black Sabbath because they might hang themselves. We hope you appreciate us stepping in because we really didn't think that you as a parent were capable.
Jerry Albright said:But Karen - this issue is not about needing to be protected. Isn't the candidate responsible for the image they create for the world to see? But now you're saying the government needs to step in and "protect" them from the reaction by employers for those images?
Sorry but I don't agree with needing Big Brother at every turn - especially when it comes to the ramifications of individual choice.
-
-
so Jerry, would you rather big brother be your boss? To have them monitor what you do even when you are off the clock? Many a boss have been known to fire an employee based not upon what they do at work, but by what they see online..
Since when are tats an objective employment qualification.. and what does it have to do with ability?
When and where does Work and Social Life meet, and where does it end? Just because we can intervene like voyeurs, does it make it right?
Lastly.. why or why is it, that with you and a few other individuals, that whenever I write something I have to repeat my main statement.. because my initial comments get taken out of context or misquoted?
My initial comment or question in this situation were----
---- "Anyways, till then, there are unfortunately many who still believe that what's online stays online, and that their Privacy "rights" take precedence.. so, I wonder, how many of us recruiters will maintain objectivity? educate our candidates about the reality of their "privacy" and allow them to be prepared for the hardships of looking for employment?
Or would we be subjective as well?"
-
Permalink Reply by Nick Leslie-Miller on -
I dont know about your government Karen but ours here in the UK is driven by a lust for power. if you think a government is even remotely interested in helping people on an altruistic basis then we have places here in England that can help you.
KarenM said:As an individual who has lived in Europe, as well as the Caribbean, both extremely socialist (not the same as communism), I can say quite effectively, especially seeing what has been occurring in America this past couple of years, even more-so this last year.. I am more afraid of big Business than I am afraid of big government.. We are driven by the dollar, barring corruption the Government isn't driven by the dollar, the government is here to take care of it's citizens - and at the most part it has done a fair job.
Actually jerry, based upon many of the comments here on these networks, someone has to protect the interest of the candidates, even if it has to be the Government, as it appears unfortunately that many recruiters are more interested in the might dollar rather than than the interest of the individuals we represent. --- fyi, please don't jump to conclusions.. I am NOT for Government regulation.. though I appreciate standards and guidelines created where there are none, and especially when there is a distortion of what is considered to be a value system in an industry that has none.. Pro SELF regulation.. which is overseen by the government.. IE the medical system
There has just got to be a reason why the FTC has considered the employment industry to be the 14th most complained about industry in the United States! I am sure it isn't because we are so altruistic http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2008/02/fraud.shtm
Is it really weird to care about the best interest of people?
Rayanne and Claudia, here is an interesting twist regarding Corporate Policies --- Religious accommodations: Must you let employee wear a nose ring? http://sn.im/kqopf
© 2009 Created by Slouch
