Follower count and engagement
RemoveThe vendor says: “Large audiences and high engagement indicate strong communication skills.”
The six questions
- Fail1. Is it related to the job?
Social reach measures popularity, not the ability to communicate at work.
- Fail2. Does it stand in for who someone is?
Tracks family income and background (strong), gender (weak). Reach tracks urban background, device access and leisure time.
- Pass3. Is it the right person?
Counts belong to the account.
- Concern4. Did the candidate publish it, and would they expect an employer to use it this way?
Audiences are built socially, not professionally.
- Fail5. Does it work equally for everyone?
Candidates with private or no accounts score zero.
- Fail6. Is there a less intrusive way?
A less intrusive method answers the same question: Assess communication directly in the interview and the written exercise.
If a signal stands in strongly or directly for a personal characteristic (question 2 fails), remove it.
None. A removed signal is not used under any condition.
Evidence
Recruiters rated job-seeking students' Facebook profiles; the students were followed into their jobs. Ratings were unrelated to supervisor-rated performance, turnover intentions or actual turnover, added nothing beyond standard predictors, and differed across groups, favouring women and White applicants.
- US Uniform Guidelines: the four-fifths ruleReference only
A selection rate for any group that is less than four-fifths (80%) of the rate for the group with the highest rate is generally regarded as evidence of adverse impact.
The Supreme Court held privacy to be a fundamental right and applied a proportionality test to intrusions: a legitimate aim, a rational connection to it, no less restrictive means that would work, and a fair balance between the aim and the intrusion.