Canadian HR Reporter

CANADIAN HR REPORTER CANADIAN HR REPORTER May 5, 2014 May 5, 2014 NEWS NEWS 3 e new vetting process? e new vetting process? Mozilla CEO controversy raises questions around screening execs Mozilla CEO controversy raises questions around screening execs BY LIZ BERNIER THE RESIGNATION of a Sili- con Valley CEO is raising some tricky questions about how the vetting process for senior execu- tives is changing. As social media continues to blur the boundaries between public and private life, what fac- tors should organizations weigh when considering a candidate for a spot in the C-suite? Brendan Eich, co-founder of Mozilla, resigned just days after becoming the new CEO. Eich stepped down amid controversy over a US$1,000 donation he made to support a 2008 gay-mar- riage ban in California (Proposi- tion 8). e ban has since been overturned. Mitchell Baker, chair of the Mozilla Foundation and Mozilla, wrote on her personal blog that Eich had always been profession- al in her experience working with him, but Mozilla has a culture of inclusiveness and supports mar- riage equality. "Mozilla's commitment to in- clusiveness for our LGBT com- munity, and for all underrepre- sented groups, will not change. Acting for or on behalf of Mozilla, it is unacceptable to limit oppor- tunity for anyone based on the nature of sexual orientation and/ or gender identity. is is not only a commitment, it is our identity," she wrote. Mozilla also released a state- ment affi rming its position on the issue. e case raises broader issues around how the vetting process is changing in response to social media and the ready availability of information on individuals' per- sonal lives. Employers more cautious As access to personal information continues to evolve, employers are generally becoming more cau- tious, said Kathy Brooks, senior director of leadership and talent practice at Hay Group in Toronto. "Depending upon the roles, it's not unusual for organizations to do very thorough investiga- tions, and that can include doing Google searches: What has this person said? What has this per- son done? Is there anything that they may have commented to a reporter that may come back at a later point?" she said. "Executives — and not just executives — need to be increasingly aware that an action I take today may defi nitely come back and bite me." During these in-depth back- ground screenings, many orga- nizations assess not just skills and qualifi cations but whether a candidate is a good fi t with an or- ganization's culture. "When boards are vetting for senior leadership, such as for a CEO, there are two things that have to take precedence. One is, can this person create shareholder value? And, two, are they aligned to our culture? Do they share the same values?" said Brooks. "So the vetting has to take a look, and typically does take a look, as much at the value systems of the individual as it does their likelihood of being able to bring in the bottom line." Of course, this intense level of scrutiny isn't always realistic when vetting employees for lower-level positions, said Tim Hardie, presi- dent and CEO of Hire Perfor- mance in Markham, Ont. "The reason we haven't got- ten into (that service) is... there's hundreds of diff erent venues you can promote yourself and do stu- pid things in or good things in — whatever the case might be. And to vet all of those for one company is really almost impossible. You'd have to know every (social plat- form) there is," he said. No room for privacy in C-suite It's always a good idea for job- searchers to be aware of how their actions — both online and off — may be viewed by organiza- tions. But for C-suite candidates, it's non-negotiable. For senior executives, there is no longer a separation between their public and private personas — at least, not on the Internet, said Brooks. "In senior leadership, there's never really been a separation — or there hasn't been for a long time. I think it's naive of senior leaders to think there is a separa- tion. You're the face of an organi- zation and you're the role model for every other person in that or- ganization. So if you have beliefs that are contrary to the organiza- tion, then it's unlikely that you can fulfi ll those roles," she said. "A leader can't get away with that now — everything is known about them. ere's no privacy and there shouldn't be an expec- tation (of privacy)." As soon as something hits the Internet, it becomes public knowledge, said Connie Stamper, regional vice-president for man- agement resources at Robert Half in Toronto. "Tattoos on the Internet are forever… that is just the nature of the business now," she said. "I don't think that this is something that should change your personal beliefs... we're still allowed to live private lives. What we have to un- derstand is that private life does not include the Internet. "We have forgotten that the In- ternet is not a private place… You need to look for ways to maintain a level of privacy if you are curat- ing a career at the same time." And with no privacy, every- thing we've ever done is under the microscope, said Brooks. "As soon as an announcement is made, there's somebody some- where in someone's past who's go- ing to pull something up and bring it to the forefront. If we think we have privacy, we're hugely mistaken." Balancing act So, how can an employer balance the importance of qualifi cations with the importance of cultural fi t? One way is to measure the can- didate's values against the orga- nizational mission statement or values statement, said Stamper. "(When considering) some- body's personal life, their personal habits, their personal activities, et cetera… balance those against the company's mission statement, against their core values," she said, adding that you should look for indicators to measure against that "fi t" bucket. "Is it an aff ront to our values statement over here at ABC com- pany? And if it's not, and the can- didate looks solid, then part of the hiring process should be 'Let's see if the candidate can put that in context for us,'" she said. "If the candidate looks, holisti- cally, like they might be a reason- able solution for an opening, then we've got to consider what the context is." But if the individual presents a real affront to the organiza- tion's core values, that's when you should reconsider, said Stamper. If someone does slip through the screening process and contro- versial information turns up after the fact, then it becomes a trickier situation, said Brooks. " e harsh reality is that that may impact business. I may be very good at building business un- til such time as people start ques- tioning who I am. And when they start questioning who I am, they start questioning the judgment within the organization," she said. "Similarly, am I going to want to do business with an organization whose basic values systems are contrary to my own? e likeli- hood is no — particularly if I have options." ere's one central question or- ganizations should consider when deciding what course of action to take, said Brooks. "Would we have hired him had we known?" she said. "If we had known and we'd still have hired them, then the issue is just man- aging the fallout, but we're stay- ing fi rm with our decision. If it's one where they say, 'You know what, we would have paused' or 'We might not have hired them,' then they need to take a look and say, 'OK, how do we unwind this in a way that actually shows who we are as an organization in the manner that we're handling this?'" Ideally, though, a thorough vetting process will prevent such situations from arising in the fi rst place. That's why background screening is so invaluable, said Hardie. "It's important to their com- pany — they need to know who they're hiring. eir future de- pends on the person they're hir- ing's past." service awards peer recognition sales awards performance on-the-spot E m p l o yee R ec og n i ti on S o l u t i o n s www.terryberry.com 800.253.0882 Get Started! ohscomply.com Your Comprehensive OHS Resource Are you ready for mandatory OHS training requirements in place on July 1, 2014? OHS Comply is a division of Emond Harnden LLP. With no privacy, everything we've ever done is under the microscope.

• Cover