You may never know why. The email will arrive and reasons offered for your rejection might be the real ones—or not. Companies do not always like to admit that they have been scrolling through your information posted on your social media sites. Yet many, particularly the big ones, are doing just that. And in increasing numbers, they are acting on what they find when deciding whom to hire and whom to pass over.

Even before the pandemic, online checks on applicants were common. Research in 2017 found that 28% of large companies had turned down applicants after carrying out such checks. Reed Screening, a large agency doing this work, was asked to run over a third more social-media checks in December 2021 than a year earlier. And in 2022, the UK government gave the practice approval when the Department for Education said schools and colleges “should consider carrying out an online search (including social media) as part of their due diligence (尽职调查)”.

The way screening works is simple. Any “problematic” behaviour will be marked with a red flag. There are laws governing such online screening. David Erdos, Co-Director of the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law at the University of Cambridge, says that companies are supposed to warn candidates before screening their social media and tell them that they have the right to refuse consent (同意). Some companies follow these rules, but others may not. As for the right to refuse, it is hardly practicable. “Who on earth is going to be that person who says ‘Hang on a minute — I’m not happy about that’?” says Mr Erdos. “That itself is likely to be a red flag.”

All agree that the spread of online screening is alarming, as it is so unforgiving. People may be unable ever to be free of their online past, says Mr Erdos. Some footballers recently were punished for comments made almost a decade ago when they were but teenagers, as they have found to their cost.

Those within the industry think laws should be tightened, with punishment for illegal acts. In the meantime, caution (谨慎) is advisable. In talks with university students, Keith Rosser, director of Reed Screening warns them what companies will do to their social media when they apply for jobs. They are “universally terrified”, he says. And rightly.

When we think about people who are leaders, we often get a mental picture of someone who is older, smarter, and wiser than ourselves. Studies of leadership, though, have usually found that there is almost no relationship between skill as a leader and traditional measures of intelligence.

Some recent research by psychologist Red Fiedle and his colleagues suggests that both intelligence and experience may be important—but just now how important depends upon how stressful the work situation is and what kind of task is to be accomplished. The researchers obtained measures of intelligence, experience, performance, and stress.

Overall, these variables did not relate to one another. Men with high and low intelligence were equally likely to give good performance, as were men with more and less experience, or more and less stress with their bosses. When you look separately at those men who have high stress with their bosses, however, the picture changes.

In high stress situations, there was no connection between intelligence and performance, but there was between experience and performance. In other words, in difficult situations, it was helpful to “know the ropes”. In low stress situations, the findings were just the opposite. Experience was not related to good performance, but intelligence was. That is, when things are going well, intelligence is very useful in leadership.

A study of fire fighters’ performance under high and low stress conditions also found the experienced officers performed best under situations of stress. None of this is really very surprising. If you have ever had a supervisory job, you probably found that at least as much energy went into dealing with people as went into managing the job itself. Tests of intelligence—at least the ones we have now—do not predict success in dealing with people.

Business has slowed, layoffs mount, but executive pay continues to roar—at least so far. Business Week’s annual survey finds that chief executive officers (CEOs) at 365 of the largest US companies got compensation last year averaging $3.1 million—up l.3 percent from 1994.

Why are the top bosses getting an estimated 485 times the pay of a typical factory worker? That is up from 475 times in 1999 and a mere 42 times in 1980. One reason may be what experts call the “Lake Wobegon effect”. Corporate boards tend to consider that “all CEOs are above average”—a play on Garrison Keillor’s famous line in his public radio show, A Prairie Home Companion, that all the town’s children are “above average”. Consultants provide boards with surveys of corporate CEO compensation. Since directors are reluctant to regard their CEOs as below average, the compensation committees of boards tend to set pay at an above-average level. The result: Pay levels get raised.

Defenders of lavish CEO pay argue there is such a strong demand for experienced CEOs that the free market forces their pay up. They further maintain most boards structure pay packages to reflect an executive’s performance. They get paid more if their companies and their stock do well. So companies with high-paid CEOs generate great wealth for their shareholders.

But the supposed cream-of-the-crop executives did surprisingly poorly for their shareholders in 1999, says Scott Klinger, author of this report by a Boston-based Organization United for a Fair Economy. If an investor had put $10,000 apiece at the end of 1999 into the stock of those companies with the 10 highest-paid CEOs, by year-end 2000 the investment would have shrunk to $8.132. If $10,000 had been put into the Standard & Poor’s 500 stocks, it would have been worth $9,090. To Mr. Klinger, these findings suggest that the theory that one person, the CEO, is responsible for creating most of a corporation’s value is dead wrong. “It takes many employees to make a corporation profitable.”

With profits down, corporate boards may make more effort to tame executive compensation. And executives are making greater efforts to avoid pay cut. Since CEOs, seeing their options “under water” or worthless because of falling stock prices, are seeking more pay in cash or in restricted stock.