Should Employers Use Social Network Profiles in the Hiring Process?
The Internet has made our personal lives public. Thanks to social networks, the kind of public scrutiny that was once reserved for the very famous, is now possible for many of us. As we wrote last month, social networking sites like Facebook have become your "permanent record" on the Internet, and that privacy on the web is just an illusion. But do employees even have a legitimate reason for looking at your social networking profiles and other information on the web when hiring you? Is that fair?
This week's debate in the Business Week Debate Room tackles that issue: "When considering job applicants, prospective employers have no business poking around their profiles on social networking sites. Pro or con?"
The Debate
On the pro side, Greg Fish argued that social networking profiles aren't resumes and companies should not use them when determining if an applicant should be hired. "A public profile is a vehicle for casually interacting with others in an informal setting, on personal free time," he wrote. "When companies use these profiles to find not only a professional but also an ideological match for a job, they’re misleading themselves and building ill will with talented prospective employees, who might decline to apply for a job for fear a comment about China on their blogs makes them persona non grata."
Fish's arguement hinged on the premise that by utilizing social networking profiles in the hiring process, employees were opening themselves up to potential discrimination lawsuits, and worse may be doing so on the premise of false information.
On the con side, Timothy Lee said that there were plenty of legitimate reasons for employers to look at social networking profiles of prospective hires. "Employees in sales, public relations, and customer service function as representatives for the companies they work for, so employers have a legitimate interest in ensuring potential workers won’t embarrass the company," he wrote.
According to Lee, people shouldn't fear that an employer will get a hold of their social networking profile, but instead they should expect it and use it to their advantage. By using your social networking profile and other bits of your online persona as an "extended resume," workers can "demonstrate passion and depth of knowledge for his or her area of expertise."
But Do We Actually Control Our Own Profiles?
Both Fish and Lee make compelling points. Certainly social networking profiles and other stuff you put online is public, and you should expect that anyone might see it. Carefully crafting your public online image to emphasize your best qualities is a good idea -- treat how you behave online the same as how you'd behave in any other public place.
But at the same time, the way many social networking sites are set up, we don't necessarily control all the information we put out there. It's true that you probably shouldn't be posting party photos from your college days on Facebook while you're applying for a job as an elementary school teacher, but do you friends know that? What if they tag you in those photos? You can remove the tags -- but only if you're a member of Facebook. Is it reasonable to expect people to actively maintain profiles on every popular social network or photo and video sharing site just to keep on top of photos that your college buddies might post?
The bottom line is that employers can, will, and probably should look at social networking profiles and other online information sources when making hiring decisions. But they should also take the information they find there with a large helping of salt and keep in mind that the Internet is not necessarily the most accurate representation of that real world.
FOLLOW RWW ON TWITTER
RECENT JOBS
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts
I come down on the no side of this. Or rather, I come down on the 'don't be a hypocrite' side.
Lee's comment that "...employers have a legitimate interest in ensuring potential workers won’t embarrass the company" comes dangerously close to hypocrisy. After all, do we really believe that the antics now being documented via Flickr, Facebook etc are something new to this generation? That none of the people whom a company hired before these sites existed did silly and embarrassing things? Of course previous generations did pretty much the same thing - there just aren't photos. Pick 10 of the most professional people you know - it's likely that most of them did things much like what we now see in the profiles of younger people. Yet these are people who you feel are very professional. Would it have been a good decision for your company to not hire them because of something in their Facebook profile?
There are two sides to reputation management - the person publishing information needs to be aware that everything they share is accessible to anyone and that it lives on for long after the event. But the person viewing information also needs to acknowledge that everyone is human - that people do silly things and that to expect polished perfection all of the time is unreasonable. The trend toward demanding that people represent the company 24 x7 and be well nigh perfect at all times is dangerous and the refusal to acknowledge that the people already working for you were almost certainly doing similar things that just aren't documented is, yes, hypocritical. The important thing is whether a candidate will realize that, once hired, they DO reflect on the company and act accordingly when out with partners, colleagues, etc.
I really wonder how much of this is driven by the divide between people who grew up with these tools and people who did not and who therefore are unused to the openness that social network sites foster.
If a company has a candidate for a job who looks and interviews extremely well but who has shared behaviors that could embarrass the company if done at a company social function... raise it with them. Yes, you need to feel confident that someone will be professional and represent the company well. You also have to recognize that people have personal lives, are imperfect and have foibles.
Posted by: rick gregory | March 21, 2008 11:42 AM
From an employer perspective, I try to find all the information I can on a prospective employee. This includes searching for their names and emails on Google, as well as Myspace, Facebook, LinkIn, etc.
I'm not just looking for dirt. Your social network profile can be a great opportunity to enhance your image as someone who is truly passionate about what they do. The web is a public place and people are responsible for their actions in public-- regardless of it's in a virtual space or at a bar on the corner street. Ultimately it’s up the individual to maintain their reputation and carry themselves well.
Posted by: Bill S | March 21, 2008 11:48 AM
Anwser to Headline question: It doesn't matter what they should or shouldn't do - they will and they do.
Rick @1 - You make some great points and I think that when investigating another person on the internet, one should try to withhold judgment.
But I think that you underestimate the desire of the human mind to synthesize information as quickly as possible and to fill in gaps of missing information with snap judgements.
I'm no anthropologist and I don't even play one on TV, but I think I'm safe in assuming that a human being's inclination to start making assumptions about a person as soon as possible is hard-wired. We are a social animal and we are constantly figuring out where other people sit in the social heirarchy so that we can know where we ourselves sit in the heirarchy.
As much as it sounds nice to think that the next generation of humans who grow up with social networks will somehow unlearn our human instincts and withhold immediate judgment about a person, I think it is unrealistic.
Of course, our judgements about a person CAN and DO change as we get to know them. But the critical first impression is something that I think will always be influenced by whatever a person sees first -- and if that's a Facebook photo of me (I'm a guy) in a TuTu, well then I made my own bed.
Posted by: kayvaan | March 21, 2008 12:47 PM
Employers *should* use all the resources available to them to investigate potential employees. That being said, employers are going to have to get used to employees doing crazy things in their off-time.
Posted by: Mark Johnson | March 21, 2008 1:01 PM
If you were the employer naturally you would want to know everything about the person.
Their social networks might provide information whether to hire or not to hire a person.
This may help prospective workers by polishing their online image and getting a higher paying job or possibly a promotion!
Posted by: gabriel | March 21, 2008 1:05 PM
As long as its quid pro quo as Hannibal Lector would say. Couple of nagging issues come immediately to mind.
If I apply for a job and down at the bottom of the application, below all the legalese about "equal opportunity", "cannot be denied on the basis of race, religion.." the employer voluntarily states they look will look at the contents of my social network sites as part of the hiring process, then OK I am cool with it.
But ultimately any employer using social networks as part of hiring better damn well have the links to all its board members and executive's social networks too.
Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2.0
Posted by: Todd | March 21, 2008 1:10 PM
In the past, employers had to rely on recommendations, resumes and the word of potential employees. They had the length of an interview and decision making process to make a value judgment on an investment.
Think about any other investment a company would make. Wouldn't they do their research and find out all of the background they could before purchasing anything?
I think social networking is an opportunity for job seekers to boost their profile, but they need to learn how to do that first.
In super-mainstream pubs like Reader's Digest, they are providing tips to college age students on how to act online and when emailing potential employer's. It is all about perception, and job seekers must keep their lives transparent, online.
There is a fine line of having a photo on Facebook of a college kid drinking a beer, and another of a college kid hugging the porcelain.
Something else to note is that many people apply for jobs online through Monster, CareerBuilder, etc, and it is almost intuitive to do a google search on someone, if you receive their resume through one of these sites, before calling them in for an in person interview.
Posted by: PepperDigital | March 21, 2008 1:16 PM
if i send you a resume with my picture on it, are you going to look at it? this is an academic debate!
Posted by: eric shannon | March 21, 2008 3:32 PM
Hey haven’t you heard of Virtudex.com? It’s the best business social network. Invite only so here is the pass code - 1z1code Lets see they have Blogs, Groups, Personal File manager, Homepage news feeds with RSS, the best privacy settings I've ever seen on a social networking site...
Posted by: Tracy Stuart | March 21, 2008 10:28 PM
This is similar to a question I answered 3-4 months ago on LinkedIn. (When reviewing a candidate or consultant, do you take the LinkedIn recommendations seriously?)
I feel when someone puts up their profile on ANY social networking site, they are solely responsible for the content on it. What may seem wild and whacky to friends may not be seen in the same light by a prospective employer. These profiles only give an idea about a person's personality, likes/dislikes, and cannot be viewed with the same perspective as a resume.
It's a well connected world we live in now, and I'd definitely expect employers to have a look at social network profiles of prospective recruits, particularly if there is information which could be a cause for concern, a potential red flag.
However, I don't think making hiring decisions based solely on those profiles is apt. That should be decided by the content in the resume and a personal interview.
Posted by: Atul Karmarkar | March 23, 2008 12:18 AM
I don't think it's a question of 'should', the point is recruiters spend a considerable amount of their time working social networks to source talent in a wide range of industries. Your social network profile may not be a formal resume, but it is your narrative and you have the opportunity to tell a good story about your life and career. There are people hired every day off of social network profiles, social network recommendations and introductions to hiring managers or recruiters.
One of the things to keep in mind is that job boards are passive approaches, but social networks give you the option of reaching out to hiring managers or recruiters at companies you're targeting for employment. It works.
Posted by: Rusty Weston | March 24, 2008 9:34 AM
Part of the reason I got my last job was that my Facebook profile showed that I had an active social life and enjoyed a party (nearly 800 pictures worth now :D ). My professional skills are not brought into question on my Facebook profile, but for the record of where I went to university and my previous job, both of which are on my CV as well. If employers are to look at social networks for information on potential employees then they have to expect social information and the most you can expect out of that is perhaps further understanding over whether the potential employee is a good fit in the company, amongst the personalities already present.
I only said that part of the reason I got my job was my Facebook profile, the main part was of course my experience, ability and interview. If you are right for the job in all respects, then you have nothing to worry about. If bits let you down, be it poor interviewing or being a poor social fit with the company, then the job wasn't for you anyway.
Posted by: Phil Nash | March 24, 2008 10:05 AM