Rants
Questions
Soapbox
Best Practices
Apply today for a FREE subscription to CIO Magazine!
Tue, Mar 3, 2009 9:35 EST

|
Posted by: Meridith Levinson in Soapbox Topic: Personal ManagementBlog: Career Connection
Current Rating: |
Employers are increasingly trolling the web for information about prospective employees that they can use in their hiring decisions. Consequently, career experts advise job seekers to not post any photos, opinions or information on blogs and social networking websites that a potential employer might find offensive. Instead of cautioning job seekers to censor their activity online, we job seekers and defenders of our civil liberties should tell employers to stop snooping and to stop judging our behavior outside of work.
I'm tired of career experts advising job seekers to "play it safe" online by not posting any photos, opinions or information on blogs and social networking websites that a potential employer might find remotely off-putting.
I understand where these career counselors are coming from: They're in the business of dispensing advice that will help people land jobs. Recommending that people "play it safe" is as anodyne as it gets.
But instead of cautioning job seekers to censor their behavior and the information and pictures they post online, we job seekers and defenders of civil liberties should tell employers to stop snooping and stop judging our behavior outside of work. What we do, say and believe in our personal lives in most cases has no bearing on our ability to do a job, barring criminal behavior, of course.
Employer as Voyeur
Employers are increasingly trolling the Web for information about prospective employees that they can use in their hiring decisions. According to a survey CareerBuilder conducted last Fall, one-third of employers have disqualified a candidate after checking out the candidate on social networking websites and finding stuff they didn't like.
What do employers find so offensive? Evidence of Dionysian behavior: Drinking, drugs and "provocative or inappropriate photographs or information." Heaven forbid men get drunk, women show off their physical assets or anyone engages in political discourse or talks publicly about their sex lives.
Many of those employers surveyed by CareerBuilder are more concerned about the appearance of candidates' private lives and personal beliefs online than they are about job seekers' professional skills. In fact, they would pass on a candidate who boasts about his or her binge drinking on Facebook before they'd exclude a candidate with poor communication skills, according to the survey.
Apparently, job seekers aren't allowed to have fun anymore—at least they're not allowed to display their fun or their views online.
Employer as Big Brother
By basing professional hiring decisions on candidates' personal lives and beliefs, employers are effectively legislating people's behavior. They're subtly dictating what we can and can't do, post or say on the Web. Consequently, they're creating an environment online where people can't express their true beliefs, state their unvarnished opinions, be themselves, and that runs contrary to the free, communal ethos of the Web. Employers need to stop judging candidates' personal lives and beliefs and focus on professional criteria.
Employers also need to respect certain spheres, such as Facebook and MySpace profiles and social media sites, as personal spheres where people express themselves in words and images. We shouldn't have to worry about a Puritanical employer disqualifying us from a job because of an opinion we express on Digg or because of a photo that a nursing mother posts on her Facebook profile.
What's more, employers that discredit candidates
A noble sentiment, and one which I sympathize with.
However ... hypocrisy, double standards, and CYA ("Cover Your Backside) tactics are as American as apple pie.
How would you like to be the manager responsible for hiring someone who subsequently has an industrial accident (while cold sober), and whose web presence shows him/her writing something snarky about getting soused on the job? Or who is subsequently investigated for having one single marijuana plant at home and who has blogged about the virtues of said weed for relaxation? Or someone who creates racial tensions after being hired while his (somewhat racist) blog is there for the world to see? Or (if you work in catering or manufacture baby food) someone who turns out to be sloppy with hygiene when his Facebook page shows him in a messy kitchen?
Would you feel comfortable when the word "due dilligence" is used around you afterwards? Would you like to hear your ambitious rival mouthing hypocritical guff about "putting the company first", "exercising commonsense when hiring people", or "being net-savvy" afterwards?
No?
Then you'd better use *all* online information you can Google your hands on in 5 minutes, right?
I don't think that managers hiring people really believe that an unfortunate scrap of Facebook material makes someone unsuitable. It's just that they've got a choice to make (if they're hiring at all) and they can't waste all morning on it. Any reason to weed someone out that doesn't reflect poorly on them (better yet, which makes them look "savvy") in the eyes the only audience that counts (other executives) is a help.
Fear of being unreasonably second-guessed is a major justification for a whole host of useless security boondoggles, and I firmly believe that it's also why we see employers Googling for people that send in their resume.
Golodh brings up some very salient points. In the world of today, one almost has to have an Internet presence in order to heighten their playmaking abilities. Corporate America expects to see some sort of accolade and some level of accomplishment relative to published works, professional linkages etal.
While companies frequently do not admit that the Google a potential applicant or even current employees, it is a rather common practice. It is rarely admitted to because of the potential of a lawsuit. The downside to posting opinions or other matters on the Internet is that it is quite dificult to easily remove any such postings. Additionally, there is rarely any effort to ascertain that the poster is actually the bona fide subject or author of the posting.
With folks currently experiencing a dramatic Economy whereby their jobs are frequently on the line day in and day out this really can present a conundrum of sorts - on the one hand one wants to maximize their Internet presence and exposure to create a private brand in order to compete with others, but on the other hand there is substantial room for abuse and potential harm.
There is simply no right or wrong answer. Try to present your Internet presence in as professional a way as possible, try to minimize the impact of any "questionable" postings and be prepared to defend any position that might pop up. One possible alternative is to directly ask any interviewer if they have done any sort of background investigation on you using the Internet and if so were there any questions that might require answers. Even if th eanswer is no, if it is later discovered that this occurred and was not admitted to then there is potential basis for a lawsuit. Not much consolation, but an avenue.
The author was talking about NON-WORK related stuff. Everything Golodh pointed out was work-related. duh.
It is very annoying when sites spread articles over many pages just to try an ram more adverts in visitors' faces.
Stop doing it.
First thing I do in this situation is copy the content, paste it in notepad, and kiss the ads goodbye. Try it! It's also funny to see how freaky short these "articles" really are when you remove the fluff.