Companies Should Assess Social Media Profiles in the Hiring Process
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 1 vote and 5 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
Full Resolution: Companies Should Assess Social Media Profiles in the Hiring Process For Applicants
What does this mean? It means companies may ask to look at a person's LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter page and judge by their posts to see what kind of person they are outside of work.
Burden of proof is shared.
Framework is net balance considering the positive and negative effects to society, companies, and persons.
Social profile: "Social profiles are a description of individuals’ social characteristics that identify them on social media sites such as LinkedIn and Facebook, when using tools such as digg and Delicious as well as collaboration applications such as Jive, IBM Connections or Socialtext. Profiles describe any number of characteristics about individuals, such as interests, expertise, professional affiliations, status, recent activity and geographic location. Profiles are the digital DNA of a person, and where tagging of people-related content will occur. A social profile also displays information that helps to understand the type and strength of an individual’s relationships with others; for example, their level of participation and contribution in different initiatives, projects, communities, or conversations; their reputation among other participants, and so on. Creating a robust social profile allows individuals to be discovered by people who could benefit from an association with them. Companies are also beginning to experiment with social profiles as a means of reinforcing their organization’s brand identity." --https://www.gartner.com/en/information-technology/glossary/social-profiles
As Business News Daily informs, more than half of employers conduct social screenings to understand the candidate -- to know their online persona. This doesn't violate any privacy laws and highlights dangerous unprofessional acts a lot of times. More than 30% of the time, the candidate had posted information concerning discrimination, using drugs, or using provocative photographs. More than 20% had to do with bad-mouthing previous co-workers, having poor communication, lying about qualifications, or being linked to criminal behavior. As you can see, there is a substantial amount of detail obtained that would be otherwise difficult to obtain by going through someone's social media. Even if the company had not obtained the person's consent, anyone could view a person's public profile if they are not careful. I trust that this will teach persons to act more professionally online and build a trustworthy image.
But let's go deeper than the common man. A more professional article from the University of Nicosia writes about the role of e-recruiting on social network sites. Firstly, they analyze that e-recruitment is far less costly than traditional appointments. The companies can now access the far larger potential applicant pool, mostly dependent on social media (which allows the profiles and connections to be made). JobVite, one of the top researchers on recruitment technology, suggests this social media is best for reduction of time and cost of hiring. The lack of geographical restrictions means this Social Media assessment will be quick and easy. You also encourage the candidates to be of a higher caliber, as they are likely computer literate. The basic online questionnaires can screen out persons, just as a glance over a person's profile would be able to. I admit that investments are required to make this work, and many feel uncomfortable about the privacy settings that social media often fail to achieve. Fortunately, in the status quo, companies rarely violate the privacy of data.
Many opponents consider unconscious discrimination to also be an issue. It's crucial to negate this bias through training and strict requirements, as well as ensuring the social media standards are clear for potential candidates. Firstly, let me say that racism or sexism are not unique to Social Media Screening -- in fact, it may be beneficial for potentially vulnerable candidates to be negated in this process rather than within work. I say that the minorities or those likely to receive discrimination are unlikely to only receive poor reception from online processes. Therefore Con must prove that the bias is a unique problem created with the online process. Bear in mind that you will likely still have to go in person in traditional interviews, forcing some level of unconscious bias nevertheless.
In a company, there is no doubt you will interact with many co-workers in terms of email communication and perhaps even social media talk. I believe it's important to establish the basis and get an expectation of what you're working with. When I post online while employed, it would be difficult to hide who I am. Companies would not want to be associated with someone who posts offensive information or highlights negativity. And in a feedback loop, even though we sacrifice a little bit of privacy, wouldn't this known practice encourage social media to be a little bit better? Less toxicity. Watching what you say. Keeping professionalism. When we exercise social screening as a standard, we create something encouragement to build a safe space.
So, let's summarize in a few words. There is already a practice growing to accept social media screening. As these platforms grow more popular, it seems inevitable that companies can't be prevented from scanning over your public profile, if you're too ignorant to change a simple setting. With educated people and foretold conditions, Social Media screening creates ease of access. We would much better have a workforce to contribute to society and more opportunities for work, despite the potential discrimination. Finally, I argue that this practice would logically produce a self-watch force that forces people to think twice before insulting someone on social media. Con must show unique flaws and detriments created with the premise to win this debate.
- SM is an accurate depiction of a worker’s ability to be used by employers.
- The concerns for privacy and mixing personal and work life are outweighed by the benefits.
- Alcohol (38% of the time)
- Curses (27%)
- Poor grammar (27%)
- Complaints about co-workers/job/boss (30%)
- Controversial subjects (N/A)
- No SM at all (57%)
- A childish username (22%)
- Posted too frequently (17%)
- The resolution would cause a damaging mix of work and personal life.
- The counterfactual protects the right to privacy.
“I say that it's often inappropriate for work related employees to give passionate and dangerous opinions on sensitive subjects”
“A person who widely preaches about his God and forces his beliefs on others surely has no place in work. Or perhaps one pro-life advocate who repeatedly stresses the babies' "right to life", calling abortion murder."
In a way, Con's privacy argument contradicts her representation argument. If we accept that the internet is a mask that hides, then it does not violate privacy since who you are online isn't who you are in real life. If we accept that the internet violates privacy because our inner lives are seen, then our true self is revealed and therefore we've accomplished our goals, however uncomfortable the means to accomplish. It's a lose-lose situation for her, especially since she has not shown any true unique benefits to the traditional interview. I've said it in round 1 and I'll say it again. If all other things are equal, we should pick Social Media judgment. It's far less costly -- both in terms of time and money -- and more efficient. With the clear benefit resolved from my research, Con must decide while struggling with her contradictory arguments.
Now then, let's continue. Con argues that the poor choices made on social media don't reflect professionalism for work, but fail to refute my logic made in round 2's final paragraph. If a person would recklessly bully and show a "horrible personality" to the public, then the fakery for work is horrid as they are unauthentic. It's not that "this is who the person is", but rather "this is whom the public thinks the person is". When we circle back to my round 1 comparison, Con tries to attack my specific examples without looking at the bigger picture. Indeed, what is dangerous or sensitive? It's possible to rally people together to encourage physical harm or exclusion of a race that the company vouches for. When people execute illegal or inappropriate activities in real life, their work-life is inexplicably linked to them. Con has time and time failed to answer why companies should accept their employees tarnishing their image. I agree that the censoring of controversial subjects can seem arbitrary. But Con has also not vouched for why speaking them is necessary in the first place. When it comes to looking for jobs, people should be avoiding posting on forums such as... alcohol and drug use, anyways.
Con also suggests the extreme of deleting every embarrassing post for the job, but firstly, this may be exhausting depending on how many posts you made. Secondly, this perfectly accomplishes my goal in round 1 of making social media a better place to be in. I vouched for invisible police behind your back and making sure you don't post anything inappropriate. If job standards applied to Facebook posts, you'd see people be far more friendly with each other. Less discrimination all around. I'd take a safe space any day at the cost of some baby pictures and an embarrassing outfit unseen by friends. What Con is worried about here only highlights that my plan will greatly encourage people to stop violating others' comfort in social media posts. We lose some, we win some.
The problem of social media judgment isn't impossible to solve. I will admit that some information can seem irrelevant, but Con has repeatedly avoided my idea of a standardized way to judge people. She has never said, "it can't be done". Indeed, as a scholarly journal recommends and lays out on its abstract, there may be reliability and validity tests. There may be a transparent social media policy to resolve the privacy issue. While they value searching talents more than screening or selecting, my premise is ambiguous enough that this doesn't negatively impact my case.
Conclusion: Social media is cost-efficient, quick, and a powerful tool for recruiters and employees alike. I have never recommended social media as the *sole* instrument to judge persons. Con seems to be forgetting my case isn't exclusive, it's inclusive. We add upon the social media judgment process to speed up the potential for an interview. Then perhaps we may move to person-on-person for a comprehensive analysis of persons. Con has failed to show enough detriments of the social media process, and I built a potential framework for more objective judgment. My burden of proof is filled. Thank you for the debate.
“If all other things are equal, we should pick Social Media judgment”
- SMCs are sometimes done on the wrong person.
- No SM gets you rejected 57% of the time. This unfairly punishes those who don’t show their personal SM to strangers or don’t have any.
- SMCs discourage holding controversial opinions
- SMCs don’t let EMe’s choose what info to give EMr’s and allows invasion of their private life.
- SMCs discourage behaviours that often aren’t representative of ability/personality/professionalism. It’s not the business of an EMr to judge/discourage the legal, not immoral acts of mature adults. To imply that we all should be acting like an EMr is scrutinizing our every action and that we all should always act as though we are in a workplace is outright totalitarian and incredibly taxing on mental health.
“I will admit that some information can seem irrelevant… [Con] avoided my idea of a standardized way to judge people.”
“Con's privacy argument contradicts her representation argument. If we accept that the internet is a mask that hides, it doesn’t violate privacy since who you are online isn't you in real life. If we accept that the internet violates privacy because our inner lives are seen, then our true self is revealed and therefore we've accomplished our goals,”
- Voicing pro-life belief
- Alcohol use
- Drug use (even recreational [e.g. Cannabis])
- Profanity use
“... [Con] failed to answer why companies should accept their employees tarnishing their image. I agree that the censoring of controversial subjects can seem arbitrary. But Con has also not vouched for why speaking them is necessary in the first place.”
“... people should avoid posting… alcohol and drug use, anyways.”
“Con also suggests the extreme of deleting every embarrassing post… this perfectly accomplishes my goal of making social media a better place. I vouched for invisible police making sure you don't post anything inappropriate.”
“Con has time and time failed to answer why companies should accept their employees tarnishing their image.”