Companies Should Assess Social Media Profiles in the Hiring Process

I will avoid overly focusing on LinkedIn as it is only one of the listed Social Media and the easy straw to pick. Let's focus on the emerging patterns and reasoning behind the idea of Social Media Screening as a whole.

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.

Firstly, let me point out the implied assumption that con makes. Con assumes that the argument my first idea is trying to make is that the personal ideas posted online represent exactly who you are in real life. Of course this is not the point. The point is that this is who others *think* you are in real life, and that the implications of your personality can be quite relevant. Remember that the way you act online represents who you actually are. Many online life coaches and authors note that how you judge others online can be a reflection of your self worth. Therefore, there's something yet to see when you ensure someone hasn't made horrible insults or view points about others.

Let me explain further. In terms of work force, perception is reality. Let me remind you of my argument that if the company can easily find your profile, who's to say others couldn't? When you think about these messages being promoted by a company worker, the profanity, the alcohol, the use of drugs... and then you say, the manager of Google posted these things. Well, doesn't that sound utterly horrid? Google would surely go into a lawsuit about their employee being allowed to post offensive and inflammatory information. And Con completely ignores the idea of correlation. Don't let this dropped argument go to waste. Note that a company's prime purpose is to uphold professionalism, service, satisfaction of customers -- and perhaps people in general. The people are a representation of them, and the social media is a representation of the people -- regardless of what the persons are actually like. The influence of posts have enough power to create real influence, and I say even a mistake can be a problem. Think about it this way. If I was under influence of alcohol, I do not act like I usually do. Yet am I legally liable to be judged and condemned for my actions? Of course. So how is the internet different?

Indeed, Con's own source admits that "there are likely to be exceptions if they spot something that is overtly offensive or controversial. Particularly when it comes down to a handful of qualified candidates, hiring managers will tend to gravitate toward those that did not raise any red flags". There's the fact that the majority believed social media had at least *some* impact. This means that they are going to naturally tend to want to check on social media, one way or another. Secondly, Con seems to cherry pick, talking about how it seems "dumb" for a "childish" username, but without any details, I'm sure any poo poo jokes, 69 usernames or other inappropriate ideas seem even more dumb. You say it encourages people not to have any controversy at all, yet I see no clear stats about the Controversial subjects. 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. Con argues that there are double standards, but it seems to me that a simple solution of implementing a double standard would help greatly. Establishing a contract or charter of what is and what isn't acceptable for the work place would clear up misunderstandings greatly.

Thirdly, Con talks about how companies are not entitled for anything. She says she doesn't want every embarrassing memory and weakness, yet she forgets she holds all the power of what she posts. Facebook and Google both have strong privacy options that allow for you to only let friends and family see your posts. If companies request for your specific site, you can still decline, or tell them why you feel your life is too personal. Exceptions can be made. Con tries to land the coffin in the nail, about how social media can be completely irrelevant to who you are. Yet it's inescapable that you are primarily judged by your social media posts online. With a significant proportion of employees growing to use social media, I think your personal social media is a good basis to use to highlight what your work place standards will be like. Both casual sites like Facebook and serious sites like LinkedIn share a similar sense of collaboration and cooperation, especially with connecting to friends and workers. Even though I vouch for social media in general, Con must show a significant difference between professional and personal social media to win the debate. 

Con tries to argue that companies must know exactly who they are -- a true representation of yourself -- yet this is still an assumption on Con's part. She is implying that merely being seen in person is far more genuine. Yet we have seen countless liars able to fool people face-to-face. Under pressure and even under stress, the line of "True personality" is still blurred. Yes, Con may argue it's more difficult in real life than online, however, we can logically presume that most people on social media would be more relaxed and open to reveal private information about themselves. Con is saying that the traditional interview will reveal you're true ability to work professionally. Yet you can hide facts about alcohol abuse, the likeliness to say offensive things to others, so on and so forth. 

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.