http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2008/09/14/working_the_network/?page=1
So I noticed that Geoff commented on this article from www.boston.com on his blog (http://geoffreytorrance.blogspot.com), and without being redundant, I wanted to contribute to the conversation by adding a few comments of my own.
In the discussion about employers' use of social networking sites to evaluate potential employees, we generally hear about how an employer rescinds a job offer because they found inappropriate pictures on someone's facebook page, or a disparaging remark on someone's myspace profile. We tend to react by commenting on how silly it was for that student to leave potentially damaging information on their page, and that he/she should have known better. But I think there's a flipside to it that we don't talk about enough, and it's as follows:
Not only does access to these sites allow employers to weed out potential employees, but it also allows me, as a facebook/myspace/linkedin user, to weed out potential employers. My reasoning goes like this: if I know that a company has assigned someone to execute a virtual stakeout on me and creep around my facebook page, or google my name and see what they find, is that a company I really want to to work for? Or if I learn that a company has rescinded my offer of employment because they discovered a picture of me (gasp) consuming a beer, is that a company I want to work for? Probably not. I mean, aren't we by definition commencing our relationship with a lack of trust? When I go to an interview, my hope is that a company will make a decision about me based on what they see on my resume, what they glean from our conversation, and what they learn from my personal and professional references. If they feel they need to investigate further, I'm not sure that's a place I want to work.
Given, each side is entitled to do some research, within reason. If I am interested in a company, of course I'll likely try to talk to some people who work there, get some insider info on what it's like to be an employee there. The equation is unbalanced though, because I can't snoop onto the company's facebook page - because either they don't have one, or it's not going to reveal all that much. But they can certainly check out mine.
The caveat here is that if you're a professional, you of course need to be reasonable and make intelligent decisions about what you post on your facebook/myspace page. Those kegstand photos from that frat party in college? Probably leave them out. And the pics from spring break in Cancun? Maybe leave those off too. But if what I share on my facebook page is reasonable by my estimation, and an employer doesn't want to hire me because of it? So be it. That's not the kind of place I want to work anyhow.
Case in point: in the article on boston.com, the following story appears:
"In searching the site recently for new hires for his growing sales staff, Evan Gotlib quickly clicked past a guy who posted a photo of himself in jeans and T-shirt. 'I'm not going to hire that guy - he didn't take the time to put himself in a tie and a shirt,' says Gotlib, advertising director for IdealBite, a site that delivers daily eco tips to users."
So here an employer is making a decision based on very surface level information they found on a LinkedIn page. For all they know, this guy could be the next Bill Gates. But because they made a judgement based on his photo, they'll never know. And my guess is that Mr. jeans and T-shirt probably made a calculated decision about what to wear in his LinkedIn profile pic.
I don't intend for this to sound too much like a rant - I realize I'm going on and on here. My point is that there's a balance to be struck. I want to work for a company that recognizes that I'm a human being with a life beyond the office, and that I might, in addition to making widgets, indeed want, and need, to have fun once in a while. That's the kind of environment I'm looking for. And if an employer rejects me because they caught me doing just that in a facebook photo, well, I know the relationship was never meant to be in the first place.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I saw Geoff and Jonah’s responses to the “Working the Network” article and wanted to chime in.
There’s a very fine balance that both corporations and individuals must find when utilizing the newest forms of media and technology. We’re in a unique point in history where technology is progressing so rapidly that we’re not able to receive a new tool or application and fully understand its potential, scope, benefits, and perhaps most importantly, its drawbacks, before the next best technology hits the shelves or the web and we’re back off to the races again. As we chase down the next greatest gadgets, we rarely look back and objectively consider what the ramifications of these technologies are until we’re dealing with the storm they created. Even less objective contemplation occurs while we are building the technologies of tomorrow. We don’t stop to consider the ramifications that they will have, put in proper controls and protections, and ask “Should we be doing this?” We’re only asking “Can we do this?” The answer to the second question is more often than not “Yes”; however, the answer to the first question is generally not known until many years later.
This is the situation we find ourselves in with these new social networking tools. We’re still learning how to use them - and how they’re being used against us. What we’re learning is that there are consequences for the things we do and say now that were never an issue in the past when our work and personal lives were more distinct. As technology increasingly shapes our lives, and as we become a “virtual world”, it is more difficult to separate the two spheres.
I have never been a fan of “Big Brother” looking over our shoulders, and as such, I was reluctant to join the social network websites (although now I’m a fan of Facebook). However, I do not have an inherent opposition to companies researching their employee candidates. I work in the asset management industry, and job interviews for me include fingerprints and background checks. Shareholders for large corporations want to have assurances that the employees are competent, ethical, and are not a risk to the corporation.
Time and time again in the news we hear stories of criminals working as security guards in airports and sex offenders driving school busses. The same question is always asked, “How did the person get the job?” Society today is demanding more and more background checks on people in every industry. In this regard, a company researching potential employees seems to be taking a prudent course of action. It can be used as an inexpensive alternative and/or addition to the formal and expensive background checks to help paint a more accurate portrait of the candidate, and more accurately assess their risk.
But can corporations take this too far? Absolutely. These checks should merely be supplemental to resumes, personal interactions, and interviews. Companies need to understand that not all the content on a person’s page is necessarily under their control and that one questionable photograph does not a miscreant make. Individuals must also realize that the lines between work and play are blurring and ought think twice about posting that bikini picture from their honeymoon.
Post a Comment