It is clearly evident that social networks are woven into our daily lives and technology enables immediacy in terms of sharing personal information online. Our everyday social activities are in the public arena, warts and all, and therefore open to scrutiny. Yet how pervasive is this scrutiny in organizational recruiting? Legislation exists to guard against discriminatory practices, however it is perhaps inevitable that recruiters will be tempted to examine the digital lives of potential recruits in their organisations. It is an easy opportunity to try to get a sense of the character of the person who has applied for a position; an attempt to improve cultural appropriateness decision making. However, this approach can be very problematic. From a business psychology perspective, it can be argued that recruiting is about ‘performance accounting’, This is when we measure potential performance, whether through interviews, psychometrics or live observation centers, we are realizing how a given individual will perform in a role. We can represent 17% in the interview up to 65% with the evaluation centers. Whichever strategy is used, there is always a chance that the baby will be thrown out with the bath water. If we have misjudgments in hiring that are based on valid decision-making strategies, what do organizations hope to accomplish by tracking an individual’s online personal space as the last bastion of appointment power? This divisive and detrimental practice is not only ill-conceived at best, it is irrelevant in terms of predictive validity of performance. It makes recruiting organizations the custodians of the comments and behavior of everyday life, with the self-proclaimed quasi-Orwellian authority to make value judgments about what is right and what is wrong.
First, let’s examine the psychology of publishing online. Research suggests that personality is an important factor to consider when investigating the causes and consequences of people’s engagement with social networks. In addition, the images we present in the virtual world may not necessarily reflect who we are in real life. Do you take selfies? Dr. Terri Apter, a psychology professor at the University of Cambridge, says taking selfies is about people trying to figure out who they are and projecting this onto other people. “It’s a kind of self-definition,” says Dr. Apter. “We all like the idea of being in control of our image and getting attention, being noticed, being part of the culture.”
People want to control the projected image and this image will vary depending on the context, just like in real life. We all have different personalities from friends, family and work. If we look at older adults, their profiles will often include their wives and children. College student profiles feature what they think is the most interesting part of their lives, and this will vary greatly. Images of drinks and parties are interesting for certain groups of peers. They can give clues on what to wear, where to go and how to act, young adults look to their peers for the best parties and activities, illustrated on Facebook/MySpace. Personally, I don’t have a single published photo of me in the library. Other posts can also serve to communicate the importance of particular relationships because these ties can provide security regarding a person’s self-esteem.
Social networks provide all users with a “public” image, and when users try to present themselves in a way that matches how they want to be seen, this creates potential problems. Part of the problem is that the norms of one community are not the norms of another. So when we produce a ‘person without a job’ that aligns with the cultural nuances of any given outgroup, and this makes a difference in terms of how we behave in the workplace, this can lead to clashes on social media, which is then interpreted by others.
The most common Facebook regrets are likely to revolve around sensitive topics like alcohol, sex, politics, religion, or “emotional content.” Often the sources of these regrets are unintended consequences or unwanted audiences. And, such posts are the ones most likely to be used when evaluating a person’s suitability for a job. Uninhibited behavior online is a gift to certain personalities in organizations. However, it is one thing to want to know a little more about the opinions, motivations and lifestyles of job seekers; it is another thing to give a detrimental leap of faith regarding the cultural appropriateness and performance potential of that individual. This is further aggravated when a third party is delegated to carry out such activity, where there is a high potential for identity errors to be made. And, an even broader judgment bias can occur through delegated authority.
As a senior business psychologist, I often test the validity of recruiting measures to determine the extent to which selection tools can predict job performance. Measures have different types of validity that capture different qualities. There are three main types of validity: content validity, construct validity, and criterion validity.
Content validity refers to how comprehensively the measure assesses the underlying construct it purports to assess. Construct validity refers to whether the measure accurately assesses the underlying construct it purports to assess. Criterion validity examines how well the construct correlates with one’s behavior in the real world across multiple situations and manifestations. For example, does the measure adequately capture the construct (eg, innovation) as it occurs in real life (eg, time management, planning and organization, leadership, etc.)?
The reliability of a measurement refers to whether the measurement obtains repeatable results. Will the recruitment and selection processes a company uses work every time they need to hire someone, or just once? If your processes perform well every time, then those measurements can be said to be reliable.
Based on the above, I have to ask about the validity and reliability of social media detection. What construct do you intend to investigate, how well does that construct measure, how well do the conclusions drawn correlate with the required behavior, and finally, how consistent are the results?
The fact is that the selection must be made with caution, so that hiring managers do not inadvertently act in a way that could be considered discriminatory or unfair in other ways.
As with other paperwork associated with the recruitment process, all personal data collected during the recruitment/selection process must be handled and retained in accordance with any policy guidance on record keeping.
Organizations must ensure that:
- The same restrictions apply to online checks as to all other aspects of the hiring process;
- Personal data should only be accessed if it is relevant to suitability for the role;
- Only absolutely necessary personal information that is relevant to the job should be collected;
- Social media searches should not be used as a personal fishing exercise;
- reasonable steps must be taken to ensure the accuracy of personal data accessed online;
- a distinction should be made between the use of social networks for primarily private purposes and for primarily professional purposes, ie viewing LinkedIn is acceptable, viewing Facebook is not;
- information that is in the public domain about someone’s professional profile can be used;
- prior to conducting online searches, applicants should be advised that information about them could be collected in this way;
- Applicants should be given the opportunity to respond to any adverse findings from online searches, where they can be considered in the decision-making process.
Only then can job seekers be sure that it is their skills, motivations, and personality factors that are being evaluated, not their life choices. The latter has no place in legitimate, fair and open hiring decisions.
