Should employers or administrators use Facebook as a screening tool? According to a 2005 survey of 100 executive recruiters conducted by ExecuNet, they already do. According to this leading executive job search and recruiting network, 77 percent use search engines to learn more about candidates and 35 percent have eliminated a candidate from consideration based on the information uncovered online.
"Invasion of privacy!" many users complain. Yet this "invasion" has already left many college students blacklisted, expelled, or dropped from the recruiting and application process. In 2006, Micheal Guinn of John Brown University was suspended from the Christian college for posting drag pictures online; two Louisiana State swimmers were kicked off the team last spring for criticizing their coaches on Facebook; and a 16-year-old boy in Jefferson, Colo., was arrested after police say he showed pictures of himself on his MySpace page holding handguns.
The uproar caused by this debate issue in an open-sourced generation could be remedied by one easy dosage of common sense and a smidge of prudence and awareness. What one does in one's private life might be private, but once it becomes public (especially on the Internet), it is forfeited to public scrutiny.
Here is one teaspoon of common sense: Online posts and profiles are as private as a glass house. They are unavoidably transparent, they require more maintenance to stay clean, and although they are private property, they are open for the world to see.
Complaints about employers and administrators using Facebook as a screening tool are unreasonable. The reality of the situation is that recruiters are going to use as much information as is available to them to make the decision on their investments. Using Facebook as a reference is no less viable than using a character reference of a present employee who happens to have dirt on the candidate.
The difference is that instead of a second-hand account, Facebook profile pictures offer information from the candidate (or their friends) that might have otherwise remained private. Much of the "digital dirt" companies find online is a self-inflicted wound, caused by irresponsibly maintaining this type of profile. Given that Businessweek has reported that your online reputation is more important than your word-of-mouth reputation, it comes as little surprise that several online management firms have been started to help clean up clients' online brand.
Privacy settings help to alleviate some of the dangers or trauma that could be caused by content posted on Facebook. Restricting access only to a trusted network of friends and setting up different filters for what can be seen on your profile is better than authorizing your profile for general access. Even with the privacy settings, however, your privacy may not be as protected as you think. Brian Ng of Vancouver recently discovered a security breach that allowed him to break into the accounts of Paris Hilton and albums of Mark Zuckerberg (Mr. Facebook himself). Facebook shamefully admitted to this breach and its privacy policy even states that "there is no guarantee content will not be seen by unauthorized viewers." In other words, there is no guarantee that the risque pictures will not fall into the hands of the person holding your job offer or admission letter.
Companies or organizations in general care about their public image and do not want any liabilities. "What I do in my personal life has nothing to do with my professional life," opponents of this screening say. But is this even sustainable? Consider some examples. Disney was quick to drop High School Musical star Vanessa Hudgens for naked pictures from her past that surfaced on the Internet; former President Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about private sexual activity; and Eliot Spitzer had to resign after getting caught in a prostitution ring.
The ghost of the suspicious activity comes back to haunt past transgressors and crushes the naivete that people have about the extent that their personal lives could have an impact on their future professional ones. Why, then, the offended reaction to companies weeding out those who think it is acceptable to show unbecoming activity online?
This is not to say to completely close down shop and abandon your guilty Facebook pleasure. This is where the smidge of prudence and awareness comes in: Conduct a self-screening periodically of your online image and do not post anything that you wouldn't want your employer to see. Digital dirt can do serious damage, but a good profile can actually give recruiters insight into the life and personality of prospective candidates that the resume and interview might have fallen short of doing. Because they are going to be searching for this information, it would be wise to present it to them in a favorable, non-disqualifying light.
As Steven Rutherberg of Collegerecruiting.com put it, "Posting information online is like getting a tattoo. There's nothing inherently wrong with posting information online or getting a tattoo, but in both cases you need to be prepared for it to be out there forever and for people to see it that you may not want to see it. If you're not prepared to live with that, then don't do it."
When posting information online, keep the following canons in mind: Do not expose yourself too much to employers who do not want to risk making a bad investment. Holding back the raunchy pictures and images of underage drinking does not make you any less cool or any less of a college student; it just makes you more professional. Anticipate that your online profile might be used as an informal resume and be prepared then to deal with the scars that these tattoos might leave behind.
Nidia Fevry is a Heights staff columnist. She welcomes comments at fevry@bcheights.com.
Be the first to comment on this article!