Is Myspace Your space?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Sherry Karr on June 10, 2007 at 7:04pm

This is a good questions. Really, I don't want to know a lot of personal things about candidates - or prospective employers- if it doesn't have any thing to do with the job.

However, I can see a day around the corner when there will be a new clause added to a background check disclosure that will say "including general internet searches to reveal character" or somesuch blurb.

I have never asked anyone about whether they have a myspace or other similiar site. However, there are a lot of people that have started to put a link to their personal blog at the signature of their emails, or even on their cover letter or resumes. If they open the door, and point you to such personal information, it has been my understanding that you can ask about the information that the candidate has opened the door to.

I think people that utlize MySpace, write blogs, or have other information about themselves online better be prepared to realize that if what they are posting isn't a true reflection of their own values, they should rethink what they are posting. I am all for free speech, etc....but sometimes peopledon't think about how they present themselve. Personally, I have no problem with someone Jello-O wrestling in their free time. But, what annoys me is when I see blogs where employees are very crude when critizing their current or past employers. (It's the crudeness - not the fact they may have an issue with them necessarily, etc.)

Good article, Karen. Thanks for pointing it out.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by KarenM / Hirecentrix.com on June 11, 2007 at 10:44pm

Thanks Sherry,
great comment re the if they add a link to their site, that they are opening the door for asking them the info..

Here is a devil's advocate question, sometimes a candidate may add age or information about family, so could we say that opens the door for conversation on these personal issues?

How does the Company justify their decision to hire someone based upon a common non-work issue or based upon qualifiers that may fit in with their organization; The issues that come up is What is Subjective, what isn't especially when it comes to play after Hours.. not on the work time and bosses dime.

These are areas that may have potential for Systemic Discrimination, especially when that Something is Not Work Related. Companies will have difficulty in tryig to justify it as a Business Necessity.

Sometimes simple Potential of Hidden Disparate and Adverse impact will occur from this - For Example an innocent comment based upon a profile can create unintentional discrimination -

Let's say that a manager loves Sailing, and the manager wants to find employees who share the same love of boating. Say he loves to take the clients out on boats and wants his sales people to do the same.

Well, (this is Generalization, which is how adverse and disparate impact occurs) - the grand majority of individuals who may own Sail Boats and enjoy Sailing may be male, white, and fit a particular class of individuals.

Anyways.. in-directly this manager is creating a position of discriminating from individuals who CAN and are Capable of doing the job, have experience of doing the job, if his focus is finding candidates who fit this PERSONAL profile, and not focusing on the Minimum Objective Qualifications.

This may not have been intentional, but based upon statistics that the EEO will then Utilize to determine how many candidates fit that "specific" profile, versus the General Population, and the chances of Eliminating candidates that are diverse who would be qualified, would then create a higher risk for the employer.

Let's take another example. Let's say the company wants the individuals to love AND OWN Dogs.. Well if the company is a Vet, that is understandable.. but, if dog's have nothing to do with the Core Aspect of work then of course Dogs don't belong in the workplace - and the chances of eliminating Candidates who are diverse are Again VERY high.. How so? Well the MAJORITY of pet owners are HOME Owners, and only 41 Percent Hispanics and 42 Percent Blacks Own homes.. could this not create a potential for Disparate Impact? Thus the question could be asked, are dogs necessary to do the job? Are other companies functioning w/o pets on the workplace? Do pets even belong on the job? If the place of work is a Vet, then yes that request is reasonable, but if not, is it then can the company justify this qualifier?

Here is another issue with regards to the first example - but what happens say an employee later gained a fear with that common hobby that everyone shared? Say a boating accident.. So now the employee feels left out because they are no longer invited to go with the rest of the team to the quarterly sailing trip? Could/would the employee be fired as they are no longer like the rest of the team? Now there could be issues with Preferential Treatment and workplace discrimintion..

So, it is truly with caution that we should venture in going into the personal life, even with the best of intent..

It is easy to become Subjective with personal profiles and personal lifestyle when interviewing, but this is where the Risk Comes to Play... and why it may sometimes become an interview legal nightmare to even discuss anything that Is Not Work Related..

Sometimes we may be privvy to too much information, even when we can least expect it.

So then should we NOT stick to What they did, how they did it, and why they did what they did at WORK, and not delve into anything which doesn't deal with your aptitudes, skills, and ability on the job?

Could it not be situations like this where again the personal life, hobbies, and social activities should be left out of work, don't you think?

Thanks for answering Sherry, and yes, it is true that we should be careful what we add to our public information, our resumes, but I wonder, should people also be harmed for their own ignorance as well? Especially when there are many would not consider that they would be a judge and jury in the workplace with regards to their personal life?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Rich on June 12, 2007 at 7:36pm

Excellent post Karen. Given that some companies have fired people for their MySpace pages and blogs, I can only imagine some might not hire people because of their MySpace pages and blogs. Is it right? Sometimes it is very hard to say.

On one hand, MySpace pages and blogs aside, employers might hire or not hire someone because of public conduct or comment. So, given MySpace pages and blogs are public, I imagine they might count, despite the idea that it seems to be an invasion of privacy by some people. I think there might be a line somewhere on discrimination over religion or politics or age or take your pick, but we fool ourselves to think that isn't taken into consideration sometimes.

(I sat on a hiring panel once where I had to remind the future employer that it was unethical to engage on merit of a candidate based on age. The HR representative thanked me because it was treading dangerous ground and she didn't want to be the one say so. Yikes!)

In the end, I think it all depends on the employer and how they choose to handle the overflow of information made readily available on the Internet. Hopefully, they'll be wise enough to look past tidbits of information in favor of overall context. And if not, then maybe they're the wrong employer anyway.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Steven Rothberg on June 15, 2007 at 11:45pm

Candidates do Google their employers and read all about them. They read the employer's web sites and then go to the blogs. But most candidates have more sense and manners than to ask questions about questionable activities or beliefs exhibited by a potential employer. Nevertheless, the argument that an employer's reading of your MySpace page is an invasion of your privacy is laughable. MySpace is a very public forum and people post information there because they want others to read it. I agree that if employers read your page, see you're gay, and don't hire you, that there's a significant problem and they should be held legally accountable, but if you're not hired because you like to brag about how you like to get drunk and have sex with strangers, then please don't blame the employer for declining the opportunity to hire you.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by KarenM / Hirecentrix.com on June 16, 2007 at 2:31pm

Steve,
thanks so much for your answer! and yes, I can see where you are coming from, but here is my argument to this..

So what if the individual has sex with every Tom, Dick and Harry? So what if they are Athiests, or Dress in Drag after work? Why is this important, as long as you are doing it after work.. Will you be having conversations about Sex in the Work place? will you be talking about Religion?

I would say that conversations about Sex and Religion would in the Workplace are usually considered to be out of bounds.. especially as it could create issues of Harassment.. So, why would it matter what the person does in their personal life?

To say that it is public information is indeed true, but then so is my house.. my yard.. Does that mean that a hiring employer has the right to drive by my house and see that it is painted blue, and that my yard is a mess and say I am not going to hire karen, because she appears to be lazy or sloppy, even though it is obvious by her experience and tenure that how she is at home - Laid back and Casual, is not the same tendacies that she potrays at work? (fyi, I love gardening ;-) )

A person's views on Sex, Guns, religion and other issues are subjective. One person can see that having sex with 10 people a day is freedom of expression, and okay, while another will say, gee, what a skank! (expression of speech here) - thus that is why going to these sites and basing an opinion on a person's character is indeed Subjective.. especially when it Does Not relate to the work place

It is subjective personal opinions - dangerous opinions that Have Nothing to do with the Work Place and ability based upon Objecive Qualifications for employment, and not based upon personal mindsets and Values, especially when those mindsets and values do not represent or play a part in the business operations.

Prior to my space, and the wonderful world of the internet we would have to depend on personal background checks to find out information about the Candidate.. Obviously a person's personal lifestyle would not be discussed, WHY? because it would be considered illegal.. why? because this is NOT job related..

So, why do we think that these individuals should not protected today? In Most States there are Laws that protect individuals from discrimination regarding their Criminal Records (depending on the Job of course - ie financial institutions) these States are Called Right to Work.. So, again, why should a person's personal life be challenged, instead of focusing on their ABILITIES?

We must rememember that unlawfully interfering in an individual's employment opportunities is indeed a path that should be treaded carefully.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Michelle Stair on June 20, 2007 at 1:46pm

You may want to consider that some positions require a high profile within the company and the culture of the company they represent. Take for example ministers who have fallen from grace because of their choice in lifestyle habits. Personal character, in my opinion, should be taken into consideration for positions that require that candidate to be a mouthpiece for that company.

Moreover demonstrated character may aid employers in determining what kind of employee they are hiring. I believe you have to take into account the candidate's ability to "fit" in the company culture. A proclaimed KKK leader would most likely not want to work for the ACLU nor would the ACLU believe this individual to be a good fit in their organization regardless of how well he/she could do the job.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by KarenM / Hirecentrix.com on June 20, 2007 at 7:01pm

That is a good point Michelle,
but, would a KKK leader even attempt to apply for the ACLU? When we say company culture in regards to issues regarding outside personal activities.. that concerns me. See, that is getting into something that may broach on issues of discrimination. Say the company culture is young, or female oriented.. (meaning more women than men)

Company culture in business is how does that individual fit within corporate structure versus small business structure.. it isn't about what they do in their personal life. There are people who are extremely professional in their business life, but when they get home, can let their hair down and be less structured..

A minister who fell from Grace because of their choice of lifestyle does have the issue to deal with that there is an understanding that to be a minister of religion that one must live up to certain standards. That is part of his job description; but let's say that the minister was gay, does that have anything to do with his moral instincts? In fact there is a bill on the senate floor as of today will make it a crime for pastors and churches to speak against homosexuality if it is passed.

Again, isn't it subjective to say what is good or what is bad with regards to freedom of lifestyle. Are we not threatening freedom of speech to have an individual be concerned about gaining employment -- sure as an an employed representative of the company, the company can request certain protocol in respect to how that person Represents the company, as long as it does not infiltrate in the personal life.. unlesss it will point back to the company..

I can understand this in regards to employees who are current, and if the Blog is a representative of the company they work for, or mentions the company they are employed at.. but outside of that, what I do after hours, isn't any of you business.. as long as I am not harming your business.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by KarenM / Hirecentrix.com on June 20, 2007 at 7:14pm

Michelle
here is another question - let's use your anology - prior to the internet and social networks, were not companies able to hire individuals who had their own personal lives and agendas that may not have been what the owner of the company have valued themselves.. but, they didn't know, because it was done after hours, and not discussed at work

Companies have survived for Decades and even longer - having people adapt to the Professional Business culture, even if the employees did not share the same religions, race, sexual beliefs, financial successes as everyone else. So, why do we think that now this will make things so much better? especially when using these tools before were not necessary before

We also forget that stereotyping and creating a similar culture, hiring people just like us, in business actually stifles commerce and growth. businesses will be better situated to understand and meet customer and market place demands. It is also easier to adapt to change as well.

IE - if a company only had individuals under thirty working for them, how would they be able to understand the needs, wants and desires of the baby boomers who are the biggest spenders today? It will take someone who walks the walk, talks the talk to be able to help target that market.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by KarenM / Hirecentrix.com on July 15, 2007 at 2:34pm

Hi Scott,
thanks for responding. Though I may tend to agree with you Somewhat, maybe there is also another side we may be missing. Many people don't go to these sites thinking that my future boss is looking at this. Also, what they may have thought of as harmless, their future boss may have a different perception.

Let's take for example the situation with the Current Miss USA - she was having fun with her friends, some pictures that may have seemed harmless amongst friends are now making the public circuit, which is bringing a lot of embaressment to her -
These pictures were in a private Social Network file, but now they are all over the net to see. Again, under the circumstances at the time, they were harmless when they were taken, but now as Miss USA, and also in a Stand Alone environment, they don't appear to be as harmless..
Her career could be harmed by this perception.

Kids do dumb things. We all did things when we were younger where, now as adults we wish we could go back and say oops, I hope no one hears about this. We didn't think at the time we were doing it, about the ramifications. Because we were young and dumb.
Unfortunately the Net has taken away the availability of minimizing that exposure or even eliminating of information that once was thought of fun at the time.

So, back to the aspect of Social, friendly network versus Professional.. my question is why are the two being mixed when one is completely different from the other? We can't/shouldn't ask these questions about personal life in an interview or even in a Verbal reference check, because it isn't considered part of the job.. so why do we think it is okay to delve into it online?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by KarenM / Hirecentrix.com on July 15, 2007 at 11:07pm

Yeah, you are right, unfortunately so.. :( .. dang, I am sooooo glad I am not growing up in these days. Boy we were able to have fun w/o ever wondering what may come out w/o our permission..

Boy the good ole days, sometimes I miss them, though the internet does make life so much easier.. guess there is good w/bad.

Did you see by the way that Facebook is doing more to protect the privacy of their members, which may make it harder to do background checks.. http://jimstroud.com/2006/09/09/privacy-getting-harder-to-do-backgr...

Maybe more will step up to the plate in the future..

Thanks for posting Scott, also thanks for the invite..

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Randy Bernard on July 23, 2007 at 3:24pm

Karen you make some good points in your posts. Personally, I do not like MySpace because of the stigma it carries with it of immature behaviour, and fake users. In the healthcare recruiting world I live in, we assess character as well as skillsets. For example, if we are hired to find an Administrator or a Registered Nurse, I need a candidate that possesses professionalism, education, and character. If someone posts their careless, unhealthy habits for the world to see, and they do not get the position, then it is their loss...whether we tell them the reason or not. How is posting your life on line any different than telling someone about it in an interview or putting it on a resume. If a position requires that the candidate use good judgement and decision making, wouldn't it disqualify them if their MySpace profile is counter to that? Our human nature dictates that we form judgements on people whether it is in person or online, and as recruiters, we want to hire or submit people that are qualified on many different levels. I don't care what someone does in their personal life unless it spills over into their professional life. Would we be having this conversation if one did a search for a candidate and saw accolades and excellent accomplishments on LinkedIn? Why are we only focussing on the questionable habits of candidates? If someone puts something out on the web deliberately for the world to see, they take the consequences or rewards of their actions. Social Networking is still relatively in its infancy and we have a long way to go before the HR police figure out what to do with it, but in the mean time, shouldn't we use the resources currently available to evaluate our candidates?

Great idea-filled discussion!

Randy

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by KarenM / Hirecentrix.com on July 23, 2007 at 11:18pm

Randy,
you make also some great points, and may I explain some interesting situations that are occurring to me that is a perfect example. Recently an individual wrote a blog post about me that attempted to trash my personal and professional reputation. I would say that this post was done with Malice, based upon the fact that the individual never attempted to Ascertain any facts and created a document that was complete harmful
Ultimately a decision was made, and this information was taken to another public forum. Again, there is another situation where the Individual who posted the Second post attempted to explain a situation but the facts were actually Extremely inaccurate, and did not hold an iota of credence. I HAVE Solid Evidence and PROOF that the situation that was described did not occur as was described, and that in fact what was said about me was completely 100 Percent inaccurate. (I am a data Pack Rat, and have emails from these individuals supporting my words here)

Now Ultimately I have been harmed by this situation professionaly. My Professional Online reputation is now on the line based upon 2 very Public, abrasive, irresponsible and harmful posts
My reputation has been placed in a False light, there has been an invasion and intrusion to my privacy, since this information was taken to a Public Forum, rather than remaining in Private. Based upon the title of the Blog, one would think that indeed there would have been no need to take this public. correct?

Now, Do I have an opportunity to defend my reputation? No, because the opportunity to discuss this was taken from me. I am unable to respond in any way. So much for the 1st Ammendment huh?

What I am saying here? Well sometimes what you see on the net isn't always Real. The First Ammendment goes 2 ways.. You see, Randy, sometimes what you may see in a blog may appear to be something that isn't - and I speak of this from first hand experience at this time.

Another example Sometimes an individual may post something in the name of another, trying to discredit them; sometimes one may assume that a picture or statement is worth a Hundred words, but in actuallity it is not even worth the pixel that is on the screen - sometimes people may say something and regret it later, and even start deleting the evidence, not realizing that the information can still be found through archived sites.

There are reasons that we can't say something in interviews.. there are reasons why the law protects the privacy of others, and there are reasons why going on sites to determine anothers reputation can be troubling.. One may never know for sure if that information is accurate, true or Valid.

The same goes for the Accolades as well.. how do we know the fact from the fiction unless we speak directly to the individuals in question? And doesn't job history not play the most important part?

What we have seen mentioned several times in these responses are what one Believes to be personal Characteristics. You may have deemed them unhealthy, when another may strike it up to age, and silly youth, or ignorance. When you say that they must have Character, is it not their Professional Business Character that is most important, not their personal? And does not their professional Experience speak mountains for them. If a candidate has tenure at a conservative company, working in a position of status, but in personal life, he demonstrates a character of as you mentioned "unhealthy" behavior, then who are we to judge? Especially if the current company they work for does not care..

Back to my situation. My Professional and Personal Character was sullied by the careless words that were said in public. These words were not said by me, they don't even represent me in any light - in fact there were close to 30 individuals that also acknowledged my position favorably, but, unfortunately they were only able to hear One side of the story, so the spe

▶ Reply to This

▶ Reply to This

• 1
• 2