The human resources department at my company (a nonprofit with about 100 employees) is extremely concerned with avoiding hiring factors that might get us into trouble legally. So obviously they don’t ask candidates about age, marital status and so forth. But they also do not look at a potential employee’s social media…
Send your workplace conundrums to email@example.com, including your name and contact information (even if you want it withheld for publication). The Workologist is a guy with well-intentioned opinions, not a professional career adviser. Letters may be edited.
The human resources department at my company (a nonprofit with about 100 employees) is extremely concerned with avoiding hiring factors that might get us into trouble legally. So obviously they don’t ask candidates about age, marital status and so forth. But they also do not look at a potential employee’s social media.
After an offer was made to a candidate for a management position, I was alerted to comments she made on social media that are offensive not only to me, but probably to many of our potential clients. Is there really a good reason to avoid checking social media during the hiring process? ANONYMOUS
Many employers do consider such material before deciding whether to hire someone, and a recent survey by the Society for Human Resource Management found that the trend is growing. This is frequently seen as an issue for job seekers, who are advised to go over their social media posts with an eye for potential offensiveness. But looking at the issue from an employer’s perspective also raises questions, both legal and practical.
Lisa Bertini, whose firm, Bertini Law, in Virginia Beach, specializes in employment law, said she had been hearing from more human resources departments wondering how they should, and can, use social media as a screening factor.
There is little case law to date, Ms. Bertini said, so employers are wise to be cautious — but, she added, they needn’t overreact. The main risk, she said, is in drawing conclusions based on social media that result in decisions that would be legally problematic under any circumstances: rejecting a candidate as a result of learning of her pregnancy, for instance.
Yet flat-out blindness to a potential employee’s public social media presence seems, at this point, like overkill. If a candidate who describes himself as a people person in a job interview is simultaneously posting overtly bigoted comments on a Twitter or Facebook account that’s visible to everyone on the Internet, that’s a defensible reason (legally and morally) for not making him your new sales representative.
“It’s going to surface, and you’re going to have to deal with it one way or another,” Ms. Bertini said. “So why not deal with it when you still haven’t hired the person?”
That said, much depends on the details. Snooping on nonpublic social media material (by becoming friends on Facebook with a candidate to get access to more private posts, for instance) seems unethical at best. And even relevant public material might be treated not as a deal killer, but as something to discuss. (So far, research aimed at figuring out how well a social media profile predicts actual worker attributes, good or bad, has yielded mixed results.)
Ms. Bertini checks sources like LinkedIn and public Facebook profiles when screening candidates for jobs at her firm, and recalls one who seemed promising but had a questionable profile picture. When asked, the candidate agreed that it projected the wrong image, and changed it. She got the job and has proved “phenomenal,” Ms. Bertini said.
In the above situation — being “alerted” to a job candidate’s potentially offensive social media comments — you should proceed with care. If those comments are truly public and raise legitimate concerns about a potential negative impact on your company, it seems fair to bring them to H.R.’s attention. Then let those in charge of hiring decide how to proceed.
But if you know about these questionable comments only because you happen to be in touch with somebody who has access to the person’s more private online expressions, you might think twice. A basic litmus test might be: How comfortable would you be explaining exactly how you know about the comments?
In other words, social media has to be treated with the same nuance as real life — because these days, that’s what it is.
Sorry, I don’t like your recent advice about discouraging manager inquiries on a vacation day. If your boss “pings” you on a day off, you’d better respond — or find another job. Of course, you can be off the grid occasionally (kayaking down the Grand Canyon). But seriously, the boss sets the standard. If the norm for work-related communications is seven days on, zero days off, then adapt to that culture or move on. NEAL PILSON, LENOX, MASS.
Enjoying the rewards (financial or emotional) of certain professions or positions can entail sacrificing the clearer limits of the proverbial 9-to-5 gig. And of course technology has made the work-life boundary more porous in general — so maybe answering the occasional job-related weekend email balances out time spent browsing travel bargains at the office.
But just because managers can communicate with employees at all hours doesn’t make such behavior necessary, or even smart. Bothering a worker who is on vacation when there are other solutions isn’t necessarily evidence of a boss setting a standard. It may just be evidence of an impulsive and disorganized management style.
So I concede that workers should not merely blow off emails from the boss across the board. But simply acquiescing to nonstop, instant availability isn’t the solution. The key is to find a balance that works best for the organization. The best managers in even the most demanding professions understand that, in the long run, everyone benefits from legitimate downtime.
Click here to view full article