Facebook

[Dreadful Scathe]

The research I've seen suggests that there is a strong correlation between the impression given by a facebook page, and one's actual personality, even in cases where people are attempting to give a different impression.

Not quite the point I was trying to make. Different people will get a different perception of a person based upon their facebook/myspace/whatever page... e.g. The "drunken pirate" example above would be seen by one employer as "unprofessional" and by another as "good team player" or "fun person". So yes, a personality may shine through, but the perception of the person based on the readers own prejudices is what worries me. Thats why we attend interviews in our best clothes - its work, NOT our private life - its a completely different social situation.

[killingtime]

Sensible advive, and the reason I didn't use my real birthday on there. I also removed myself from the London network. There's no reason why a million strangers should be able to see more than my name and pic.

You can changed what is shown to your network though if you want to belong to the London network. Contact details are, by default, hidden to networks. Therefore either people are making it more public and risking id theft or they are adding friends who aren't really a friend but someone who is becoming a friend just to try and steal the details.

The research I've seen suggests that there is a strong correlation between the impression given by a facebook page, and one's actual personality, even in cases where people are attempting to give a different impression.

Again all an employer could see about me on facebook is the fact I'm on it, in Edinburgh and I appear to be wearing a zebra hat and scarf. That might be enough to put them off me, I don't know. Unless people are on the same networks or have changed their profile to public then that's all they'll show too.

[Bombay Sapphire]

It is VERY unfair,

Who do they think they are? In fact, who do you think YOU are? I wouldn't want to EVER work for your company knowing what you have just told me.

I'm an employer.
If you put that you enjoy filming yourself & your girlfriend having sex, on facebook, a public forum,
I am not going to employ you.
This is an extreme, but genuine example.
Should I have ignored it?

[Dreadful Scathe]

I'm an employer.
If you put that you enjoy filming yourself & your girlfriend having sex, on facebook, a public forum,
I am not going to employ you.
This is an extreme, but genuine example.
Should I have ignored it?

absolutely, yes!

[Bombay Sapphire]

absolutely, yes!

Ok, Difference of opinion accepted.


I promise not to apply for a job in your company.

[Dreadful Scathe]

Ok, Difference of opinion accepted.

fine

I promise not to apply for a job in your company.

er..why ?

[Twirly]

I'm an employer.
If you put that you enjoy filming yourself & your girlfriend having sex, on facebook, a public forum,
I am not going to employ you.
This is an extreme, but genuine example.
Should I have ignored it?

I don't know what your business is, but unless it involves your staff caring for vulnerable people, why should someone else's sexual proclivities stop them from doing the job you employ them for well?

[Dreadful Scathe]

I don't know what your business is, but unless it involves your staff caring for vulnerable people, why should someone else's sexual proclivities stop them from doing the job you employ them for well?

exactly - the example used by Bombay is ridiculous....whats "wrong" with consenting couples videoing each other is it any more "wrong" that gambling, or smoking, or driving over the speed limit, or going to the pub mosts nights of the week ? its all a matter of opinion. (and i think all of those things are worse )

I also would have thought someone who is open about what they enjoy doing is quite a GOOD person to employ !

[MartinHarper]

Why should someone else's sexual proclivities stop them from doing the job you employ them for well?

It's more about social mores. Rightly or wrongly, it's unusual to publish one's sexual habits under one's own name. Normal social mores are to keep such information private. This marks one as something of a non-conformist. Some employers will like this, others won't. It all depends what they are looking for in their staff. For example, someone hiring a sex columnist would probably consider such openness a requirement.

[MartinHarper]

Again all an employer could see about me on facebook is the fact I'm on it, in Edinburgh and I appear to be wearing a zebra hat and scarf. That might be enough to put them off me, I don't know. Unless people are on the same networks or have changed their profile to public then that's all they'll show too.

What would prevent an employer from changing networks to be on the same network as you?

[Dreadful Scathe]

It's more about social mores. Rightly or wrongly, it's unusual to publish one's sexual habits under one's own name.

Not now. In the past, pre WWW, there was no real way to do it at all - taking an advert out in a newspaper would indeed be very strange; but on social networking sites of the large open community that is the internet ? surely this is anything BUT advertising, you are being honest about yourself just as others are. What you do divulge may be of no interest to others but like-minded people and those who may at some point become friends - i would doubt anyone posts such information in the hope others will use it against them

Normal social mores are to keep such information private. This marks one as something of a non-conformist.

The problem is simply a disparity between how most people view and use such social sites and the views and use of the sort of people who use them to judge others. For an employer to look at someones entry on a social site and judge their suitability based on that, is no different to the employer finding a personal diary that was "left out in the open", reading it and judging said person based on the contents. Just because you are privy to some personal information about someone, doesn't mean you are morally right to use it against them.

Some employers will like this, others won't. It all depends what they are looking for in their staff. For example, someone hiring a sex columnist would probably consider such openness a requirement.

But what is the difference between someone pre-judging based on sexual preferences and say religion - both are personal choices that people can "advertise".

What if the employers opinion is "i think most muslim women are submissive because of their male biased culture" so if i find out someone is muslim i won't hire them - is that so different to "i think sex should only ever be discussed in private" so if I find out that someone discusses sex in public i won't hire them. Both sets of information could be available on a site like facebook and could be used that way. In both cases the end result being "cv in bin".

Personally I think people ARE often too open in public on the many websites but it is still a relatively new social phenomenon which cannot be relied upon. Having people suffer for honesty cant be a good thing but of course, without actually asking the person, you have no way of knowing if they ARE being honest. Some people personify themselves on web pages as someone they are not - there are plenty Walter Mittys out there - some of them virgins who profess to filming themselves having sex no doubt

[killingtime]

What would prevent an employer from changing networks to be on the same network as you?

You can only join a certain number of networks in a given time frame. That wouldn't slow them down for long though. Therefore nothing though, as I've said, I've restricted access to most of my profile to friends only.

[MartinHarper]

Not now. In the past, pre WWW, there was no real way to do it at all - taking an advert out in a newspaper would indeed be very strange; but on social networking sites of the large open community that is the internet?

Yes. I believe that, even today, most people do not publish the details of their sex life in a place that everyone, even complete strangers, can read.

For an employer to look at someones entry on a social site and judge their suitability based on that, is no different to the employer finding a personal diary that was "left out in the open", reading it and judging said person based on the contents.

I think the big difference is that a private diary is inherently private, whereas one's public presence on the internet is inherently public.

[Dreadful Scathe]

I think the big difference is that a private diary is inherently private, whereas one's public presence on the internet is inherently public.

People tend to hide private diaries away in a locked drawer...if they leave it out in plain site is it still inherently private? Equally, on a social networking site, one person among millions is essentially hidden by the crowd unless someone is specifically looking for them.

What I am trying to say though - is that the lines are now very blurred. If one views a social networking site as a room people can walk though and the personal thoughts, pictures and so on are pages from a diary in that room that you could look at: despite the easy access to the material, it doesn't mean the information found is "for you". You can choose to look at the information after finding the room.

I think some people do genuinely make things public because they don't want to limit the possibility of meeting people of a like mind - so a concept of "searching by name, network, hobby or whatever" needs to be there to allow for this new social networking concept. People who do think like this should not be penalised by possible/actual employers because of some, possibly stupid minority, ideas the employers have decided that employees MUST hold - especially when its not even relevant to the business.

Also, just because its been put up on the site as fact, doesn't mean it is. An employer should at least confirm this if they want to hire people...would an employer ignore the line "i have 7 degrees, all 1sts, from oxford uni" or would they require some proof? why do negatives get accepted at face value? Could it be an arbitrary, and stupid, way to narrow down the pile of CV's ?

Quite probably. Its common knowledge that the wrong paper colour, font size, spacing or number of pages in your CV can send you straight to the cv bin. I think I'd much rather accept that all but a completely random selection of, say 40, CV's went straight in the bin. At least then employers are not fooling themselves with nonsensical excuses and just randomly cutting down to a manageable amount

[Astro]

You can only join a certain number of networks in a given time frame. That wouldn't slow them down for long though.

I left my network. i don't remember being asked if I wanted to join in the first place.

Therefore nothing though, as I've said, I've restricted access to most of my profile to friends only.

me too.

[MartinHarper]

People who do think like this should not be penalised by possible/actual employers because of some, possibly stupid minority, ideas the employers have decided that employees MUST hold - especially when its not even relevant to the business.

Perhaps, but really you're arguing against bigotry and suchlike. If employers have sensible ideas about what they want from their employees, then there's no harm in them researching potential employees online. Similarly, employees can find out about their likely future boss.

Also, just because its been put up on the site as fact, doesn't mean it is. .. why do negatives get accepted at face value?

No employer wants to hire someone who is dishonest, so they're not going to hire someone in the hope that their online persona is an elaborate hoax.

I think I'd much rather accept that all but a completely random selection of, say 40, CV's went straight in the bin.

I heard stories that it is standard practice to randomly discard two in three CVs when employing people to work on the markets, on the grounds that good luck is a mandatory skill.

[DavidY]

Here's another question... If you were hiring for a job that required good literacy and communication skills, would it be valid to compare candidates based on the content (eg. grammatical errors) on their facebook/myspace/etc. page?

[Dreadful Scathe]

Perhaps, but really you're arguing against bigotry and suchlike. If employers have sensible ideas about what they want from their employees, then there's no harm in them researching potential employees online. Similarly, employees can find out about their likely future boss.

HUGE difference. A possible employee is looking for public information on a company - companies have information on the web for exactly that purpose. A social networking page is not specifically put there for possible employers - its generally put there because people want to meet others in a private capacity, despite their details being public - as i said before, you cant expect to meet new people if everything is private to only your "already known" friends can you

I'm arguing against bigotry as well, but mainly against the complete waste of time in employers looking into people online. If you are not directed there by the C.V itself. Stay away. Say a person talks about how unorgansied they are on facebook, that could be a mark against them despite the fact that in the work place they are top project managers - different worlds should be treated as such.

No employer wants to hire someone who is dishonest, so they're not going to hire someone in the hope that their online persona is an elaborate hoax.

hope doesn't enter into it - its none of the employers business in the first place. The assumption should always be that a facebook page is someones chosen public persona and NOT a working persona or anything that is in any way equivalent to a C.V.

As for dishonesty. Are you kidding? Is every C.V. 100% truth? Is it a rule somewhere that you can't say to someone "my diet is working, i had absolutely no snacks yesterday" when you had a mars bar? Or that when asked "Does my bum look big in this" you have to truthfully reply "Well yes, it really does". Who are these employers that are the perfect example of humanity? Do they have halos?

My main point is still - by employers using information on a social networking site, they are being grossly unfair when many other people they consider will not have any interest in such a thing - but could be drug dealing office supply stealer's.

The other thing i was wondering is, if an employer does look at someones facebook site do they always have their picture with c.v.s ? if not, it might only be someone with the same name thats lying about their achievements on lines and not the real "Shirley Smith" (theres nothing to stop anyone else creating a page on your behalf either)

Here's another question... If you were hiring for a job that required good literacy and communication skills, would it be valid to compare candidates based on the content (eg. grammatical errors) on their facebook/myspace/etc. page?

No. You can go by their CV, introduction letter and any tests you do at interview, but online its a big no-no. Simply because how people choose to write or how sloppy they tend to be in their private life does not give any indication of what they are like in their working life. I know a receptionist who writes almost entirely in txt speak outwith the office it's the modern shorthand after all.

Personally I think any employer who makes a pre-interview decision based on what they find on the internet, should really be looking for a new job themselves.

[Aleks]

Here's another question... If you were hiring for a job that required good literacy and communication skills, would it be valid to compare candidates based on the content (eg. grammatical errors) on their facebook/myspace/etc. page?

Not sure about facebook/myspace/etc. entries but grammar is certainly noted from your cv and cover letter/email and, depending on the number of candidates, it is possible that you might get shunted down or fall off the shortlist because of it, regardless of your qualifications or competencies.

The recruitment consultancy I work for is currently looking for my replacement and turned down an applicant due to the poor grammar on the CV. The applicant was told that this was the case.

[MartinHarper]

HUGE difference. A possible employee is looking for public information on a company - companies have information on the web for exactly that purpose.

I meant that if I go for a job, and I get given an interview with Fred Smith, and get told that I'll be working for Jane Doe, I'm likely to check Fred and Jane out online. Maybe I'll find something useful, maybe I won't.

Say a person talks about how unorganised they are on facebook, that could be a mark against them despite the fact that in the work place they are top project managers.

I agree that there can be a difference between online presence and working life. There can also be a difference between CVs and working life. Nothing is perfect.

As for dishonesty. Are you kidding?

No. I think honesty is important in working life, and a dishonest employee or employer is potentially very dangerous. For example, consider the collapse of Barings.

My main point is still - by employers using information on a social networking site, they are being grossly unfair when many other people they consider will not have any interest in such a thing - but could be drug dealing office supply stealer's.

You're assuming that information obtained online is only ever treated negatively. I was involved in an interview where such information reflected well on a candidate, and he went on to get a job.