This morning, Brazen Careerist released a completely revamped site. They have moved slowly from a small, Gen Y focused blog network to a fairly robust social network for millennials to manage their careers. It has been a cool transition and I’ve made some great contacts on there (too many to name here). Unfortunately, I’ve also seen some of my fellow Gen Y’ers use the tools there to shoot themselves in the foot with posts that have ranged from borderline questionable to outright stupid. It has been difficult at times associating my content with the site. With the emphasis off blogging, one has to wonder if it will improve the credibility of the site as a true social network.
The Evolution of Online Identity
Brazen Careerist has transitioned from a blog network to full fledged social network. Will this help its Gen Y members put their best foot forward?
The transition Brazen Careerist is making is indicative of several surveys which have been reported elsewhere about how online sites are impacting the ability of people to either get a job or keep their existing job. CareerBuilder has a critical report out about how more employers are screening potential employees using social media tools.
A few years ago, there was a better chance that you wouldn’t find someone online if you looked. The idea of an online identity or even brand was ridiculous. Now if you don’t find someone online, you’re wondering if they’ve lived off the grid.
The fact of the matter has become whatever you put online can become public and there is a world of consequences involved that relate to your future in employment.
The Good, The Bad and The Ugly
I know as much as anyone the positive things that can come from having a good online identity. Remember, I am the guy that posted about how my blog got me a job? So yes, I am a true believer. Being online and having a good reputation can help you immensely.
Of course, there is the bad. If your name is associated with crappy things or drunken pictures, you can expect a certain percentage of tech savvy employers to figure that out and disqualifying you on the basis. You know what I say to people complaining about that? Tough. Some think that shouldn’t happen. Some think you are taking a major legal risk. I don’t necessarily disagree but I still say “tough.” Why?
- If you have bad stuff out there that is publicly available, it has always been accessible and used by savvy employers. It just hasn’t ever been this easy before. And the irony of it is candidates and employees are putting up the information themselves. I’ve spotted inconsistencies between resumes and LinkedIn profiles and have asked specifically about it. As with the rest of life, if you’re going to lie, you’ll have to be consistent.
- Should it matter if there is bad stuff out there? That question is wrong. The question should be if it does matter to the hiring manager? Shouldn’t you assume the answer is always going to be yes? Of course I may feel like I deserve privacy but with that privacy, I may have not been spotted as a great candidate. How do people expect employers to look the other way when it only benefits the candidate? It is completely unrealistic.
- Yes, there are legal risks. Of course, companies enjoy the same legal risks every time they discard a resume, disqualify an interviewee or fire an employee for other legitimate reasons too. If someone feels their disqualification is due to a protected class, nothing stops them from suing no matter the circumstances. The burden of proof is the same.
Just Recognizing, Not Condoning or Condemning
Ultimately, there will be ideologues on either side of this argument who will say “Hey, this sucks. Employees should be able to do what they want!” or “Hey, employers should be able to do whatever they want!” and they’ll want to argue with me about it. That doesn’t work. I believe that employers will ultimately risk it and try to find out as much information as possible about employees and job candidates while job candidates and employees will continue to push the envelope on what is acceptable to put on the internet and not face some sort of consequence.
The end result? The actions of both will typically end up somewhere in the mushy gray. That’s where it always ends up. Some employers will go to extremes, some employees and job candidates will too, and most will fall down the middle somewhere.
A Closing Question
Realizing that social networking is now part of an employer’s reputation check (and an ongoing check for current employees), what can employees do to ensure they put their best foot forward for employers while protecting their privacy?
Tell me what you think in the comments and I’ll do a follow up post with some of the responses from here and Twitter.
{ 4 trackbacks }
{ 15 comments… read them below or add one }
Social networking is undoubtedly a powerful force that is not going away. As it continues to gain steam both employers and employees must learn the impact that it can have on day to day operations. We (employers and employees) are in the beginning of discovering what this actually means (the gray area you reference). I believe that employers will be disadvantaged if they do not utilize this 20,000 ft view of candidates. Don’t we want to know if the person we am hiring is presenting themselves in an authentic manner? We must take advantage of this free resource to help us find well suited matches for our company.
Employees/job seekers must live in the “gray area” knowing that this is becoming the norm for employers. When I click submit, I am saying it is ok for anyone to read what I have composed. If I am weary of posting something, I have the free will to stop. We should all ask ourselves the following simple question…Would I take this new message/image that I am about to post and wear it on a t-shirt? While this t-shirt would not be “fashionable” you should be comfortable with the message.
Does privacy really exist anymore? With a few clicks of a key, it seems like details of your life are there for all to see. I have friends who are choosing to stay as far away from on-line activities as they can for this very reason but this is the way of the world now and people not engaging are going to be left behind. For me, if you wouldn’t want your name associated with it, don’t write it or post it on line. Let me ask this, is privacy a reasonable expectation?
A Question: If you have two equally qualified candidates, would you pick the one with a FB or Linkedin account, a blog, and plenty of online information or the one who is a complete unknown beyond the traditional resume, interview and reference check?
I agree with @Lisa Rosendahl that her friends may be hurt by not having an online presence. I would argue we are starting to tip to the side of having an online presence will be as much of a requirement as a resume.
So will our tolerance for drunken debauchery pictures grow? Or will the next generation find themselves having to gauge their behavior based on what an employer will see still posted online in five years?
HR Leigh/@LisaRosendahl
I definitely think that not having an online presence says more about a candidate many times than having a presence. I spoke (live as a matter of fact) with two college career counselors at major universites this week. They both referred to attending social media related workshops as they are incorporating this arena into their work with college students (no suprise). If the scale has not started to tip yet…it is coming soon.
“If you have two equally qualified candidates, would you pick the one with a FB or Linkedin account, a blog, and plenty of online information or the one who is a complete unknown beyond the traditional resume, interview and reference check? ”
It depends on the position for me. However, the candidate with significant online experience would enter the interview with an advantage.
Regarding Brazen Careerist specifically, I think the key is that the unacceptable posts are off the front page. That’s really a game changer for them in terms of gaining respect from the community – it alleviates the discomfort many people I know had with signing up. And it alleviates young people shooting themselves in the foot, contributing to the annoying Gen Y stereotypes, and generally making themselves worth listening to by older folks.
I would (and will) continue to do what I am doing, which is being myself – good, bad and ugly. Most employyers recognize that people are people. These backgorund checks are really about eliminating excessive people applying for limited positions. If the economy picks up and talent becomes short again, we will see a quick abandonment of these tactics.
I remember working in Texas years ago when the economy was blazing. People would apply and refuse the request for a drug test, openly admitting they wouldn’t past. Some companies would hire them anyway because they needed the skill/person.
Some naughty language on FB or twitter will pale pretty quickly then!
First impressions count. Gook luck accusing an employer of turning you down just because of your website, twitters or facebook.
That said, what’s tolerated as acceptable, just like tattoos and CASUAL dress, will change over time. So, yes, it’s okay to be yourself on line. Just don’t expect a future employer to ignore how they perceive you as an employee because of it.
In other words, I think we’re all getting a little more real because of it. Employers that don’t get it, may lose out on top talent because of their bias, employees may lose out on career opportunities to stay true to themselves.
This can be a bit of a sensitive issue, nothing seems to be private anymore, even ones personal life, however there is still a choice! I still know people who choose not to be on social networking websites, firstly for their own privacy and secondly, for the implications that it might have on their careers. I dont think we can be angry at prospective employers for trying to find information about job candidates, if its on the internet its there for the whole world to see! In my view, if there is incriminating evidence of you on the internet then maybe you should think twice before applying for a high profile job, the only other alternative would be to grow up! I dont think however that you should stop being yourself, as many people have pointed out employers recognise what people get up to, just remember not to upload those really drunkn photos!
If Social Media becomes the new microscope for Corporate America to “look at every facet” of someones online activities, then I think it will ultimately come back and bite them. Corporate America has already broken the employee / employeer relationship completely to the point it is a transaction. Now corporate is going look at your social life, political views, everything you do online and use that as a hiring tool?
You know who you will get – sheep and boring people with no imagination. If that’s what you are looking for – great, but I think it is another step in the wrong direction. I know that Social Media will not go away (I don’t even think it is social media in this context, but any/ all online activities) but if companies are basically going to use anything you say against you and feel ‘justified’ since it is on the internet, what is next? Following people around?
While this may seem hyperbolic, I refuse to accept that the American worker will suddenly either become ’squeeky clean’ or ‘anonymous’ but that is where corporate America seems to be pushing it.
We will see if Brazen can somehow translate Penelopies following into a real social network. I am very skeptical.
@Garrick – Good points all around. I think the gray area is where we operate in a lot of employee relations issues. There is no more black and white.
@Lisa – I guess I feel a little different about social networking than privacy in general. If I were to build a house that is made entirely of glass, how could I complain if someone is looking in at me from the street? Social networks are constructs of millions of people choosing to put their life out there.
@HR Leigh – Somebody mentions it down further but I think out expectations are always changing and they aren’t going to be the same from company to company. I don’t know if social networking has changed the practice of hiring cultural fits or not. It is a good discussion in and of itself.
@Monica – I was brushing on that point but you nailed it. I’ve had a little bit of discomfort with some of the things being posted on there from time to time but for the most part, it has been a good thing to reach people I wouldn’t normally reach. That being said, I don’t expect a ton from anything I don’t put much work into.
@Michael – I don’t even know if it is a bad thing all of the time. Sometimes the social networking check makes you feel more at ease with the decision and can lead to a better bargaining position for the employee.
@Nancy – It’s difficult to prove anything like that anyway unless it is some ridiculous offense. Not saying that there isn’t risk (there is risk in any employment action), but it seems like the warnings about impending doom go a bit overboard. And you’re right, employers that come down to harshly on social networking can lose talent too.
@HR Editor – Be yourself, just don’t be YOUR self if you are a drunk, a slob or an a-hole, right? People can laugh at that all they want but if you are uploading something, maybe think twice about the consequences. We all have a choice.
@Will – The cynic in me understands what you’re saying but how can you blame them for access what everyone else can access too? If you hired someone who said stupid things on twitter or on their blog, they become a liability and headache for the people that hire them. The great equalizer is that people are starting to figure out how to use social media to research companies. When they find out they aren’t good people, they move on (even in this environment). The street goes two ways.
I don’t think it is a matter of going squeaky clean or going anonymous. In an ideal world, it would be about both parties being authentic and finding the best mutual fit. Right now, it is employee and employer beware. If it is on the internet, it is fair game.
While I understand your point, what about the rights of the candidate? It seems rather one sided, and yet HR always is talking about ‘partnerships and relationships’ where do the candidates rights come into this?
Does the corporation have the right to subjectively assess my fit based on things that are explicitly not in my resume and are explicitly part of my personal life? How does HR confirm that the “will robinson” that they searched for on google is the same WR that they are considering hiring? Where is ‘the line’ between appropriate behavior and in-appropriate behavior because these seem to be very subjective and gray.
Are you the exact person with your good friends that you are at work? Shouldn’t you be allowed to be a different person during your time-off? If you said something stupid 5 years ago, it could haunt you for the rest of your career – is that fair?
This is not a level playing field, there are many more workers out there than there are jobs. If I get dinged from a company, should I search every executive and board member’s online activities and make them public? Will they be fired for the same reasons I wasn’t hired?
There are a lot of big issues here and corporate America has already lost the trust of the people. Do you want to burn more bridges?
Here is my take “Corporate America is Killing Social Networks AKA F-You Beaver Cleaver”
http://virtualjobcoach.com/blog/?p=1964
@Will – Your take is pretty one sided too. Corporate America has broken trust but so have employees, sometimes thousands of times over. So while one’s actions may be very visible, the other side’s are more subtle and repeated frequently. I’ve been privy to both of those and the end result is mutual distrust. Both parties have contributed to the current situation.
Companies are already subjectively assessing fit based on what isn’t on your resume. How you talk, how you interact with other people, your written correspondance, your personality in the interview… that’s all considered. If people were just what they are on their resume, there would be very few workplace issues. It is unrealistic to expect that from an employee. Subjective decision making is part of why the selection process is so difficult.
Job candidates are free to expose what ever they want about company management that’s publicly available but I don’t know exactly what that accomplishes? Wouldn’t a better way to stick it to the overly aggressive, social media background check company be to happily work for another company that doesn’t care (or cares minimally) about what’s online? You give one your talents and you deprive the other of them.
So I guess candidates don’t really have any rights, they should be really happy that someone will pay them to work and if they don’t like it, they can lump it.
Everything online is a supplement to your resume that allows any employers to differentiate you from the masses. If two potential applicants apply for the same job and have the same exact credentials – 4.0 GPA and Class President etc. – doing a simple search online will be able to make the decisions easier when you find out one is very active online or if you see a bunch of profanity or drunken pictures for another.
An employer wants to hire the best suited applicant for the job and a simple Google search can help in this process. So the most important thing an employee can do is to manage their online reputation and control what comes up when a someone searches for them online.