We strongly recommend you review the social media behaviors of potential candidates. Social media posts, activities, and profiles are indicators of the habits and character of potential candidates.
Over the years we’ve heard from some managers and candidates that a social media review is an “invasion of privacy.” We disagree, because social media is not a private activity, but manifestly public. (We certainly don’t recommend less than ethical methods to examine candidates’ online activities.)
An example is helpful here. Consider the candidate who answers all of your screening questions well and seems to have the right background and experience. You bring him in for a full day of onsite interviews. This is the final step in your hiring process.
During that day of interviews, per our recommendation (explained later), you schedule a brown-bag lunch for him and three or four of your direct reports who are interviewing him that day. You’re clear with him that this is not an interview, but nevertheless a chance to get to know him better in an informal setting. [When you’re next a candidate, don’t forget that, even when you’re not interviewing, you’re still being evaluated.] You’re also clear that this is a chance for him to get to know you and the people he’ll be working with.
During the lunch, your candidate is a surprisingly sloppy eater. He gets food on his face—which happens to us all—but then wipes it on his sleeve. He doesn’t use his napkin to wipe some small spills around where he’s eating. He comments that he doesn’t like the food he’s eating: “This isn’t very good. Too salty.” He interrupts others several times. When one of your team asks him about one of the companies he’s worked for—after mentioning that the questioner himself worked there several years ago—the candidate says, “I thought you said this wasn’t an interview. What was your experience like there?”
Our recommendation would be to not hire this candidate. Remember: The purpose of evaluating candidates is to find reasons to say no. Despite what are good interview answers, his behavior at lunch is rude and unprofessional. You realize: This person isn’t polite.
It certainly is possible that you would disagree with this assessment. You might say, “Well, all I care about are his technical skills. We don’t put much stock here in etiquette and manners and being nice to others.” We would caution that you are making a mistake. There are two reasons to fire someone: either she doesn’t get her job done, or she engages in behaviors that are detrimental to team morale and communication. The lunch behaviors are noteworthy enough to assume that these behaviors will continue. You’re already assuming that his “good” behaviors/answers in his interviews are going to continue. Why not these bad ones as well? In our experience, they will.
This lunch behavior example is similar to a candidate’s social media presence. When hiring, we do not confine ourselves to candidate interview answers. We look at the whole person, not just his or her narrow technical skills. The entire candidate, with all of his or her interpersonal habits and communication foibles, will work with you. Employees are not robots, but humans, having to work with other humans.
You might also argue that how a potential employee behaves in social media activities are (in most free countries) “free speech.” This is generally true. But it is mitigated by the principle (codified by case law in most countries) that employees do not have the right to free speech in the workplace. You can’t say anything you want at work and call it free speech. By the same token, employment generally follows a rule called “at will.” This means you can quit for any reason, and your employer can fire you for virtually any (behavioral) reason.
Social media screening is not about looking for candidates you “agree with” politically, socially, or in hobbies or interests. This kind of screening often borders on discrimination, with which we vehemently disagree. In fact, a candidate who expresses different political views on social media than the norm or majority in your firm but does so respectfully and with intellect and compassion might well excite you. It would us.
Rather, we recommend you use social media to look for behaviors or indicators that there are professional, ethical, or communication problems that could surface at work.
Before we share some areas to look at, also remember that at Manager Tools, we make recommendations that are “timeless” and not “timely.” But when it comes to social media, “timeless” is very hard to warranty.
As an example of the changing face of the technological/social media world, Manager Tools’ first podcast guidance about social media was originally titled, “The MySpace Cast.” That’s because the cast was released in 2008, when MySpace had yet to be eclipsed by Facebook (and as of this writing, Instagram and Twitter).
As of 2019, here is our social media screening guidance:
Facebook/Instagram/Twitter: Are There Photos/Posts That Show This Person in a Bad Light? The classic example of a candidate exhibiting poor judgment is a profile picture that shows the candidate drunk. Being drunk (if you’re in private or not driving) isn’t an issue, but publicly displaying one’s drunkenness (which such a post does) is a sign of immaturity or poor judgment. We remember one candidate using his jailhouse mugshot as his profile picture. Perhaps the infraction was innocent, but publicly displaying the picture is a sign of poor judgment. This is not always so: perhaps she was arrested for a peaceful demonstration. But such online behavior ought to raise an eyebrow about someone’s judgment, which will be used every day at work. As a general rule, one’s judgment in one’s personal life, however protected and supported by modern freedoms, is an indicator of the judgment the person will bring to your workplace.
Political expressions are protected in social media. And we show our thankfulness for those freedoms by exercising those rights. But political speech that denigrates others or opposing viewpoints is worthy of a professional consideration: Will the candidate be able to disagree in the workplace with comity and respect?All this said, use your social media review to gather information only. Add it to what you know and learn about a candidate. We wouldn’t recommend ruling out a candidate based on social media behaviors alone. (If you understand the first principle of interviewing, it should be obvious that we definitely wouldn’t use social media to rule someone in—although it might be a source of candidates.) On the other hand, with two final candidates, one whose social behavior doesn’t fit with your culture and one whose does, make an offer to the one whose does.