Abstract
Social networking sites (SNSs) are used to interact with friends and stay connected. The SNSs are increasingly being used by employers as a source of background checks on employees, including the prospective candidates for employment. Employers are making decisions on the basis of information posted on SNSs. The decisions regarding selection, retention or exit are in part influenced by information posted on such sites. The present study examines the perceptions of current employees on the information checks done by employers using networking sites like Facebook. The current study also provides insights that can be followed by both the employees and employers related to usages of SNSs.
Introduction
The impact of modern technology and information revolution has altered the mode of communication in present-day life like never before. Earlier people used to interact face to face, whereas now, with the advent of technology and the Internet, people communicate through blogs and social networking sites (SNSs) (Reid and Reid, 2004). At present, there are about 1.6 billion Internet users worldwide (Internet users
These websites are increasingly being used as a source of information for referral checks. Employers are using information posted on such websites for making employment decisions such as selection, retention and exit. It has been observed that employees have lost their jobs because of content posted on social networking websites. Information posted on such websites, like profile pictures, political interests, networks joined, age, religion and sex, are generally not available in resumes. Employers find social networking websites to be an inexpensive and less time-consuming source of information checks. Social networking websites like Facebook allow the members to choose people with whom they want to share information. However, with the increased use of such websites, the members are now learning that information can also be accessed by unintended people or people who are not included in their list. Employers, too, have their profiles on Facebook and they access more than required information which is not directly related to business. Even the best of security settings cannot protect the information. For example, Facebook allows its advertisers to use the pictures of its members in advertisements without their consent (Clark and Roberts, 2010).
Background checks were earlier done for people who had strategic role in the organization or were directly related to business. However, with the advent of Internet and technology, employers are carrying out information checks on the almost all the employees, including prospective candidates, outside their knowledge. The degree to which the employers can use the Internet as a source of information checks is still debated. According to a survey done by
The studies done on social networking websites as a source of background information checks mainly talk about employers responsibilities. Employers are of the opinion that they have the right to get as much information about the employee as possible. Despite the casual content posted on social networking websites, employers find it reasonable to search who is best suitable for the organization. The literature in this field is mainly influenced by the writer’s point of view. The findings are either based on polling data or have talked about students as prospective employees. The current study captures the perceptions of employees on information checks done by the employers through Facebook. This study will help in forming guidelines for both prospective candidates and employers and would also help to know how social networking websites like Facebook should be used.
Literature Review
According to Boyd and Ellison (2007, p. 111), social networking websites can be defined as:
web based services that allow individuals to (1) construct public or semi public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their connections and those made by others within the system. The nature and nomenclature of these connections may vary from site to site.
These websites are increasingly used by employers to retrieve personal information of employees. There are two major consequences of such information checks done by employers. Employees are either not selected or are fired on the basis of information available on SNSs; however, the candidates are not informed about the reasons behind such decisions (Clarks and Roberts, 2010). Employees have lost their jobs based on content posted on their personal web profiles. Stacy Snyder (Snyder v/s Millersville University, 2008, cited by Elzweig and Peeples, 2009) lost her job as a student teacher because of the content posted on her profile in
The literature on separation between personal and professional life is mixed and inconclusive. David (2007) is of the opinion that employees expect to be left alone after completing office hours. An employer should not surf through an employee’s profile, especially in the context where the information posted in completely personal and not related to business. Manning (1997) opines that an employee has right to liberty and has the freedom to live life separate from the profession. He further argues that this freedom is necessary for one’s development. On the other hand, there is one set of researchers who say that an employer has the right to know whatever he/she can about the employee. Moreover, the employees are brand ambassadors of their organizations no matter on work or off work (Myatt, 2009; Sugarman, 2003). The credibility of information posted on social networking websites like Facebook is doubtful. Employees, at times, manipulate the information available knowing the fact that the employer may access it. Inaccurate information can be dangerous when a person is employed or fired on the basis of such information. David (2007) questions that if a person has posted a picture holding a rifle, is that person a member of militia? Similarly, if the employee has posted a picture while drinking, will the manager take the employee as an alcoholic? The decisions taken by employer on the basis of such information can misinterpret perceptions about the employees. The current study tries to provide answers to such questions.
Many members of such sites like to flaunt and portray themselves as party animals and intentionally post their pictures which may not be considered appropriate. In such context, the credibility of information through Facebook is questionable. Bohnert and Ross (2010) in their study suggested that social networking websites influence the decisions of employers. Candidates who have photographs in drunken state are less likely to be desirable, whereas candidates who have family-oriented photographs are considered to be more serious about their career. Moreover, the candidates having alcohol-oriented pictures in their profile were offered 7 per cent less salary than candidates having family-oriented pictures in their profile. In short, more family oriented is likely to positively influence the employer’s decision. The study suggests that although qualifications and information provided in the resume is the major deciding factor regarding hiring, the decision is in part also influenced by the information posted on websites. Keeping information checks on employees via social networking websites has many advantages from an employer’s perspective. As mentioned earlier, it is inexpensive and less time-consuming way of getting information about the candidate. Employers get more extensive information about employees through such websites and they have the right to protect themselves from negligent hiring (Blackwell, 2004). Negligent hiring occurs when the employer fails to check applicant’s incompetence, or fails to trace his background information, criminal records or other history (Edwards and Kleiner, 2002). They are of the opinion that employers should restrain their search only to business-related information. Employers should realize their social responsibilities and should not intrude much into employee’s privacy.
Currently, there is no law which prohibits an employer from accessing information posted on SNSs. However, an employer cannot create a fake profile or hack an employee’s profile to access protected information for any decision making related to employment. This amounts to invasion of privacy (Leonard, 2006). Some countries have made it a law to limit the information required by an employer about employee (Jeffery, 2002). The German government has approved a bill named Bundesdatenschutzgesetz (BDCG) which prohibits the employers from using social networking websites like Facebook for background checks. The bill says that employers should limit their search only to publicly available information. However, searches on information posted on more professional networks like LinkedIn would still be permitted.
As mentioned earlier, the literature on use of social networking websites as source of background checks is inconclusive. One group of researchers urges that the employer has a right to know about the employee (Myatt, 2009; Sugarman, 2003). Manning (1997) opines that an employee should not work with an employer if he/she does not agree to employer’s hiring process. Fuller (2006) says that information posted on such websites may not be business related and may be used inappropriately by the employer. Companies must act responsibly and protect the right to privacy. They should not wait for any law to prohibit such practice (Clark and Robbins, 2010). The practice of information checks done by employers can lead to modification in behaviour and may hamper creativity and originality and normal communication (Dvorak, 2001). In traditional sources of recruitment, the information provided in resumes or in interviews does not include religion, race, ethnicity and political interests, and the employers are prohibited to ask such questions. However, such information is easily available on social networking websites (Kowske and Southwell, 2006). A study done by Peluchette and Karl (2007) examined the student’s attitudes towards social networking sites and results suggested that 20 per cent of the respondents did not want their current or previous employers to check their profiles. The most common item that students did not want the employers to see was pictures and comments. A similar study done by Bohnert and Ross (2010) outlines that an unprofessional website can be costly in terms of lower salary and loss of employment opportunity, whereas on the other hand, a professional website can increase the likelihood of candidate getting the job.
The most critical issue in the literature is whether the information posted on social networking websites is personal or not, since it is in public domain. Moreover, the purpose of using social networking websites is different for employees and employers. The objectives of usage for both the parties are disconnected. Employees use it for staying connected with friends and family, whereas employers use it for making background checks and taking employment decisions on the basis of such information.
Methodology
Focus group discussion was chosen as the methodology for this study as it fosters discussion. The objective of the study was to capture the perceptions of employees about the information checks done by employers using SNSs like Facebook. Focus group discussion was thought to be appropriate methodology as it encourages participants to interact and share their experiences. Focus groups are useful in knowing how perceptions or opinions differ, or converge, regarding a particular group having similar characteristics. Focus groups also help participants to question each other and help in assessing why opinions differ or are similar (Morgan and Krueger, 1993). The focus group should be homogenous in terms of demographics of the participants as it fosters open discussion (Sim, 1998). The demographics of the participants in current study were mostly homogenous.
Participants
Focus group discussions were conducted with a total of 30 participants divided into three groups comprising 10 members in each group. All the participants were aged between 23–27 years, drawn from three different organizations in information technology (IT) sector from Hyderabad. We consciously chose IT sector as the workforce is relatively much younger and employees as well as employers use SNSs extensively in their personal and professional life. The work experiences of the participants ranged between 2–5 years. Twenty-six participants were technically qualified with engineering and MCA degrees and four had engineering and MBA degrees to their credit. Sixteen participants were females and 14 were males. All the participants were members of SNS Facebook.
Focus Group Discussion
Participants were given an overview of the discussion. The objective of the study was explained to participants. The discussion started with general questions like the purpose of joining Facebook and how frequently the participant’s login to their Facebook profiles. The following themes emerged out of the discussion:
Findings and Discussion
Purpose of Joining Facebook
All the participants were of the same opinion that Facebook is the effective medium to stay connected with friends. The participants agreed that it was difficult to stay connected with friends once they complete graduation. Through Facebook, one can contact childhood friends, family and colleagues. Everyone agreed that it was a virtual place where all friends could meet.
‘It is fun and best medium to stay in touch with friends. It is for all age groups from 6 to aged.’
‘I can contact my brother who is in US.’
All the participants login to their Facebook profiles almost everyday, and more frequently when they upload some new status messages or pictures.
‘I check my profile almost 100 times a day.’
‘With the provision of Internet connection via mobile phones we login to our profiles through mobile phones.’
When asked whether Facebook profile is personal or not, the responses were mixed. There was slight variation in opinion. Some were of the opinion that it was, at times, personal. It depends upon the person who is posting the information. The participants do not want everyone to see their profiles and pictures; however, they can share such information with friends. Few participants believed that Facebook is a social site, therefore nothing personal should be posted. They were of the opinion that if something is available in public domain, one cannot expect privacy. Another view emerged regarding security settings. All the participants agreed that even the best of security settings cannot prevent information from getting copied. If someone is putting any information on Facebook, it can be easily shared and therefore, one should take it in a sporting way. All the participants were of the view that knowing the fact that the information could be shared or copied, it is better not to post personal information.
‘My pictures got copied despite all the security settings.’
Employers Following Employees on Facebook
Participants were asked if their supervisors were following them on Facebook and if they were aware of this practice. All the participants were aware that their supervisors were observing them on Facebook. The participants said that it was a social norm that if colleagues or seniors sent friendship requests, one had to accept. The employee has no other option. One of the female participants said that her manager had sent her a friend request and although she did not want to add the manager, she had no other option than to accept the request. Also, if the supervisor is not present in the person’s profile but is there in a friend’s profile, he/she can easily access other person’s information. All the participants agreed that once the employer has been added to the profile, the employee should set some boundaries.
‘My manager is in my profile but I have hidden certain information like wall, pictures as it is only for my friends.’
All the participants agreed that although the employers were following employees on Facebook, it is not justified as the information posted is not related to business. Facebook is of personal interest.
‘Whatever comes to my mind I post. My supervisor cannot judge me on the basis of information posted. Team leader asks personal questions late at night like what are you doing online so late? Are you not coming to office tomorrow?’
All the participants agreed that such personal questions should not be asked as Facebook is completely for their personal interests and whatever one writes on Facebook, it is unintentional. They said that even in human resource (HR) interviews, personal questions were asked, but snooping into somebody’s profile and checking photos, comments made or comments received, updates, etc., was not acceptable. Participants also agreed that if someone was present in social network, he/she should be open to different set of perceptions. They were of the opinion that employees too had few responsibilities. They should not post whatever comes to their mind about their supervisor and organization. Facebook is a social site and is watched by millions. Employers should clearly mention the employment policies so that employees know what is expected from them.
‘One should not post salary on websites.’
How Accurate is the Information Available on Facebook?
Participants were asked how accurate was the information available on Facebook? There was no variation in the opinion. All agreed that the credibility of Facebook as a source of information is doubtful. Fake profiles can be easily created. One cannot judge any person only on the basis of Facebook. Although all the participants had given accurate information on their respective profiles, they all accepted the fact that majority of people wanted to flaunt, show off, so they make fake profiles. People pretend to be somebody else and do not disclose their true identities.
Can Facebook Profile Predict Behaviour?
Participants were asked whether the information posted on their profiles like photographs and status messages can predict their behaviour in the organization. All the participants agreed that on the basis of the profile, one could predict what kind of person the other party could be. An employer can judge an employee on the basis of pictures or status messages, and his/her behaviour in the organization can be predicted. If a person is regularly following somebody on Facebook, he/she can easily judge the other person. All were of the opinion that one should be diplomatic in Facebook transactions.
Self-monitoring
Participants were asked that knowing the fact, their employer was checking their Facebook profile did it lead to self monitoring There were some differences in the opinion of participants. One of the females said that she does not do self-monitoring before posting anything. She writes whatever comes to her mind and she would think before writing only once she is warned about the content posted.
‘I would not think before writing until and unless I am warned.’
Another female said that she thought a lot before posting anything on Facebook: ‘If somebody is in relationship and the boss comes to know through Facebook and the person did not want to reveal it to boss, it is only for friends, in such case it may create a problem.’
One of male participants was of the view that he would not write anything if the content hurt anyone. However, all the participants agreed that the level of self-monitoring would depend on how open-minded was the supervisor. Some supervisors take the content posted casually because they accept the fact that it is written casually and should not be taken seriously.
‘Two team leaders are in my profile; for one, I have not enabled any security settings but for the other I have hidden information as he asks personal questions.’
‘My supervisor is very cool; he takes things very casually so I don’t think much before posting any status.’
The participants were of the opinion that Facebook not only influenced judgements of people who were directly related but also might influence the perceptions of future project managers or team leaders. The degree of self-monitoring would depend upon the open-mindedness of the supervisor.
Invasion of Privacy
The participants were asked whether the information checks done by employers amounts to invasion on privacy. All the participants were of the opinion that in a social domain, one cannot expect privacy.
‘If I am making a profile, I want others to see it.’
However, they all were of the view that practice of snooping into employee’s profile should be avoided.
Can an Employer Take Any Decision on the Basis of Photographs or Comments an Employee is Tagged in or Networks Joined?
In Facebook, a person can be tagged in pictures and comments outside his/her knowledge. Before the employee checks his/her profile, the supervisor may take a look at such tags. The participants were asked whether or not an employer can take any decision on the basis of comments or pictures an employee is tagged in. The participants said that an employer should not take any decision on the basis of such tags as the employee was not at fault. They agreed that one-to-one connection was required between employer and employee.
‘One employee keeps posting information by someone else’s name because there is no connection between the boss and employee.’
‘If an employer is taking any decision on the basis of photos tagged in then he is a stupid boss.’
Also, participants were asked that if the networks joined by the employees could influence an employer’s judgement. There was a slight variation in opinion regarding networks joined. One of the participants was of the opinion that he joins competitor’s network to keep himself updated. The participants agreed that networks joined by the employees could influence an employer’s decision, especially if the employee has joined a competitor’s network. The employee has to be careful before joining any network.
‘Just like one cannot wear t-shirts with different badges in office, similarly joining competitor’s network can be harmful.’
Also, joining networks which are against employer’s personal interest can influence his/her judgement about the employee.
Indian government employees are not allowed to join certain groups because it is against some sections. In US if you are a democrat, you cannot be a republican. Similarly private employees should not join controversial networks and if one does, then he/she should be open to different sets of perceptions.
Discrimination in Hiring
In Facebook, personal information is available, like religion, place of birth and ethnicity, which generally is not taken into account while selecting a candidate. Such information is also not disclosed in resumes. Participants were asked whether availability of such information on Facebook can lead to discriminatory hiring practices. The participants were of the view that employers should select candidates solely on the basis of performance or competencies. If an employer is interested in knowing the religion or gender of an employee, then he/she should ask such questions during the interview itself. The employer should not extract such information from Facebook profiles. The participants said that an employer should not trust information available on Facebook because it might so happen that an employee who is very keen in joining that company might create a fake profile suitable to that organization. Any information available on Facebook can either positively or negatively influence the employer’s decision. All the participants said that they would not like to be a part of an organization which discriminated on the basis of religion, sex, place of birth or nationality. All the participants agreed that an employer shouldn’t discriminate on any basis. However, they also accepted the fact that such information does influence employer’s decision. One view emerged out of the discussion that such discrimination should be reported to higher authorities and the concerned person should be taken to task.
‘My work should speak for me.’
‘If I am a person from North, working in HR department of a company at Hyderabad and I have to shortlist 10 people, I browse several profiles. More likely I may select more profiles from the same region.’
Negligent Hiring
Negligent hiring occurs when an employer fails to test/check an employee’s incompetence, or fails to trace his past record, history, criminal records or general information. Participants were asked whether Facebook could prevent employers from negligent hiring. They were asked if Facebook could help in discovering the concealed truth. The participants were of the opinion that knowing the person personally was much more beneficial than knowing the person through Facebook. They felt that asking the ex-supervisor is much more beneficial and credible source of information and one can get more information. They all agreed that Facebook did not provide extensive information which could be relied upon for hiring purposes.
Post-office Hour Expectations
Employers should not ask personal questions after completing office hours. Employers generally chat with employees on Facebook which should be avoided. The employees were of the view that if the employer is getting too much involved into personal life, then it is not acceptable.
‘What are you doing online so late? Are you not coming to office tomorrow?’
The employees were of the view that if an employer was interacting casually and was trying to build a personal rapport, it was not acceptable. It is comfortable to interact with colleagues, whereas when supervisors assign work online, it is not acceptable.
Trust
Participants were asked whether the information checks done by employers via Facebook breaks the trust between employer and employee. The participants said that it might break trust between two parties.
‘An employee has taken leave on the grounds of ill health and later the employee puts the status message going back to home town or the employee uploads some pictures which show that employee was actually not ill.’
Such incidents can hamper the relation between the employer and employee. The employees should be cautious while posting anything on Facebook.
Writing Skills
Participants were asked that whether the writing skills could be judged by the content posted on Facebook. All the participants were of the same opinion that writing skills could not be judged. Most of the messages are copied from somewhere else. People generally communicate using slangs and colloquial words.
‘Life becomes lyf’
Vocabulary and communication skills cannot be judged from status messages or comments made on Facebook.
Variety of Knowledge
Participants were asked if variety of knowledge could be tested from the different pages joined, networks joined and videos uploaded. Participants agreed that to an extent, diversity of interests and knowledge could be judged.
Personality
Participants were asked if personality type can be determined on the basis of Facebook profile, that is, whether a person was extrovert or not. All the participants were of same view that personality type could not be judged on the basis of Facebook profile. People just add friends even if they do not know them.
‘Out of 400 friends one may only know 100; one may add a girl just because she is beautiful.’
If a person is really an extrovert, he/she should talk to all the people in his/her friends list, which generally does not happen.
Scenarios
Participants were given few scenarios and were asked to assume that they were employers and were asked to take decisions according to two different scenarios.
All the participants had same opinion. They all agreed that as an employer, while selecting a candidate, they all would only be concerned about the performance and not personal interests. The information provided is generally inaccurate, therefore taking any decision on the basis of such information would not be wise. However, one of the participants said that if asked to choose among equally deserving people, the person who posts such interests will be at the losing end. Another person was of the opinion that if the employer too had same interests, such information would positively influence the employer’s decision of selecting the candidate.
The participants were of the views that in Facebook, people only mention good things about themselves barring a few exceptions. However, to some extent, the good comments mentioned about an employee can definitely have positive influence on the employer’s decision to retain or reward the person.
Guidelines for Employers and Employees
Majority of the participants were of the opinion that employers should conduct background checks via social networking websites only if the information was business related. That is, the employers should first analyze whether the information is business related. Employers should avoid asking personal questions on Facebook profile of employee. This finding is consistent with the previous research (Peluchette and Karl, 2008). While conducting the information checks, the employers should always discuss with the employees. Information checks using social networking websites should not be done outside the employee’s knowledge as it may break the trust between the two parties. Employers should try to maintain one-to-one connection with the employees. As stated by the participants, it was always better to know the employee personally rather than through Facebook. Employers should not take any decision solely on the basis of information available as the credibility of Facebook as a source of information is questionable. Employees are of the view that taking any decision on basis of Facebook, in favor of the employee or against, should be avoided. The employment policies of the organization should be made very explicit in the employment contract; the practices of the organization should be transparent. Companies should act responsibly and should not intrude too much into employee’s private life. The employers should avoid snooping into employee’s Facebook profile.
Knowing the fact that the employer is following on Facebook, employees should not post information which they do not want to share with him/her. Once the employer has been added in the friend’s list, employees should set boundaries for themselves. They should only post that information which they want to share with rest of the world besides friends. As representatives of an organization, the employees should not criticize the employer openly on their personal profiles or should not post anything which can tarnish the image of the company. The employees should avoid joining competitor’s network or any controversial network as it may have an adverse impact. The information once posted on Internet becomes permanent and can be easily traced later. Employees should be very cautious while posting any information. With the increased usage of social networking websites, the employees are now realizing that even the best of security settings cannot guarantee privacy. Information posted, like pictures and status messages, on such profiles can be easily copied. Thus, employees should set limits for themselves; they should post only that information which they are comfortable in sharing with their bosses since they cannot stop employers from following them on Facebook. Employees cannot expect to be judged objectively if they are present in public domain.
Summary, Implications and Conclusion
The previous studies in this field are dominated by the authors view. These are either driven by employee surveys or students as prospective employees. However, the current study attempts to understand the perceptions of actual employees regarding information checks done by employers via social networking websites. The employees were working in three different organizations. Previous literature in the field of information checks done by employers was mixed and inconclusive. Issues like negligent hiring have not been clearly answered in the literature. However, in the present study, the participants were of the view that Facebook could not always prevent an employer from negligent hiring. Employees were of the view that credibility of Facebook as source of information is doubtful, therefore an employer should not rely on it. Moreover, it is always better to know the employees personally rather than following them on social networking websites. The findings regarding post-office hour expectations are consistent with the previous research (Davis, 1997). Employees do not want their employers to snoop into their profile once they complete office hours. Employees also said that even the best of security settings cannot guarantee information security. They shared their experience on how their pictures got copied. These findings are consistent with previous studies. The employees do not consider snooping into their profile as invasion of privacy. However, they were of the opinion that employers should not take any decision on the basis of information available on Facebook.
Another view emerged that is consistent with previous studies which establish the fact that employees think many times before posting any comment or status on SNSs. This leads to self-monitoring. Use of information available on Facebook for employment purposes leads to discrimination in hiring practices (Kowske and Southwell, 2006). The employees were also of the view that information available on Facebook and other networking sites influenced the employer’s decision to hire or retain that person. Decision may be biased by the religion or place of birth which is generally available on a person’s profile. Employees were of the view that employers should restrain their search to business-related information and should avoid getting into personal information. This finding was consistent with earlier research (Edwards and Kleiner, 2002). Employers cannot judge an employee’s writing skills merely by looking into the profile. Most of the times people interact through slangs and colloquial language in Facebook, and even the status messages are copied from somewhere else. Barrick and Mount (1991) argued that personality traits like extraversion predict job performance. However, the employees were of the view that an employer cannot test personality traits like extraversion just by looking at the number of friends or comments made in an employee’s profile. People who are members of social networking websites in common add others to increase the number of friends in their lists; they may not know everybody and may not interact with everyone in their list.
The participants were aware of the fact that their employer is following them on Facebook. All the participants agreed that an employer can snoop into an employee’s profile; they consider it as an acceptable practice. Employees cannot avoid this practice and they have to accept a friend request if it is sent by the supervisor. However, the employees are of the view that employers should not take any decision solely on the basis of information provided on Facebook. The decision has to be complemented with the performance of the employee. Clear guidelines should be established regarding employment policies so that employees can know what is expected from them. Also, if an employee is available in social domain, then he/she should be open to different sets of perceptions and cannot expect to be judged objectively.
The present study, attempting to understand the perception of employees regarding the information checks done by employers using SNSs, is not immune from obvious limitations. The study was limited to 30 employees in three organizations using focus group discussion. There is a scope to broaden the scope of research through empirically tested tools covering more number of organizations from different geographies. The future research may include the participation of employers to overcome perceptual biasness in findings. SNSs play a vital role in present-day life and may continue so in future. However, the utility dimensions of SNSs call for balanced approach in individual, social and organizational perspectives.