If your absolute best candidate had a 'questionable' Facebook wall, would you hire him anyway?

There have been great insights in these answers, but I agree with Beth. I'm continually amazed how the human species will intentionally ignore obvious warning signs. "But he interviewed so well!" True, but that doesn't mean the right questions were asked. Now, through social media, some warnings have bubbled up, so why not pay attention to them, instead of attempting to explain them away, or to question whether the conclusions are fair?

If a person has snarky, weird, or embarrassing social media posts, that's more than a turn off. That's a hot potato that I would be reluctant to touch. We can debate all day whether it's fair to consider the public postings of one's private life, but there's a harsher reality.

According to a recent blog written by attorney Kenneth Liu, who I worked with on a social media panel, "actions taken by an organization's employees can be held against the organization. Under the legal doctrine of respondeat superior, employers can be held liable for the activities of employees. In the social media world, the line between one's personal life and professional life is becoming increasingly blurred. This ambiguity increases the risk of an organization being held liable for the online posts of its employees." (Please see http://www.lawforchange.org/NewsBot.asp?MODE=VIEW&ID=5010 )

If that doesn't give any employer pause in making a hiring decision, I don't know what will.

Depends on what the "questionable" content was... We need to keep in mind that people have lives outside of work, and it's important to know how to balance the two dynamics. Here is how I would approach it:

1) Will these things (actually) reflect poorly on my company?
2) Will these findings cause conflict with this individual within the organization (office dynamic, culture, etc...)

The only time I would check someone's social media background is to see if they're actually savvy in the space (if the position requires such a person) and use it to add value to their candidacy for the position. It really shouldn't be used to judge their personal life choices. Aside from that, in many cases, it's illegal to even see some of a person's information when it comes to making a hiring decision. I recommend reading this article: https://www.cio.com.au/article/390374/tips_use_facebook_legally_conduct_backg...

If the person is a great fit for the position, then hire them, but mention that they should make their questionable profile private, OR not mention your company in their profiles, so that they may not be tied back to your company.

Mistakes make us who we are. Granted, whether we learn from those mistakes can set the precedent for future careers, relationships, etc. As the workforce generation ages and the younger, more ‘social-media promiscuous’ claim their ranks amongst the workforce, it's going to become much more probable that pictures, videos and notes of questionable content begin rearing their ugly head on social media sites like Facebook. I'm sure we all have things online that we're not 100% proud of.

Now, back to the original question....I say it depends on what the infraction was. If it's racially motivated, hate-filled or questionable to the extent that it will alienate this person from others in your company or your Customer base, then perhaps that person isn't a fit for your business.

On a personal level, I curse a mean streak outside of work. But it's on my off-time. I blog, I tweet, I Facebook but I always ensure that what I wrote about doesn't reflect the opinions of my employer. My offtime shouldn't damage my 'ontime'.

If you've reached the conclusion that this person's moral fiber isn't a good mesh with your business, then it might simply be easier to tell the individual that after close consideration you felt that there were other candidates that were better suited for the role and leave it at that. No further explanation is required and I would strongly caution you to not say more than that to avoid potential litigation; hypothetically speaking of course.

Cheers.

does your answer change if you were hiring a janitor or a burger flipper or a construction worker? hmmmm.

Let me flip this question around: if the persons profile was totally hidden, and you could not find trace of that person online, would you still hire them? It is one thing to say "questionable Facebook page is bad", but surely not being able to see it at all is worse, as you have NO IDEA AT ALL?

Just saying. :)

I personally don't think it matters. You'll soon find out whether they are any good for the job, and if they aren't, you fire them. They are there to work, but the employer is not there to police their private life. The point about corporations being held liable for their employees outside of work is BS. I thought we lived in freedom and democracy, not oppression and corporate slavery?

Not long ago we were debating, and I believe most of us on this thread were also represented on that one, embellishing resumes. Most were very outspoken that an applicant should never ever embellish a resume, even a little bit. Any such embellishment was judged as lying.

I mentioned then, and feel it is applicable here, that applicants mostly do what we tell them to.

We are here suggesting to applicants that they have the good sense to hide who they are. And dutifully, the supply-side headhunters, universities, employment development departments, high schools and a myriad blogs are passing this information to their job seekers. Is there really much difference between saying we are a tad bit more accomplished than we are and deliberately hiding where we are not?

The thing is, what is "objectionable" on a Facebook page is really very subjective, isn't it? There is no clear definition, short of items that clearly stamp on societal mores, and even those are socially 'flexible' depending on context. Most of us will laugh at a comedian extolling topics we find objectionable elsewhere. (And we are all different in where we draw the lines with comedians)

So who decides? Does a screener in HR decide? Does the department manager where the new recruit will be working? It has been my experience that there are great differences between the judgement of HR professionals and operations execs on issues of objectionability. That comes from their differences in training, experiences, and personality traits. To which do we defer?

In the end, I would read a candidate's available social contexts. I would be looking for team fit, mostly. I would also be looking for things my clients may find objectionable, if the recruit will hold a high profile placement.

Other than that, I would be highly suspicious if I found a candidates social presence entirely free of any 'objectionable' content. That, I would conclude, is a candidate hiding something from us.

I feel sorry for candidates. We make it nearly impossible for them.

Together, let's put the fun back into work!
Belldon Colme
belldoncolme@gmail.com

I know this question has been quiet for a while, but today on the front page of MSNBC, they had a story about employers as well as colleges asking potential employees and students for access to their Facebook accounts.. Not just access to what is available publicly, but asking them to log in with their username and password.

http://redtape.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/06/10585353-govt-agencies-colleges...

That, I think, goes too far, and it looks like some states are moving to ban that practice.

As the others stated, it depends on the information. That said, the law does intervene here as well. Some things can not be "held against" the applicant. Some attorneys have suggested you don't go onto FB for background checking because it is a personal social network.

Once you find questionable data on FB, it is extremely unlikely it won't play into your decision making. Then the questions becomes, if the question is asked regarding why you chose not to hire the candidate (whose questionable data you saw on FB), would you fess up to it? Doing so might put you in a bad spot.

My answer is: I will not check an applicant's information on a personal social network. BTW, I don't consider Linkedin as a "personal" network site.

The Personal Life argument actually makes sense. Facebook is a social site, and other people posting influences the person's wall. I know a lot of well rounded people with questionable posting on their wall. However, it introduces common sense in the equation. I would go further, and look into the candidate’s LinkedIn account. If there is questionable posting there as well, that would confirm a lack of common sense since LinkedIn is supposed to be a professional evironement; especially since LinkedIn site is usually connected to the person’s employment. I do not think I would ever go in a person's Facebook page to learn more about them as a candidate. I would not cross that boundary; people deserve a personal life outside of work.

There is only one circumstance in which a personal Facebook page would influence my hiring decision: would it's contents prevent the candidate from most effectively fulfilling his role in my company, including how customers would view the same if the candidate will carry a high customer profile.

Look, don't you want real people working for you? Today's job market is absolutely flooded with masks, candidates painting false pictures of who they are for the benefit of hiring managers. That is not the dynamic I want pervasive in my companies. I want real people, enabled to be transparent in the presence of my team.

Obviously, if a person will hold a high profile position discretion is a part of the job requirement, and keeping their page private might be a part of that.

Incidentally, performers win. Winners celebrate. Celebrations are the reward for winning, and make one want to win again. A candidate who knows this and celebrates is not in and of itself a bad thing.

Together, let's put the fun back into work!
Belldon Colme
belldoncolme@gmail.com

This would give me cause for concern about the candidate's overall judgement. Everyone knows that recruiters and companies check out candidates' internet presence, so not having a private Facebook page to me means that he is not terribly concerned about what people see of his outside life. It doesn't demonstrate to me that this candidate is serious about his candidature but most importantly he lacks good judgement. Caveat emptor....

Facebook is a toy. People are people. Young people do stupid questionable things and we shake our heads. Older or more mature people do stupid and questionable things we sometimes we have a harsher judgement.

But as long as their professional performance elsewhere has been stellar does it really really matter if they like to nude sunbathe or drink to excess on the weekends with a designated driver?

It may or may not be your thing, but I bet you that your thing may not be mine or mine yours. That's what makes the world go round. But as long as I don't bring into the work space then it's not germane.

And believe me, some of the pictures and snip-its my nieces and nephews has posted I just shake my head in amazement... but that'st their parents headache :)

Social screening is a dicey proposition. Many people see the upside in terms of finding digital dirt that could present problems in the future, but fewer people think of the downside risks of engaging in cyber snooping. I've written several pieces on this subject, beginning with a white paper entitled "Social Screening: Candidates - and Employers - Beware." Following the link below will take you to the original white paper and will provide links to the pieces I've written subsequently (ending with a piece entitled "Recruiting in the Digital Era: Updated Guidance for Employers, Recruiters, and Candidates"):

http://tiny.cc/SocialScreeningPaper

Before thinking about what to do with the information they find on social networks, employers need to address questions like why it's relevant, whether they will tell prospective candidates they'll be looking (and if they should get their consent), how they're going to look (and who will do it), whether they'll address their findings with candidates, etc.

Knowing your state's hiring laws are important. I think that we will see more and more law suits involving FB in hiring and termination decisions.

Http://www.twc.state.tx.us/news/efte/job_references.html, states, "... In order to do a background or reference check under the FCRA, an employer must first notify the applicant that such a check will be done, and then must obtain the applicant's written permission to perform the check. If the applicant refuses to sign such a form, you have the option of telling the applicant that the application process is at an end, or, if you are already satisfied with what you have been able to find out, you can opt to hire the individual without a more detailed check being done.

In addition, according to EEOC laws in TX that protect minorities," ... before turning down someone for a job on the basis of a credit report or criminal history problem, the employer must be able to show that it considered the specific problem and determined that it would not be a good idea or prudent course of action to hire that specific person for a particular position" http://www.twc.state.tx.us/news/efte/job_references.html.

I don't think that is it clear if the law protects or doesn't protect a candidate's FB account. If you decide not to hire someone based on their FB profile, does that fall under the FCRA or EEOC? Is it a form of a background or reference check?

What about once an employee is hired? Employees have been fired for vulgar comments about employers. The employee in this case was protected by laws that protect employees’ right to talk about wages, working conditions and other factors http://mashable.com/2011/02/08/facebook-employment-speech-lawsuit/.

Before you choose not to hire someone based on their FB page, you should check your state's laws and current cases.

I would stay away from FB when taking a decision. However, I do check LinkedIn for a candidate's profile and any feedback about him/her. And I don't consider LinkedIn to be a social website.

If, however, I happen to check on a candidate's FB wall, I will try to keep personals away from workplace decision. The only way FB wall contents would play a role in this decision making is if there is a direct conflict between the nature of work and say person's beliefs or practices or something which is a clear indication that the person is not suitable for this job.

Here's an interesting article which highlights a study done by Northern Illinois University, the University of Evansville and Auburn University. The researchers recruited a group of four Facebook-savvy human resources professionals and students to evaluate the Facebook profiles of 56 users to predict job performance and GPA.

http://mashable.com/2012/02/21/facebook-profiles-job-performance/

I would not base a negative hiring decision solely based on the negative Facebook material, but I would take it into account. A company is a social organization as well as a business one. Employees are expected to work together, often in teams, and form constructive personal relationships.

If the candidate's existing lifestyle is centered around cursing and party pictures (assuming we're talking about drinking parties, not birthday parties!), I would pass on this individual as it shows poor judgement and an adolescent lifestyle.

Please take note that when Facebook launched, it is originally intended to be shared with friends, family and people who are in your inner social circle. Then, as time evolves, it is used for business. So, someone is partying or cursing a lot... doesn't really mean that person is irresponsible and s/he is granted all the freedom of expression s/he can get. I'd be raising a red flag though if I see content that crosses the legal line, like posting status updates promoting illegal substances, child pornography, human trafficking, and the likes.

leader should be made, it is real leader ship

Before getting into something, always think of what you are.
So, whether that site is a dating site or whatever,
always think of what you really are...
whatever you do could affect you. Good points, Shaleen.
However, if you are a CEO then do not lose your being a CEO
for the sake of non-professional sites, protect your rep.
Certainly, we are all humans who might currently be
looking for that right one... but never forget who you are.
Words spreads fast online and you could risk misinterpretation.

Thus, for the question of having a "questionable" Facebook wall...
just be guided by international moral standards (respect, modesty),
it's one key basis if FB is one of your reference for recruitment.

Hire according to elan, learning ability, health and adaptability.

This is @TheGreatLight.

People are not totally responsible for their Facebook wall posts. After all other people can be silly on your wall too!
If they are clearly working against their own best interests on a regular basis maybe, but it depends on the situation.
I would look at other social profiles as well and then ask them about it in the interview.

Interesting comments from all.
Let us not forget that we all have "Freedom of speech and some of us may exercise it more than others (illegal activity excluded).
The first question to be asked is whether this applicant will represent the company during business hours only or around the clock.
The second question to be asked is whether there is a policy on the company’s Employee Handbook that clearly states the monitoring of all employees' public activity on the Internet. Otherwise, an adverse decision by the hiring manager toward the applicant is discriminatory that the hiring manager can hide unethically.
Years ago, an employee could go out and drink seven days a week without the employer knowing anything about it unless it affected the employee's productivity. For the life in me, some times I question as to why a company would want to spend money and time to exercise such control over their employee’s lives and what would be next.

Is someone with a "questionable" Facebook wall really the best candidate?

I think the answers along the lines of "as long as his facebook page is private" contain inherent misperceptions of who controls privacy on facebook. Here is a hint: It is not the user. Facebook can decide at any moment what is public by default and what isn't. That should be taken into consideration by the user before they put anything on facebook, and should be taken into consideration by the prospective employer as they decide how those postings will affect their business.

Sure, because I would have taken the public image (including the Facebook page) into account in my determination that he or she was the best candidate. BFOQs rule, in my book, and how someone comports themselves in all situations can be highly relevant. Bottom line, your question answers itself.