final argumentative paper

Running head: THE IMPACT OF SOCIAL MEDIA FOR THE 21st CENTURY JOB CANDIDATE 1

The Impact of Social Media for the 21st Century Job Candidate

Madison A. Foley

Central Penn College

THE IMPACT OF SOCIAL MEDIA FOR THE 21st CENTURY JOB CANDIDATE 2

Abstract

This argumentative paper discusses the influence that social media has on the lives of

millions of job applicants in America. My question was whether job applicants should be

rejected based on their posts on social media. In my opinion, I believe candidates should be held

responsible for what they post on the internet, but only for a significant reason such as

inappropriate or illegal content. It is important to discuss this matter because as social media

continues to grow and be of use to millions of people, it ultimately will influence employers’

professional policies in the workplace. With the guidance of statutes specifying what employers

are looking for, job applicants will become more aware of their internet use and become more

qualified employees for jobs in the future.


College students spend thousands of dollars to go to college in order to earn a degree in

their chosen field. They also are known for their use of social networking to interact with their

friends and classmates outside of school. But is their use of social networking going to interfere

with the possibility of them obtaining employment in the future? Many students are not aware of

the consequences that their internet use may bring to them. When applying for jobs, applicants

may find that their posts on social media may hinder them from getting that job. Therefore,

students should be cautious of what they post on social media in order to obtain a job in their

chosen career field.

Although there are signs of improvement in our economy, finding a job is still tough. For

example, the United States does not appear on a recent study measuring the 15 worst economies

in the world (Jamrisko, Saraiva, Tartar, 2015, para. 3). The fact that the US economy isn’t as bad

as, say, Venezuela’s, doesn’t mean that our economy is booming; however, new jobs and

employment opportunities have been created recently (Cassidy, 2015, para. 1). In a tough

economy where getting a job has become competitive, job applicants need to look highly

qualified both in the workplace and outside of the workplace. You still have to watch what you

are posting on social media. Dave Maass (2013) emphasizes that social media users need to

consider what they post online because it’s not always confidential, like most people would

assume (para. 13). In other words, people need to make appropriate posts, as well as check their

privacy settings to see if their posts and personal information is public or private, meaning that

only certain people can see the content of their page. In a world where privacy becomes an issue,

people have to become more aware of their social surroundings on the internet.

This is where social media comes into play. According to a 2013 survey from Career

Builder, 39% of employers dig into candidates on social sites, while 43% said they had found


something that made them deep-six [this means no longer considering someone (Merriam

Webster, 2015)] a candidate – such as posting inappropriate photos or information, or bad-

mouthing a former boss (Should Companies Monitor Their Employee’s Social Media, 2014).

Ultimately, what is at stake here is an applicant’s reputation through their social media. By

posting appropriate content that reflects their personal life is a way for candidates to be highly

considered for jobs. However, Nancy Flynn (2014) states that when companies conduct social-

media checks on prospective hires, they typically are searching for legitimate evidence to

withdraw or rethink a job offer, such as references to drugs or other illegal activities, comments

that are discriminatory or harassing, or signs that an applicant has been dishonest about work

history or abilities (para. 17). In other words, companies’ conduct these checks on possible

employees with reason.

Companies do thorough background checks on applicants because they want to protect

their company from any risks to their reputation, therefore, making the social media check

reasonable. Tina Maiolo (2013) says that a social media check can be conducted thoroughly if,

“the employer takes the appropriate steps to minimize the risk of unlawful employment

decisions, and conducts the social media search in accordance with all federal, state and local

laws” (para. 7). This interpretation challenges the work of those critics who have long assumed

that it is illegal to search an applicant’s social media, but in reality, it can be done legitimately

and legally. Contrary to what Maiolo has said, Lewis Maltby (2014) claims that human resource

professionals reject the top candidates because they disapprove of the person’s private life,

therefore, the employer loses too (para. 25). According to Maltby, the job of Human Resource

officials is to interject their own opinion about a candidate; however, that is not the case. Their

task at hand is to find the highest quality employees to be hired by a business. Essentially, it is


their job to weed through the varying applicants in the hiring process. Therefore, social media

can be an enormous benefit to employers.

Because social media allows people to have different personas, I believe that most

applicants tend to be different people behind the scenes of their professionalism in a job

interview as well. Maiolo (2013) states that “in this modern age of social media mania,

employers can often learn more about an applicant through Facebook, Twitter, MySpace or

Instagram than they would ever learn through traditional professional means. (para.1). People

can present themselves in a professional manner when in a job interview, but on social media,

they have a different decorum (Maiolo, 2013, para. 1). This is not to say that all people are

inappropriate when using social media in their personal lives, but rather that what is appropriate

to them may differ from what an employer finds appropriate. An applicant can put themselves at

risk without even realizing it, but they should only be restricted if the information is

disqualifying. Because ultimately, it is the employer’s best interest to hire an employee that is

most qualified and will serve the company at its best.

The qualifications that an individual has are the deciding factors in obtaining a job.

Therefore, students need to exercise caution when posting information on social media because

of the high percentage rates of employers conducting social media background checks. Kellie

O’Shea (2012) describes social media as “the lines between personal and professional personas

merging into an indistinguishable haze of likes, links, and posts, making transparency an

everyday issue” (para. 1). In recent discussions of social media, a controversial topic has been

whether professional and personal lives can collide without consequences. On the one hand,

some argue that those lives are completely separated. From this perspective, O’Shea says that it

has become hazy and unclear as to whether those lives have already become one, which would


create an issue. On the other hand, however, others argue that what you post on social media

should not be used against you when applying for a job. In the words of O’Shea, “getting at the

center of this web involves untangling multiple layers of complex statutes, case law, and agency

guidance in a way which balances the pillars of freedom of speech and the at-will employment

doctrine” (2012, para. 3). My own view is that unless there is a policy written by an employer

that directly addresses the use of social media background checks for applicants, it can be very

difficult to determine what will be searched through on social media. Though I concede that

there should be complex statutes that reflect the manner in which businesses create policies, I

still maintain that possible candidates be informed that their social media may or may not

disqualify them for a job.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation was established to “Defend Your Rights in the

Digital World,” because social media has become such a large part of people’s everyday lives,

this foundation has served their protection of these rights. Dave Maass (2013) claims that by

asking an applicant to open their online private lives on social media, it is an invasion of their

privacy. (para. 6). By focusing on an employer looking through your social media, Maass

overlooks the deeper problem of people posting inappropriate material that gives an employer

the reason to disqualify them or reject them from a job. Even if it means looking at a person’s

personal life through their social media, employers should have the right to figure out what kind

of person they are outside of the workplace. Do they have inappropriate posts such as evidence

of drug use or proof of underage drinking? These examples are the concerns of employers.

However, social media background checks don’t only check for negative activity, employers also

look to see the positive things that have been posted on a social network profile, such as

involvement with charity organizations” (Hoal, 2011, para. 6). Employers aren’t always


searching for inappropriateness to disqualify you, but they are also looking for reasons to believe

that you’re a great candidate outside of work.

If employers are looking for a candidate that behaves appropriately in order to offer them

a job, we need to define what exactly appropriate means. Blog writer for Digital Trends ([Digital

Trends is an organization that was founded to complete its mission of helping readers easily

understand how technology affects the way they live (Digital Trends, 2015]), Kate Knibbs

(2013) says that there “doesn’t seem to be a society consensus on what’s supposed to be kept

private or what exactly is appropriate” (para. 3). In Knibbs discussion, one controversial issue

has been defining what appropriate is. On the one hand, Knibbs argues that there needs to be an

agreement among all employers of what appropriate behavior on social media is. On the other

hand, if there’s no one definition for what appropriate is, it is companies’ job to define that for

themselves. Is there a right or wrong decision in this debate?

Management professor at Wharton University of Pennsylvania, Nancy Rothbard (2009)

supports Maiolo’s argument. Rothbard states that “new communications technology is eroding

the boundaries between home and office, which creates a “double-edged sword” for companies

(para. 5). Therefore, it is difficult to lecture future employees on what to do and not to do on

social media because it‘s hard to win a lose-lose battle. By defining appropriate, there is the

possibility to influence college students on their use of social media to benefit them in the future.

Knibbs acknowledges that younger people aren’t taking their jobs as seriously as they should,

but she isn’t the only one; Marketing Professor at Wharton, Patricia Williams (2009), believes

that her undergraduates aren’t as aware of the image they are portraying on social networks to

other professionals (para. 11). Ultimately, this will affect job projection in the future if

employers are going to only hire applicants that are strictly professional both inside and outside


of the workplace.

Although college students are the ones who will be applying for jobs in the next few

years, their parents can play a vital role in teaching them to be more cautious about their content

posted on social media. Mary Hoal (2011) informed parents of young teens in high school that a

social media background check was created by the Federal Trade Commission that “authorizes

companies to provide reports on an individual’s online actions by reviewing up to seven years’

worth of publicly available records. These records include everything from what their child

might say and post on social media sites like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, to Craigslist ads

and personal blog posts” (para. 1). Hoal acknowledges that parents still have the chance to teach

their child how to use the internet safely and learn how to network appropriately. When I was a

child, I used to think that the internet was a safe place, but over the years I’ve realized that the

internet can hinder me from possible employment in the future, if it is not used with caution. For

example, “whatever your now-15-year-old-child is posting online could affect what college they

get into or what job they get, which is all the more reason for you to be involved in what and

where they post online” (Hoal, 2011, para. 3). It used to be that parents had a responsibility to

protect their child from danger in the world, but now parents have the responsibility to protect

their child from danger in the cyber world as well. Preventing a younger generation from using

social networks inappropriately will ultimately save them employment opportunities in the

future.

Future employees are growing up in today’s generation where social media allows them

to communicate with each other differently than other generations. Cecily Joseph (2013) cites

Chris Malone, CEO of Speakeasy, a communications development and executive coaching firm,

who said that they conducted a survey with the Fortune 500 executives across the country, and


found that 80% of executives find communication across generations to be a most challenging

issue in the workplace (para. 2). Finding a common ground for different generations to relate and

communicate easily is found to be difficult, however,

Millennials have taken note and are often better at this digital reputation management

than their parents or those who run companies. They turn to their online networks for

leads on available jobs, even using Facebook’s Graph Search tool to figure out who they

might know at a particular company. And they contribute LinkedIn endorsements for

their friends and co-workers. So if you want to hire them or influence them – they are

changing the game and we better catch up with them (Joseph, 2013, para. 5).

Younger generations, especially our present college-day students, have grown up in an era where

social media and technology influences their everyday lives, therefore, they are more accustomed

to its ways. But because older generations grew up without the influence of social media and

technology, so they continue to have a hard time relating to the younger generations and their

online tactics. One of the reasons is because they don’t rely on the internet, smart phones,

advanced technology unless they have to, unlike our modern day millennials.

If applicants pass a social media background check, and are offered a job with a

company, they still need to take caution with what they post online as an employee. There are

statutes that are being created to make sure that employers are not controlling their employees

lives online, employees feel as though they should be able to say what they want. For example,

Steve Greenhouse (2013) says that,

“Labor regulators have declared many social media restrictions illegal. The National

Labor Relations Board says workers have a right to discuss work conditions freely and


without fear of retribution, whether the discussion takes place at the office or on

Facebook” (para. 2).

Here many employers would object that applicants, as well as employees, should be held

responsible for what they post on their social media. Employers can create policies as long as

they do not violate the statutes that are put in place to protect employees’ right to speech. The

labor board ruled that it is illegal to adopt broad social media policies if those policies discourage

workers from exercising their right to communicate with one another about their work

environment (Greenhouse, 2013, para. 7). If this ruling was made by the labor board that

oversees the nation’s businesses, then how come we are still hearing about instances where

employees are fired for what they’re posting when they’re off the clock? For example, a

caseworker for a nonprofit social services provider in upstate New York, threatened to complain

to the boss that others were not working hard enough. Because of this, another worker posted a

Facebook message asking her fellow co-workers how they felt about the situation. Many other

co-workers responded to her message, which ultimately resulted in the company firing her and

four other caseworkers who had responded. The company’s reason? They had violated the

company’s harassment policies by going after the caseworker who complained. So the question

is, are employees really allowed to say what they want without having to worry about losing

their jobs? In cases such as these, this is not true. Essentially, it is in the company’s interest to

have reliable employees; however, if their freedom of speech is being restricted, will employees

continue to stay? I think not.

Ultimately, social media has impacted the lives of millions of users in America. Users

wish to express themselves through their posts because they have the right to freedom of speech.

However, employers want to protect themselves from any liabilities that their employees may put


them through. Because this topic is so controversial, it will take legislation time to create laws

that protects a person’s freedom of speech, and allows employers to create policies that they can

legally enforce. It is essential to have policies in place that people can interpret so they have a

better understanding of what is appropriate to post in and outside of the workplace. With policies

put in place, legal suit rates will lower and become less costly to businesses nationwide.


References

Cassidy, M. (2015). The Labor Market Is Still Frozen. Retrieved from

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/economic-intelligence/2015/02/11/job-numbers-are-

heating-up-but-the- labor-market- is-still- frozen

Flynn, N., & Maltby, L. (2014). Should Companies Monitor Their Employees’ Social Media?

Retrieved from http://www.wsj.com/articles/should-companies-monitor-their-employees-social-

media-1399648685

Greenhouse, S. (2013). Even if It Enrages Your Boss, Social Net Speech is Protected. Retrieved

from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/22/technology/employers-social-media-policies-

come-under-regulatory-scrutiny.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1

Hoal, M. (2011). Would Your Child Pass a Social Media Background Check? Retrieved from

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/We_Find_Them/child-pass-social-media-

background-check/story?id=14120369

Jamrisko, M., Saraiva, C., Tartar, A. (2015). The 15 Most Miserable Economies in the World.

Retrieved from http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-02/the-15-most-miserable-

economies-in-the-world

Joseph, C. (2013). The Digital Generation Gap and the Management of Information. Retrieved

from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cecily-joseph/the-digital-generation-

ga_b_4380017.html

Knibbs, K. (2013). New study says people still don’t understand their online jobs can cost them

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cecily-joseph/the-digital-generation-ga_b_4380017.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cecily-joseph/the-digital-generation-ga_b_4380017.html


their real jobs. Retrieved from www.digitaltrends.com/social-media/yes-for-the- last-

time-your-potential-employers-are-judging-you-by-what-you-put-on-facebook

Maiolo, T. (2013). Labor: Should you use social media to screen job applicants? Retrieved from

http://www.insidecounsel.com/2013/02/11/labor-should-you-use-social-media-to-screen-

job-ap

Maass, D. (2013). States Seek Ban to Employers Social-Media Snooping. Retrieved from

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/03/stand-headline-social-media-blog-post

O’Shea, K. (2012). Use of Social Media in Employment: Should I Fire? Should I Hire?

Retrieved from http://www.cornellhrreview.org/use-of-social-media-in-employment-

should-i-fire-should- i-hire/

Rothbard, N., & Williams, P., & Matwyshyn, A., & McGrath, M. (2009). Are you practicing

proper social networking ettiquette? Retrieved from www.forbes.com/2009/10/09/social-

networking-ettiquette-entrepreneurs-management-wharton.html

Webster, M. (2015). Deep-six. Retrieved from http://www.merriam-

webster.com/dictionary/deep-six

http://www.digitaltrends.com/social-media/yes-for-the-last-time-your-potential-employers-are-judging-you-by-what-you-put-on-facebook

http://www.digitaltrends.com/social-media/yes-for-the-last-time-your-potential-employers-are-judging-you-by-what-you-put-on-facebook

http://www.insidecounsel.com/2013/02/11/labor-should-you-use-social-media-to-screen-job-ap

http://www.insidecounsel.com/2013/02/11/labor-should-you-use-social-media-to-screen-job-ap

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/03/stand-headline-social-media-blog-post

http://www.forbes.com/2009/10/09/social-networking-ettiquette-entrepreneurs-management-wharton.html

http://www.forbes.com/2009/10/09/social-networking-ettiquette-entrepreneurs-management-wharton.html

final argumentative paper

Documents