Call it MySpace versus the WorkPlace: Complain about your boss on MySpace -- you’re fired. Post a questionable photo of yourself on Facebook -- you don’t get hired.
True, Web 2.0 social software is gaining tremendous momentum as companies use Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube for marketing and branding campaigns. Yet the hard reality is that many corporations and government agencies ban social networking sites.
HR departments generally look askance at Web 2.0 networks. Frequently, their concerns are legitimate; sometimes they are simply being paranoid. HR attitudes toward Web 2.0 are shaped by a corporate culture based on codes and compliance. Not surprisingly, the open and horizontal social dynamics of Web 2.0 networks clash with the opaque and vertical architecture of many organizations.
Here’s the troubling paradox: The same HR departments that ban Facebook and Twitter actively use these networks as part of their recruitment efforts. Some HR managers mine online social networks to gather information on current employees.
HR managers don’t always admit that they look at Facebook and other sites. Fear of litigation doubtless explains their reticence. But it’s an open secret that HR professionals and headhunters routinely Google job applicants and scan online social networks.
A CareerBuilder survey completed in June revealed that nearly half (45 percent) of employers are using online social networks to conduct background checks on job candidates -- up 22 percent from the previous year. Nearly 30 percent said they consult Facebook; 26 percent check LinkedIn; and 21 percent look at MySpace. About 11 percent search blogs, while 7 percent follow candidates on Twitter.
More interestingly, employers acknowledged that they weed out job candidates on the basis of what they find on social networking sites. More than half cited “provocative or inappropriate photographs or information,” while other deal-breaking discoveries included revelations about drinking and drugs, discriminatory comments, lies about qualifications, and sharing confidential information about a previous employer.
Online HR snooping can also work in a candidate’s favor, especially when a Facebook or Twitter profile reveals a high level of social capital (lots of “friends” and “followers”) and desirable values and attitudes.
It doesn’t take tremendous powers of insight to grasp that checking social networks is rapidly becoming standard HR practice. Perhaps job candidates and employees simply have to realize that employers are looking closely at everything they post online. We can also expect acrimonious court cases in this area. But whatever the danger zones, it is naïve to expect that HR professionals won’t mine social sites.
That still leaves the paradox intact. As corporations and governments increasingly deploy Web 2.0 platforms for business purposes, it seems inconsistent for their HR departments to be imposing bans and disciplining employees for using the same social networks.
This paradox can be explained by two disconnects:
First, a disconnect between a company’s business goals and its HR department’s rules-based corporate culture
Second, a disconnect between older-generation values dominant in top management ranks and “millennial” generation values coming into the workforce
The management challenge of fixing the first disconnect must be taken seriously. Failure to do so will only make the consequences of the second disconnect more difficult to resolve. The generational impact of millennials is unavoidable. It is coming fast, and companies must learn now, not later, how to accommodate the values that this generation is bringing into organizational environments.
The key is to align the company’s internal corporate culture with its external business goals. Some basic guidelines are necessary, of course. The challenge is loosening control without losing control.
HR departments may not like change, but change they must -- especially given manifestly inconsistent attitudes toward Web 2.0 networks. If HR professionals are allowing themselves to use Facebook and Twitter and other sites as an indispensible part of their work, they would be well advised to align this permissive approach with the rules they impose on employees.
If they don’t, talent retention will soon become a serious issue for the entire company. And the consequences of that problem will be much more negative and far-reaching than an employee’s ill-advised comments or photos posted on Facebook.
— Matthew Fraser is a Web 2.0 strategist, an adjunct professor at the American University of Paris, and senior fellow at INSEAD.
That's interesting Mary and you could well be right. On the other hand the younger folks that embraced Myspace and FB at an early age might learn this the hard way i.e. stuff they posted when they were in school might not look so good as time passes...
That's what I was wondering too - why not just "lock" your Facebook account ?
And sadly there are too many folks today that are under the delusion that the Internet provides this anonimity that just is not there. Use common sense on what informtaion you are providing...
In the context of separating professional from private on social networking sites, what's interesting is the difference in approaches taken by the military organizations in the US and the UK. While the US military has broadly banned the use of social networking media, the UK Ministry of Defence is actually encouraging British troops to embrace social networking. You would think that the UK military would prevent troops from talking about their work online, but online engagement guidelines actually "asks personnel to use common sense over the amount of detail revealed".
I think the key concept of the MoD's approach is the use of common sense in allowing personnel to talk about themselves and their work online, within limits and trying not to damage their security, reputation and privacy.
So perhaps the line between professional and private can be managed on social networking with some smart policies and guidance perhaps?
That's one of the many reasons I have my FB locked so that only people I invite can see the content. An HR department buffoon can see I have an account, but they can't peruse the content without my invitation. And, FB is the only presense of its type on the Internet in which I use my real name. Not that any of that is a guarantee, but, having spent way too much IT time trying to help the buffoons master the ability of turning on their computer and operating the mouse and keyboard, I'm of the opinion that most don't have the skills necessary to move beyond the rudimentary search.
Couldn't agree more with the need to keep work and personal life separate. I don't really use Facebook for my personal communications, but I do get a lot of "wall postings" from folk who do. It's just not a businesslike forum.
LinkedIn, on the other hand, is absolutely essential for me at work.
I foresee people -- particularly ambitious young folk looking for decent jobs -- taking off Facebook public presence entirely and sticking with LinkedIn.
I cannot agree with you anymore knoxzoo... Facebook is more like my personal life and I use linkedin for my professional life. If a recruiting HR wants to refer and confirm someone's previous employement, qualicitions, etc., they are welcome to refer linkedin that is pretty much built for that reason. It is catered towards professional Social Networking. But what someone does in facebook is completely my own and is not invited for prying eyes. I really want to sit in a meeting when HR is asking their IT team that they want access to facebook so they can pry on their employees private life... It sounds outright unethical.
Last thursday, eating some Singapore Chow Mein with two colleagues at work, I mentioned that I had just signed up for LinkedIn ( http://www.linkedin.com ) ... a social network for professionals. I mentioned that a co-worker who had just found me on Facebook, had chided me that I was not on linked in.
Here I was, thinking I had presented some new information. Well, my colleague, who is also my boss, said that he was on LinkedIn and that I should add him as a friend, as did my co-worker and he said that his boss, my boss's boss, was on there as well! When I confirmed my account, there were five (business) contacts waiting for me that all made sense. I found professional groups in e-Marketing ( http://www.emarketingassociation.com/ ) right away that lead me to a site where they offer classes and education!
Not only that, but there was a list of 50 people who are part of the same company for which I work, from locations all over the county!
How can participating in a social network such as this not be seen as purely positive!
I will say it again -- it will soon be seen as "wierd" to find people who don't participate in these networks!!
Reading the article, I was formulating my thoughts. Then I read your post - and frankly, I can't come up with anything that says it better than you did.
you just said it all right there... I agree 100% and I think that the generation who would try to suppress the upcoming generations freedom with their willingness to be more open/transparent needs a wakeup call.
I see lawyers getting involved and that's never a good thing...
JD
(p.s. -- you need to delete the duplicate posting...)
The ThinkerNet does not reflect the views of TechWeb. The ThinkerNet is an informal means of communication to members and visitors of the Internet Evolution site. Individual authors are chosen by Internet Evolution to blog. Neither Internet Evolution nor TechWeb assume responsibility for comments, claims, or opinions made by authors and ThinkerNet bloggers. They are no substitute for your own research and should not be relied upon for trading or any other purpose.
One of the most persistent criticisms of Enterprise 2.0 is that collaborative tools like wikis and social networks are needless distractions that undermine productivity. Or put simply, they're a time sink.
Most of us go through life knowing that we’re expected to learn from our mistakes and improve. Those who are more conscientious about learning and personal improvement usually reap greater rewards.
As social media tools are increasingly embraced inside corporations, the vaunted Enterprise 2.0 model is gaining momentum. Yet, if senior executives remain nervous about the downside risk of Web 2.0, their fears are frequently stoked by valid arguments: security breaches, confidentiality issues, legal liabilities, even simple “time wasting” on social networks like Facebook. These concerns, even if alarmist (and sometimes motivated by the prospect of security software sales), cannot be casually dismissed.
Getting to Work on Smart Work: How IT Is Transforming the Implementation of the 'Internet of Things' Organizations in all industry sectors are becoming more instrumented, interconnected, and intelligent -- and that's changing the way they approach virtually every facet of their operations. It's up to IT to help organizations adopt a "Three I's" approach that leverages the emerging Internet of Things and enables them to work smarter. READ THIS eBOOK
your weekly update of news, analysis, and
opinion from Internet Evolution - FREE! REGISTER HERE
Wanted! Site Moderators Internet Evolution is looking for a handful of readers to help moderate the message boards on our site – as well as engaging in high-IQ conversation with the industry mavens on our thinkerNet blogosphere. The job comes with various perks, bags of kudos, and GIANT bragging rights. Interested?
To save this item to your list of favorite Internet Evolution content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
What can users today do to protect their online privacy? The simplest and most obvious option is to not use the Internet – at all. However, once all digital information is consolidated over the Internet, trying to protect digital identity by simply unplugging from the Internet becomes impossible – a fact that has manifest implications for civil liberties, Saunders says.
By 2011 the number of Internet-connected sensors will exceed 1 trillion, making your chances of doing anything or going anywhere unnoticed pretty much zero. Saunders talks about how the 'sensortization' of the Internet is eliminating the traditional divide between online and offline populations.
The 20th Century Internet was characterized by the ability to interact with other people and information on the Internet largely without anyone knowing who you were. The Internet of this century, conversely, will be defined by identity. Saunders explains how Internet users are unwittingly contributing to the demise of the anonymous Internet.
Steve Saunders talks about the risks inherent in uncontrolled, widespread profiling of Internet users, and how one day this practice could form the basis of a new industry, the Outernet, which in economic terms will have outgrown the commercial value of the Internet itself.
Search companies and social networks are collecting incredibly detailed information about their users, says Steve Saunders, who predicts that these 'profiles' could one day become commodities to be bought and sold by companies on 'profile markets' or 'identity exchanges’ – the digital DNA equivalents of the financial and commodities exchanges on which stocks, oil, and gold are traded.
One of the most important Internet issues of all time is being ignored by the media. In this three-part video series Steve Saunders explains how search companies are turning the tables on their users by creating user profiles for financial gain, and how soon this trend will explode into full scale profiling.
More companies are trolling social networks to find and vet potential job candidates. Beware the pitfalls of blurring the line between personal and professional lives.
Data mining of social networks means people might face unforeseen consequences as a result of their seemingly innocuous personal choices and associations.
High on the list of desired improvements from the mobile industry are: shared digital storage for the Internet; phone capability across borders; reduced electro-magnetic radiation; and rewards-based service plans.
Because 25% to 45% of broadband cost is due to sales and marketing, we could reduce our broadband prices by eliminating advertising and promotional spending by providers.
The next edition of one of the greatest English language reference books, the "Oxford English Dictionary," might not be published in paper. Bibliophiles might mourn, but should they?
RIM is giving in to demands by India to snoop on encrypted BlackBerry data. It's time to develop cheap or free encryption software for BlackBerrys and other cellular phones.
Nielsen’s recent numbers on the increasing use of texting bode well for enterprise networks. Shunning the phone in favor of text messaging could mean reducing bandwidth.
Two studios have filed suit against an ad broker for placing ads to help monetize P2P sites suspected of copyright infringement. That's taking a dangerous step toward what might be a worthy goal.
Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit
Email This
TWEET THIS
