Social media in pre-employment screening: when did personal judgment biases replace validity?

It is clearly evident that social networks are woven into our daily lives and technology allows for immediacy in terms of sharing personal information online. Our everyday social activities are in the public arena, warts and all, and consequently open to scrutiny. However, how pervasive is this scrutiny in organizational recruiting? Legislation exists to guard against discriminatory practices, however it is perhaps inevitable that recruiters will be tempted to examine the digital lives potential recruits lead in their organizations. It is an easy opportunity to try to get an idea of ​​the character of the person who has applied for a post; an attempt to improve cultural fit decision making. However, this approach can be very problematic. From a business psychology perspective, it can be argued that recruiting is about ‘performance accounting’, It is then when we measure potential performance, whether through interviews, psychometrics or live observation centers, we are realizing how a given individual will perform in a role. We can represent 17% in the interview up to 65% with the evaluation centers. Whichever strategy is used, there is always the possibility that the baby will be thrown out with the bath water. If we have hiring misjudgments that are based on valid decision-making strategies, what do organizations hope to achieve by tracking an individual’s personal online space as the last bastion of naming feed? This divisive and damaging practice is not only poorly thought out at best, it is irrelevant in terms of predictive validity of performance. It makes hiring organizations the custodians of everyday feedback and behavior, with the self-proclaimed, almost Orwellian authority to make value judgments about what’s right and wrong.

First, let’s examine the psychology of posting online. Research suggests that personality is an important factor to consider when investigating the causes and consequences of people’s engagement with social media. Furthermore, the images we present in the virtual world may not necessarily reflect who we are in real life. Do you take selfies? Dr Terri Apter, a professor of psychology at the University of Cambridge, says taking selfies is about people trying to figure out who they are and projecting this onto other people. “It’s kind of self-defining,” says Dr. Apter. “We all like the idea of ​​being in control of our image and getting noticed, being noticed, being part of the culture.”

People want to control the projected image and this image will vary depending on the context, just like in real life. We all have different personalities from friends, family and work. If we look at older adults, their profiles will often include their wives and children. College student profiles feature what they believe to be the most interesting part of their lives, and this will vary wildly. Images of drinks and parties are interesting to certain peer groups. They can give clues about what to wear, where to go and how to act, young adults look to their peers for the best parties and activities, which are illustrated on Facebook/MySpace. Personally, I don’t have a single published photo of myself in the library. Other publications can also serve to communicate the importance of particular relationships because these ties can provide reassurance regarding a person’s self-esteem.

Social networks give all users a “public” image, and when users try to present themselves in a way that matches how they want to be seen, this creates potential problems. Part of the problem is that the norms of one community are not the norms of another. So when we produce a ‘person without work’ that aligns with the cultural nuances of any given external group, and this makes a difference in terms of how we behave in the workplace, this can lead to clashes on social media, which is then interpreted by others.

The most common Facebook regrets are likely to revolve around sensitive topics like alcohol, sex, politics, religion, or “emotional content.” Often the sources of these regrets are unintended consequences or unwanted audiences. And, such publications are the most likely to be used when assessing a person’s suitability for a job position. Uninhibited behavior online is a gift to certain personalities in organizations. However, it’s one thing to want to know a little more about the opinions, motivations and lifestyles of job seekers; it is quite another to take a prejudicial leap of faith regarding that individual’s cultural appropriateness and performance potential. This is further exacerbated when a third party is delegated to carry out such activity, where there is a high potential for misidentification. And, even broader judgment bias can occur through delegated authority.

As a lead business psychologist, I often test the validity of recruiting measures to determine the extent to which selection tools can predict job performance. Measures have different types of validity that capture different qualities. There are three main types of validity: content validity, construct validity, and criterion validity.

Content validity refers to how comprehensively the measure assesses the underlying construct it purports to assess. Construct validity refers to whether the measure accurately assesses the underlying construct it purports to assess. Criterion validity examines how well the construct correlates with one’s behavior in the real world across multiple situations and manifestations. For example, does the measure adequately capture the construct (eg, innovation) as it is presented in real life (eg, time management, planning and organizing, leadership, etc.)?

The reliability of a measure refers to whether the measure yields repeatable results. Will the recruitment and selection processes a company uses work every time it needs to hire someone, or just once? If your processes perform well every time, those measures can be said to be reliable.

Based on the above, I have to ask about the validity and reliability of detection on social networks. What construct do you intend to investigate, how well does that construct measure, how well do the conclusions drawn correlate with the required behavior, and finally, how consistent are the results?

The fact is that recruitment must be done with caution, so that hiring managers do not inadvertently act in a way that could be seen as discriminatory or otherwise unfair.

As with other paperwork associated with the recruitment process, all personal data collected during the recruitment/recruitment process must be handled and retained in accordance with any policy guidance on record keeping.

Organizations must ensure that:

• The same restrictions apply to online checks as to all other aspects of the recruitment process;
• Personal data should only be accessed if it is relevant to suitability for the role;
• only absolutely necessary personal information that is relevant to the job should be collected;
• social media searches should not be used as a personal fishing exercise;
• reasonable steps must be taken to ensure the accuracy of personal data accessed online;
• A distinction should be made between the use of social media for primarily private purposes and for primarily professional purposes, ie viewing LinkedIn is acceptable, viewing Facebook is not;
• you can use information that is in the public domain about someone’s professional profile;
• Applicants should be advised that information about them may be collected in this way before conducting online searches;
• applicants must be given the opportunity to respond to any adverse findings from online searches, where they can be considered in the decision-making process.

Only then can job seekers be sure that it is their skills, motivations and personality factors that are being evaluated, not their life choices. The latter has no place in legitimate, fair and open hiring decisions.