Guest Post: Social Media Lockdown on the Job Hunt: Who is to Blame?

Guest Post: Social Media Lockdown on the Job hunt: Who is to Blame?

by Patty Facy

It seems as though every millennial who has gone job hunting is aware of the Social Media Lockdown. Close your accounts, hide all mentions of your name, untag yourself from unsavoury photos and content; build a fortress to protect you from the wandering eyes of prospective future employers. Most of the time, the content hidden away in this temporary lockdown is relatively harmless, hinting at hobbies and the things we do to fill the time when we are not at work. While the distinction between our personal and professional selves has long existed before the influx of social media, it is easy to see how the confluence of personal and professional content online, and the ease with which personal content can now be accessed, muddies the line between the two.

What we don’t seem to question is the point where it became appropriate and accepted for employers to look for our personal selves on social media in the first place. Listicles and self-help articles tell us to accept the fact that employers will look for us online, and extoll the value of curating a best online version of ourselves; one that hides our “unfavourable” activities and puts forth the image that we are always on our best, professional behaviour [2][4].

Why is the onus on job seekers to present themselves “appropriately” to strangers on the corporate inside? To what extent is it appropriate for employers to browse through job seekers’ social media presence in the first place, and what issues arise from this practice? To answer this, I want to focus on two issues that emerge from this emerging practice of employer social media combing: the boundaries of online versus offline space, as well as the implications of judging the personal self alongside the professional self.

When we compare some common online practices with their offline counterparts, a trend emerges: certain activities that are commonly practiced and accepted online have severely negative connotations when performed offline in the physical world. Lurking and stalking online is considered a guilty pleasure and common practice within friend groups (Google “fbi meme social media” to get a sense of the in-jokes), while following people around in the real world is an invasion of privacy with legal consequences. Most millennials will recall the “Piracy is a crime” commercials that permeated movie theatres and television channels during the late 90s, urging people to recognize that pirating media online was as bad as stealing a car, a purse, or a television in the real world. The lack of a physical touchstone to our actions clearly implies a lack of real-world consequence; or so we think.

When it comes to employer social media combing, the real-world impacts are very clear. If the selection of the best candidate for the job is meant to be predicated on work experience and the professional self, then why do employers choose to consult job seekers’ personal social media in the hiring process? Social media combing draws attention away from the professional trajectory of an individual and onto their personal life. It is inevitable that the personal habits, values and hobbies of workers in a workplace will differ, and sometimes not align at all. What matters in the workplace, however, are the skills and experiences that individuals bring to the position. When employers allow the personal social media presence of workers to influence their hiring decision, personal biases get in the way of professional needs and goals.

Women in particular are at a disadvantage in this practice of social media combing. Studies show how, when employers can access personal profiles or photos of candidates, female candidates are more likely to be judged by their appearance rather than their work experience [3][5]. The voyeuristic quality of social media further enables an online male gaze centred around objectifying women, instead of centering them as qualified coworkers. Rather than being judged on the experience they bring to the table, women are assessed on what is considered to be the gendered norms of appearance and behaviour for a “professional woman.” The subconscious biases of employers are likely to emerge in other spheres as well, such as race, religion, politics, sexuality, and more. The practice of social media combing, then, arguably undoes many initiatives against workplace discrimination, such as the Employment Equity Act and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and affects employers’ attempts to make informed decisions about a candidate’s qualifications for a position.

So, what are the solutions?

Actions can be taken by both employers and job seekers to make the process of social media combing more equitable. One business writer and entrepreneur has advocated for a balance between a professional and personal social media presence by keeping both visible, but making a clear delineation between the two [1]; for instance, having both professional and personal Instagram accounts, but clearly stating in the bio which is which. Employers should be required to respect the personal boundaries of online content as well. While this is difficult to enforce and monitor, requiring employers to sign or claim in writing that the personal social media presence of prospective employees did not factor into their hiring decisions can help keep their combing in check. While these are only two suggestions, a general shift in the discourse is necessary to increase accountability on the part of employers to see, and ultimately respect, the boundary between the personal and professional self of prospective employees in the online job hunting process.