Koldaeva 1

Ksenia Koldaeva
CST 300 Writing Lab
14 February 2021

Age of the Social Media Transparency

As the economy keeps growing, hiring practices keep evolving. Structured behavioral

interviews first appeared about 50 years ago and pursued the goal of diving deeper into a

candidates’ minds (Captain, 2016). With today’s technology hiring gets to a new level.

Employers use artificial intelligence and data algorithms to power the hiring process. At the

same time data about the candidates becomes more accessible through the internet. As one of the

hiring practices, employers use social media presence to filter candidates. According to

CareerBuilder Study, up to 70 percent of employers factor social media accounts in hiring

decisions (“Number of Employers”, 2018).

Law framework often lags behind the technology and tools available to recruiters while

new practices generate controversy about a degree of privacy that should be respected on the

Internet. Major stakeholders involved in the issue are job seekers and employers. CareerBuilder

states that social recruiting becomes a major part of HR departments and that employers are

looking to confirm the candidates’ qualifications as well as the reasons not to hire them through

the content posted on social media (“Number of Employers”, 2018). At the same time, it could

be difficult for the candidates to overcome existing employers’ biases that can be further fortified

with the data obtained from social media profiles.

Supporting Stakeholder — Companies

Companies typically operate with limited resources for time and budget. Naturally, they

try to minimize their expense for hiring while ensuring the best possible hires. As with other

domains, technology often can help with streamlining processes and saving time compared to
 Koldaeva 2

more manual procedures. Aspects of hiring that are important to employers, besides professional

traits, are a cultural fit and security of the working environment. Discussing “toxic” hires

became a popular topic of conversations about recruiting. For instance, Fama.io, a background

screening company that performs social media screenings, talks in its marketing materials about

the cost of “toxic” hires and about the financial benefits of avoiding one (“The Cost of a Toxic

Hire”).

Companies heavily rely on the fact claims that bad hires are expensive. They care to

prevent bad hires to provide a safe working environment for their existing employees. In the

event of security incidents within the company, firing an employee can be costly, disrupting the

work, and could result in unforeseen legal expenses. Moreover, a bad hire can damage a

company’s reputation through the means of social media. In the article about modern hiring

practices, FastCompany outlines that employers don’t simply look for the most talented

candidates, but want to filter candidates who demonstrate racist, violent, or criminal behavior

(Captain, 2016).

Companies look to maintain their long-term reputation and look for a candidate that

would be a good cultural fit. Checking a candidate’s social media profile can potentially save

time for lengthy behavioral interviews. On top of that, companies may argue that social media

would give them a candid image on the candidate profile. Demonstrating the best version of

themselves during the interview is only natural for a candidate, so companies look to research

more information about the candidates using available tools.

Opposing Stakeholder — Job Seekers

At the same time, job seekers value privacy and want to protect their personal

information, such as age, gender, race, country of origin, marital status. In fact, in the United
 Koldaeva 3

States, it is illegal for the employer to ask questions about these protected classes during the

interviews (“Privacy at work: Know your rights”). While the laws prohibit using information

about protected classes in hiring decisions, this information, when available, could contribute to

conscious and unconscious biases during hiring.

The University of Florida names such common biases as “stereotyping, the halo/pitchfork

effect, nonverbal bias and the “like me” syndrome” (“Identifying and avoiding interview

biases”). Social media reveals plenty of information that can affect decision-making. For

instance, a candidate can post pictures of their families, revealing their marital status, race, and

family history, they can speak the language of the country of origin, contributing to bias against

certain minority groups. Job seekers are invested in reducing biases and they want to be hired

based on their professional qualifications. Since the information that can contribute to the biases

is easily accessible through social media, candidates advocate for the policies for protection by

the law from social media screening without consent.

Argument Question

Therefore there is a conflict of interest between companies using new techniques in

hiring and candidates striving for unbiased hiring decisions. A question arising from this conflict

is whether society should be concerned about a personal privacy breach during the hiring or do

security matters outweigh the issues of privacy.

Support of Social Media Screenings through the Ethical Egoism Framework

Companies’ position on the issue can be understood through the Ethical Egoism

framework. Ethical Egoism claims that it is moral to pursue self-interests above the interests of

others. To determine whether the act is moral no other benefits than those to the agent are

considered. Ethical Egoism does necessarily imply that no good will be done to people other than
 Koldaeva 4

the agent. As standford.edu explains, it means mostly that the goods or duties to others will occur

as a by-product of the act, since to achieve their interests a person needs cooperation from others

(Shaver, 2019). Therefore no action exists without the context.

Within the Ethical Egoism framework, companies make decisions to promote their brand,

long term reputation, and to avoid security issues within the company. This course of action will

secure positive outcomes for companies and their prospective employees. Focusing on finding

the right cultural fit, avoiding the red flags in candidates’ profiles, and automating this process

using technology, guarantees that a company keeps a competitive advantage in hiring minimizes

the costs and puts first the interests of the existing employees. Fama.io, a screening-providing

company, outlines such issues related to the “toxic” hires as good employees quitting the

workplace, damaged turnover rates, financial burden of firing, and re-starting a hiring process

(“The Cost of a Toxic Hire”). To protect themselves from those outcomes, companies should opt

for using social media screenings.

Further, according to CareerBuilder the top reasons for not hiring candidates are

inappropriate content, information about drinking or using drugs, or discriminatory comments

online (“Number of Employers”, 2018). Those reasons show potential risks for the companies.

Following the Ethical Egoism framework, it is rational for companies to pursue risk-free hiring.

This will ultimately generate greater benefits for a company and its current employees.

Companies concentrate on the economic needs and save money by not hiring employees that

would potentially generate legal and HR expenses (“Learn More About Fama, Social Media &

Web Screening”, 2020).

 Koldaeva 5

Disapproval of Social Media Screenings through the Utilitarianism Framework

On the other side of the argument, job seekers’ positions can be considered from the

Utilitarianism ethical framework perspective. The Utilitarianism framework considers the pain

and the benefits for everyone affected by the issue. Desired and undesired outcomes are

weighted not only for the agent but for everyone who is touched by the act. When considering

the issue from the Utilitarianism perspective, the question is posed whether acting this way

generates more good versus pain.

As an example, the study “Bias in Hiring Applicants With Mental Illness and Criminal

Justice Involvement: A Follow-Up Study With Employers” shows how stigma and biases heavily

affect hiring, where most employers choose to social distance from the candidates with a

psychiatric or criminal history (Ashley B. Batastini). The study mentioned that the “result

occurred regardless of training exposure” (Ashley B. Batastini). In other words, regardless of

how professionally qualified the candidate is they are still likely to be rejected for the reasons of

bias. Minority groups that suffer from stigma or biases suffer from higher unemployment rates

due to extensive screenings. Therefore, it would be moral for the candidates to support

limitations of the employers’ access to social media accounts to minimize the harm.

As it was discussed earlier, there are many reasons uncovered by social media screening

that vary from drug usage to inappropriate comments, images, and videos. However, it is also

shown that perception varies. “Using Social Media During the Hiring Process” research points

that recruiters perceive questionable content such as profanity, sexual content, and drug usage

more negatively compared to job seekers. The research concludes that job seekers can get

rejected from positions that they are fully qualified for (Alexander, Mader, & Mader, 2017). For
 Koldaeva 6

that reason, job seekers are more likely to bear the negative impacts of the screening of their

social media profiles.

Additionally, job seekers could be not the sole affected group. Companies can potentially

suffer due to missing the best candidates or having a hard time filling in the role (Alexander,

Mader, & Mader, 2017). Also, potential liability risk arises for the company of breaking

employment laws reading protected from discrimination classes. Thus, within the Utilitarianism

ethical framework, it could be beneficial for the companies to comply with privacy enforcing

policies to minimize the harm of intrusive practices.

Position to Support Job Seekers’ Privacy

Considering that personal information about protected classes is easily accessible through

social media screening, I argue that using social media profiles for employment decisions should

not be allowed. Background checking companies claim privacy laws compliance and promise to

exclude any irrelevant information from the screening process. In reality, it would be hard to

maintain this compliance since a message flagged by the algorithm can be intermixed with the

content revealing personal information. Social media persona contains an extremely rich number

of cues and subtle information that can generate biases and easily fall into stereotypes.

Information taken from the context is often misleading. For example, a joke with profanity words

about fixing an urgent issue in the middle of the night can be something harmless and acceptable

in a specific context.

This position is aligned with job seekers’ beliefs. Extensive social media accounts

screening generates more harm than good for the economy in general since greatly affects the

working class. In the paper research, it was shown that biases occurring in hiring affect minority

groups and those who could be already struggling to find a job. Furthermore, normalizing
 Koldaeva 7

personal privacy violations can be bad for a democratic society, in the long run. That opinion

falls under the Utilitarianism ethical framework, where actions to minimize the damage are

considered moral.

Overall, this is a complex issue, and arguments outlining the security concerns, costs of

“toxic” hires, and issues with remediating bad hiring, are important. Personal privacy and

security are cornerstones of today’s conversations in technology. However, any privacy breach

can be considered the last resort in exceptional and extreme cases. Employment laws should

firmly protect the working class as its driving force and take into consideration the modern

digital landscape and tools available. As a feasible solution, in most cases, face-to-face

communication and a properly conducted behavioral interview focused on the working

experience can be great hiring tools. Besides, this would provide a genuine hiring experience as

opposed to an algorithmic approach and would allow company owners to show the right image

of their companies.
 Koldaeva 8

References

Alexander, E. C., Mader, D. R., & Mader, F. H. (2017). Using Social Media During the Hiring

Process: A Comparison Between Recruiters and Job Seekers. ​Journal of Global Scholars

of Marketing Science

Ashley B. Batastini, A. (n.d.). Bias in Hiring Applicants with Mental Illness and Criminal

Justice Involvement: A Follow-up Study With employers. Retrieved February 03, 2021,

from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0093854817693663

Captain, S. (2016, May 18). Can Using Artificial Intelligence Make Hiring Less Biased?

Retrieved February 03, 2021, from

https://www.fastcompany.com/3059773/we-tested-artificial-intelligence-platforms-to-see

-if-theyre-really-less-

The Cost of a Toxic Hire. (n.d.). Retrieved February 09, 2021, from

https://info.fama.io/cost-of-a-toxic-hire-lp

Identifying and Avoiding Interview Biases. (n.d.). Retrieved February 15, 2021, from

http://training.hr.ufl.edu/resources/LeadershipToolkit/transcripts/Identifying_and_Avoidi

ng_Interview_Biases.pdf

Learn More About Fama, Social Media & Web Screening. (2020, October 21). Retrieved

February 03, 2021, from https://fama.io/about/

Number of Employers Using Social Media to Screen Candidates at All-time High, Finds Latest

Careerbuilder Study. (2018, June 26). Retrieved February 03, 2021, from
 Koldaeva 9

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/number-of-employers-using-social-media-to

-screen-candidates-at-all-time-high-finds-latest-careerbuilder-study-300474228.html

Privacy at Work: Know Your Rights. (n.d.). Retrieved February 15, 2021, from

https://www.privacypolicies.com/blog/privacy-at-work/

Shaver, R. (2019, January 15). Egoism. Retrieved February 15, 2021, from

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/egoism/