Abstract
The advent of social media was a paradigm shift in the lives of humans. Online networking platforms have significantly influenced business in various ways, including establishing brand image, sales, and marketing. Human resource managers are also benefitting from the issue through the practice of employee recruitment. However, social media screening during recruitment remains a significant area of concern with ethical implications. Kant utilitarianism encourages employers to use the social media background check to ensure the safety and well-being of an organization. However, Kant's Categorical Imperative (CI) asks individuals to focus on the action's quality, per se. The online screening method is intrusive and disrespectful, and disregardful of the candidate's integrity and autonomy as a person. The essay will debunk the role of social media as a screening tool during the recruitment process. It will provide the utilitarian and CI methods to assess the issue from both sides. A professional code of ethics will be discussed to assess the real-life application of the ethical dilemma. Lastly, the essay will encompass a well-elaborate and detailed argument that discusses social media's adverse effects on employee screening.
The Ethics of Social Media Screening
Human resource (HR) managers have an essential role in ensuring the recruitment and management of employees. They must recruit the best hire that will contribute to the achievement of organizational success. Social media's growth has provided individuals with the opportunity to interact and share their thoughts with the rest of the world. The First Amendment right in the United States recognizes the individual's right to self-expression. Despite the freedom to express oneself on social media, HR managers are continuously tempted to use social media posts to determine hiring decisions. Some managers argue that posts on social media could provide important information about the individual's personality and possibly their attitudes towards the organization. They could also get a glimpse of their values, ethos, interests, and suitability for the job in question. However, critics believe that this is an intrusive strategy that infiltrates an individual's space and, therefore, an infringement of the First Amendment right. The social media background check is dangerous and unfair, especially when the posts do not directly impact the employee's ability to perform the job. Social media is a free world where most of the content has nothing to do with the person's interests or qualifications. Therefore, the use of social media information to make hiring decisions is unethical and can create a demeaning, disrespectful, and unfair environment.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Background Information
While using social media, no one expects their posts or comments on issues to form a subject of the decision to either recruit them for a job or not. The use of social media to judge a candidate's suitability for a job creates a slippery slope that could adversely affect an individual's chances to get a job. For instance, the background checks on social media could inaccurately represent an individual, leading to judgment without necessarily giving them an opportunity for a rebuttal. Making ethical decisions remains a significant requirement for persons in leadership positions (Tufts, Jacobson, & Stevens, 2015). Leaders must make decisions that are consistent with the ethical guidelines and principles. Social media platforms have intimate and personal information about people. HR managers turn to these platforms as part of their efforts to understand the recruit and appreciate their values, perceptions, and interactions on the social platform. However, the reality is that social media use to recruit individuals raises serious moral and ethical questions. The utilitarianism model is premised on end justifying the means. Morality is not determined by the nature of the actions but rather the consequences they bear on the individuals. Utilitarian proponents would regard social media background check as ethical because it ensures that the organization recruits the kind of employee they want regardless of its method. Kant's deontological ethics pays significant attention to the nature of the actions. Other than assessing the consequences, Kant emphasizes the nature of the action. In this regard, social media screening would be unethical due to its intrusive and judgmental nature.
Professional code of ethics for many jobs in the United States and Europe consider the importance of anti-discrimination policies. In the US, for instance, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prevents employers from engaging in discriminative actions during recruitment and employment practices (Wiecek & Hamilton, 2013). Social media screening provides critical information that recruiters could use to unlawfully disqualify an individual from receiving a job opportunity. Most organizations also have strong policies regarding confidentiality and privacy. Social media intrusion remains a significant indictment on the privacy of an individual. Companies must assess the direct implications that violating these codes would have on their reputation and brand image.
Theory Application
Mill’s Utilitarianism
John Stuart Mill proposed the ethical theory of utilitarianism. Mills believes that actions are right insofar as they promote happiness. An action is immoral if it promotes anything contrary to happiness. Utilitarianism is part of consequentialist ethics, where individuals are concerned with the outcomes of actions rather than the inherent nature of these actions (Mill, 2015). In utilitarianism, an action can be inherently bad or unjust, but the outcomes appeal to most people. Social media screening remains a controversial aspect of human resource management. Managers are nowadays interested in knowing a person's online interaction and how it might shed significant information regarding their attitudes, beliefs, and perspectives. Over the recent past, individuals have used social media to spread hate, fake news, abuse, or harass others. Some users might have taken to social media to provide their professional ambitions, including criticism of specific jobs they would not want to do (Kandias et al., 2013). An organization would always want to employ a morally upright individual that will carry and represent the brand image in and out of the organization. Utilitarianism would enable HR management to recruit employees with desirable social media behavior. However, employees must ensure that they employ non-discriminatory behaviors when using social media screening. Failure to do so could see the company face legal actions that contradict the utilitarian view of the good consequences.
Kant’s Categorical Imperative
Emmanuel Kant was against utilitarianism and the overall consequentialist thought. Instead, Kant focused on the form of action as the determinant for morality. Therefore, in determining morality, one is required to apply a formal test to the action. Kant named the formal test as Categorical Imperative (CI) (Lindner & Bentzen, 2018). The term categorical in this concept refers to the supremacy and absolute truth associated with the action. Imperative refers to a situation where one must remain truthful to the moral tenets and desire to do the right thing. Individuals are called on to do the right thing even if their self-interests dictate them to do otherwise. The Kantian ethics looks at the quality of an action rather than the consequences. Proponents of this view are interested in assessing the inherent nature of actions without considering the emotional impact on the individuals affected. Contrary to utilitarianism, intruding into an individual's private life on social media would qualify as an immoral action. Screening an individual's social media without the person's consent is coercive and surreptitious, and draconian. Through Kant's lenses, allowing social media screening empowers the employer to act in an arbitrary, unjustified, and invasive manner. It goes against moral values and principles to jeopardize a person's privacy, security, and dignity by perusing their social media pages and using it either for or against them (Kandias et al., 2013). In some instances, social media communication might not directly or indirectly provide insights into the candidate's ability to perform the job. Therefore, social media screening in such situations is disrespectful and demeaning.
Professional Code Application
The professional code of ethics requires individuals to solicit only necessary information. For example, where an individual was born is not necessary information and is therefore unethical. The same applies to social media recruitment. Over the last decade, employers have continuously used Facebook, LinkedIn, Instagram, and Twitter to collect prospective employees' information (Jeske & Shultz, 2019). Some states in the US have taken necessary steps to prohibit employers from accessing their hires' social media accounts. For instance, in California, legislators have developed a law that prohibits individuals from compelling their workers or recruits to provide social media usernames and passwords. Virginia, Maryland, and Illinois have similar laws. However, employers can search for publicly available information and use it for their benefit. Soliciting unnecessary information has negative implications for discriminatory practices. Social media can provide critical information regarding a person's disability status, religion, gender identity, and sexual orientation. Most of the characteristics acquired through these platforms are not available in the resume. Using such information to select or reject candidates creates a discriminatory workplace. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prevents HR managers from making employment decisions based on color, race, sex, religion, and national origin. Most companies have established the law as part of their professional code of ethics.
Soliciting unnecessary information is also an indictment of privacy and confidentiality. Some part of the information in social media is protected under usernames and passwords. However, most of the information is openly public to the general population (Manroop, Singh, & Ezzedeen, 2014). Employers have an opportunity to access the information and use it to make hiring decisions. However, ethical organizations should inform the recruits that their social media information will play a critical role in determining their hiring decisions. Failure to do so would be unfair and bad for privacy and confidential needs (Jeske & Shultz, 2019). Generally, confidentiality remains a significant ethical code of conduct determining operations of HR management. The managers must demonstrate privacy when dealing with employee information, disciplinary issues, and workplace investigations, among other areas. Therefore, the same should apply to the use of social media as a background check. Soliciting unnecessary information jeopardizes the confidentiality and privacy of the recruit. The case is much worse in situations where individuals must provide signing in credentials to the employer. Most recruits are desperate for a job opportunity and would willingly provide critical information (Jeske & Shultz, 2019). Organizations are required to continue strengthening the professional code of ethics regarding anti-discrimination and privacy, and confidentiality.
Argument
Social media is not only popular but also ubiquitous. A significant segment of the population has a social media presence with active profiles. Individuals have various options to use, including personal blogs, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and LinkedIn. The vast array of options has provided employers with an opportunity to access a large pool of information regarding their employees and potential hires. However, social media use to determine the hiring decision has provided significant ethical and legal issues. Recruiters today argue that platforms such as Facebook are public platforms and, therefore, accessible to any individual without restrictions (Cooley & Parks-Yancy, 2016). Regardless of their accessibility, several factors make social media background check unethical to use during recruitment. First, social media use provides the recruiter with prior information regarding the person's sex, national origin, sexual orientation, and gender identity. Recent statistics by the Career Building showed that about 43% of managers reported not employing candidates based on the information they acquired on social media platforms (Gruzd, Jacobson, & Dubois, 2017). The nature of the information accessible on online platforms could encourage discriminatory practices. HR managers are likely to make hiring decisions in a manner that contradicts the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Besides the discrimination, employers can use social media accounts to solicit information that does not necessarily contribute to the hiring process. Most of the information on the recruit's qualifications is embedded in the Curriculum Vitae or resumes. Different social media platforms provide users with a wide array of needs. For instance, Instagram allows users to post pictures, while Facebook allows them to post, react, and give comments (Jacobson & Gruzd, 2020). LinkedIn allows an individual to post information regarding their professional qualifications. Employers are more likely to focus on the person's general conduct, such as the nature of pictures they post or whether they use their only presence to fuel unethical behavior. Despite this information's importance, none of it directly contributes to the knowledge regarding the employee’s qualification (Jeske & Shultz, 2019). For instance, a person posting provocative information on their platform does not necessarily mean that they are incompetent to perform a given role in an organization. Employers should change their focus on meaningful information rather than the trivial data collected on social media. Also, one might argue that the social media history of an individual could determine their behaviors. However, this is not necessarily true. When individuals post, they do not necessarily reflect their personalities (Bentley, 2013). Even if it showed their personality, what someone posted three years ago could not necessarily provide information regarding their state of behavior in contemporary times.
Employers must remain mindful of the damages that a social media background check could have on an individual. The information acquired from these platforms is not only personal but also intimate (Bentley, 2013). Using the information could adversely affect an individual by putting them to shame or even embarrassing them. HR managers cannot overemphasize the importance of human dignity in their endeavors. The dignity of an individual can easily be jeopardized if personalized information is scrutinized for purposes of hiring. According to Kantian ethics, using intimate and personal information is disrespectful and inconsiderate of the person's autonomy. More importantly, it goes against the First Amendment legal provision. Every person has to respect the other person's opinions and views. Individuals have the right to express themselves without the fear of contradiction (Bentley, 2013). However, social media background checks will likely sanction individuals and gag them from debating controversial issues such as politics and policy matters. The managers apply emotion rather than reason in their argument to hire or not hire the recruit.
Some hires might consider taking legal action against an organization that failed to hire them on the grounds of social media postings. Such recruits are likely to employ Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, citing discriminative policies (Cooley & Parks-Yancy, 2016). The utilitarianism perspective supports the use of social media because an organization will have benefited by screening the employee and finding the one that matches their desires. However, the decision to launch background checks on an individual could have adverse legal implications for the company. The organization will have to undergo numerous court sessions, and if found guilty, it could result in a fine or punishment. Some actions have an adverse impact on the organization's reputation. Such a scenario goes against the ethical principle of utilitarianism. The damages from the legal impact could have adverse consequences on the organization, which contradicts the utilitarian argument (Jeske & Shultz, 2019). Therefore, if an organization wishes to use social media as a determinant for hiring decisions, stakeholders should consider several factors. First, all recruits should receive notification that their social media will form an important variable in their screening process. Secondly, the recruiters should use clear indicators that apply fairly to every individual. Essentially, the process should be transparent, consistent, and systematic to avoid unfair and unjust practices.
Social media screening might also promote the hiring of the wrong employees. For instance, two candidates are in contention for an employment opportunity. One of them has provocative pictures without any other negative aspect. However, the other had racist and xenophobic sentiments before eventually dealing with such expressions from all their social media accounts. The company will decide to hire the candidate whose profile looks apparently clean and deny the one with provocative pictures (Root & McKay, 2014). In the end, the organization will have made the wrong decision. In the wake of an employment opportunity, an individual could decide to manipulate their social media account by posting things that might appeal to the recruiters. As explained in the example, some could delete their accounts or comments that might paint them in a bad light. Therefore, HR managers cannot rely on social media as a reliable way of judging or gauging an individual's character or likelihood to perform a particular job (Cooley & Parks-Yancy, 2016). However, the same cannot happen when using CVs and resumes because individuals can neither change nor manipulate them to make themselves look marketable. Instead, recruiters should focus on reliable documents to assess behavior and qualification rather than emphasizing social media use.
Today, individuals have social media platforms that they could employ to provide their professional information. LinkedIn allows individuals to give information regarding their skills, abilities, qualifications, and interests (Root & McKay, 2014). Instead of focusing on nonspecific social media such as Facebook and Instagram, employers have the chance to use LinkedIn to understand the fundamental aspects of an individual's professional portfolio. Organizations must understand where social media fits into their grand scheme of strategy (Gruzd, Jacobson, & Dubois, 2017). HR managers must discourage the haphazard use of social media to witch-hunt or victimize individuals who are innocently exploring their democratic right to interact and share their opinions and thoughts. Employers and recruiters could utilize third parties to assess the social media environment objectively and develop an objective view of an individual. Such a decision would prevent bias and discriminatory behaviors (Cooley & Parks-Yancy, 2016). Managers must develop sound social media policies that contribute to an organization's overall success and strategic direction. Part of this calls on the organizational leadership to pay attention to LinkedIn and sites that only focus on professional aspects rather than personal issues.
Regardless, proponents of social media screening have several valid reasons to back their assertions. Studies have shown that about 40% of employers use social media as part of the screening process during recruitment. Also, 43% of employers contended that they found online information to make hiring decisions. 20% of managers argued that they found information on social media that enabled them to employ an individual (Root & McKay, 2014). Proponents of the online background check believe that social media screening should not receive the backlash they have continuously faced. As a tool, managers could use online networking platforms to identify specific attributes they intend for their organization. For instance, running a business on social media could help their new company create a marketing niche on the platform due to their vast experience. Based on the utilitarian perspective, all organizations want to hire the best employee (Cooley & Parks-Yancy, 2016). Getting the wrong hire has adverse implications on the well-being of an organization. A company is likely to face reduced sales and poor public relations when they get the wrong employee for a particular role. In this regard, organizations have the moral duty to do anything within their means to acquire the right employee (Gruzd, Jacobson, & Dubois, 2017). The damage associated with a wrong hire is more important than the damage from accessing one’s social media.
Therefore, organizations must understand the position of social media in their recruitment process. Rather than placing social media as the main source of information, employers can use it as an additional tool, especially when the stakes for getting the job are higher (Bentley, 2013). Over recent years, individuals have used social media to propagate violence and spread hate and racist messages. Today, most organizations look for holistic individuals with technical and people skills to survive in the corporate environment (Cooley & Parks-Yancy, 2016). Prospective employees are also on the spot that their online platform's behavior could determine their future opportunities. Recruiters must apply social media to the screening process with immense care to avoid unfair, disrespectful, and insensitive actions (Gruzd, Jacobson, & Dubois, 2017). They must also inform employers of how the social media platform will be used to their advantage or disadvantage. Regardless of any decision taken, all decisions should be based on logic rather than emotion.
Conclusion
The use of social media information to make hiring decisions is unethical and can create a demeaning, disrespectful, and unfair environment. Social media use has continued to grow over the past two decades. Although individuals see this as an opportunity to self-express and interact at a more global center-stage, employers and recruiters view it as a platform to solicit hiring information. Using Mill's utilitarian perspective, employers have the right to protect their interest in securing the most qualified individual to fill a role. However, from the Kantian CI model, social media screening can put an individual to shame and jeopardize their dignity. The information acquired in this platform does not necessarily portray individuals' ability to perform their jobs. Companies risk entering legal potholes, especially when recruits indict them for discriminatory workplace policies. Irrespective of the side taken, social media will continue to form a significant part of business practices today. Managers must understand that social media carries significant privacy and confidentiality implications. Therefore, they must inform the recruits of their potential use in the screening process. HR managers must also develop clear policies and guidelines that guide the use of social media to avoid unfair and discriminatory practices.
References
Root, T., & McKay, S. (2014). Student awareness of the use of social media screening by prospective employers. Journal of Education for Business , 89 (4), 202-206.
Bentley, E. D. (2013). The pitfalls of using social media screening for job applicants. ABA Journal of Labor & Employment Law , 1-13.
Cooley, D., & Parks-Yancy, R. (2016). Impact of traditional and internet/social media screening mechanisms on employers’ perceptions of job applicants. The Journal of Social Media in Society , 5 (3), 151-186.
Gruzd, A., Jacobson, J., & Dubois, E. (2017). You're Hired: Examining Acceptance of Social Media Screening of Job Applicants. AIS e-Library
Jacobson, J., & Gruzd, A. (2020). Cybervetting job applicants on social media: the new normal?. Ethics and Information Technology , 1-21.
Jeske, D., & Shultz, K. S. (2019). Social media screening and content effects: implications for job applicant reactions. International Journal of Manpower .
Kandias, M., Galbogini, K., Mitrou, L., & Gritzalis, D. (2013, June). Insiders trapped in the mirror reveal themselves in social media. In International Conference on Network and System Security (pp. 220-235). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Lindner, F., & Bentzen, M. M. (2018). A Formalization of Kant's Second Formulation of the Categorical Imperative. arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.03160 .
Manroop, L., Singh, P., & Ezzedeen, S. (2014). Human resource systems and ethical climates: A resource‐based perspective. Human resource management , 53 (5), 795-816.
Mill, J. S. (2015). On Liberty, Utilitarianism, and other essays . Oxford University Press, USA.
Tufts, S. H., Jacobson, W. S., & Stevens, M. S. (2015). Status update: social media and local government human resource practices. Review of Public Personnel Administration , 35 (2), 193-207.
Wiecek, W. M., & Hamilton, J. L. (2013). Beyond the Civil Rights Act of 1964: confronting structural racism in the workplace. La. L., Rev. , 74 , 1095.
