It is clearly evident that social media is woven into our everyday lives and technology enables 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 widespread is this scrutiny in organizational recruiting? Legislation exists to protect against discriminatory practices, however it is perhaps inevitable that recruiters will be tempted to examine the digital lives of potential recruits 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 position; an attempt to improve cultural appropriateness decision making. However, this approach can be very problematic. From the perspective of business psychology, it can be argued that recruiting is about ‘performance accounting’, That is, when we measure potential performance, whether through interviews, psychometry, or live observation centers, we are accounting for how any individual will perform in a role. We can represent from 17% in the interview to 65% with the assessment centers. Whatever strategy is used, there is always the possibility that the baby will be thrown with the bath water. If we have errors of judgment in hiring that are based on valid decision-making strategies, what do organizations hope to achieve by crawling an individual’s personal online space as the last bastion of dating information? This divisive and damaging practice is not only ill-thought at best, it is irrelevant in terms of predictive validity of performance. It makes recruiting organizations the custodians of everyday life commentary and behavior, with the self-proclaimed, almost Orwellian authority to make value judgments about what is right and what is 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. Also, 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 that taking selfies is about people trying to figure out who they are and projecting this onto other people. “It’s kind of a self-definition,” says Dr. Apter. “We all like the idea of ​​being in control of our image and getting attention, being noticed, being part of the culture.”

People want to control the projected image and this image will vary with context, just like in real life. We all have distinct personalities of friends, family, and workers. If we examine older adults, their profiles will often include their wives and children. The profiles of college students present what they believe is the most interesting part of their lives, and this will vary greatly. The images of drinking and partying are interesting to certain groups of peers. They can give clues on what to wear, where to go and how to act, young adults look to their peers to see what the best parties and activities are, which are illustrated on Facebook / MySpace. Personally, I don’t have a single photo of myself published in the library. Other publications can also serve to communicate the importance of particular relationships because these ties can provide reassurance regarding an individual’s self-esteem.

Social media gives all users a “public” personality, and when users try to present themselves in a way that matches the way 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’ which 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 are then interpreted by others.

The most common regrets on Facebook are likely to revolve around sensitive topics like alcohol, sex, politics, religion, or “emotional content.” Often times, the sources of these regrets are unintended consequences or unwanted audiences. And these ads are the ones most likely to be used when evaluating a person’s suitability for a job. Uninhibited behavior online is a gift to certain personalities in organizations. However, it is one thing to want to know a little more about the opinions, motivations and lifestyles of job applicants; It is quite another to give a damaging leap of faith regarding that individual’s cultural fit and performance potential. This is further compounded when a third party is delegated to perform such activity, where there is a high potential for identity errors. And even broader judgment bias can occur through delegated authority.

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

Content validity refers to how thoroughly the measure assesses the underlying construct it is intended to assess. Construct validity refers to whether the measure accurately evaluates the underlying construct it is intended to evaluate. 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 occurs in real life (eg time management, planning and organizing, leadership, etc.)?

The reliability of a measure refers to whether the measure achieves repeatable results. Will the recruiting and selection processes that a company uses every time it needs to hire someone, or just once? If your processes perform well at all times, you can say that those measurements are reliable.

Based on the above, I have to ask about the validity and reliability of social media detection. 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, the selection must be done with caution, so that hiring managers do not inadvertently act in a way that could be seen as discriminatory or unfair in other ways.

Like other formalities related to the recruitment process, all personal data collected during the selection / selection process must be handled and retained in accordance with the policy guidelines on record keeping.

Organizations must ensure that:

• the same restrictions apply to online controls as to all other aspects of the recruitment process;

• Personal data should only be accessed if it is relevant to the suitability for the position;

• 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;

• public domain information about a person’s professional profile can be used;

• before online searches are conducted, applicants should be advised that information about them may be collected in this way;

• Applicants should be given the opportunity to respond to any adverse online search results, where they can be considered in the decision-making process.

Only then can job applicants be assured 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.