Social Media Role in Employment

¶ … Miranda Shaw is a manager at a high-ranking consulting company, and needs a senior analyst to fill a job opening in that capacity. She has chosen two out of the many applicants, Deborah Jones and Rick Parsons, and is expected to make recommendation to the head of human resources department without delay. The two shortlisted candidates had attended the same prestigious business school. Both candidates shone like stars during the interviews and boasted of intimidating work experiences.

However, Parson's leadership skills make him stand out as a favorite for the position. Other qualities favoring Parson's candidature for the job includes a track record of resilience at work and excellent communication skills. Shaw makes up her mind to find out more about both candidates on Google, before taking the final decision in the matter. She visited the social networking site, Facebook, to find out more about the candidates' past and their activities,, and found some pictures of Parsons smoking and drinking with some members of a college fraternity.

It was on the Facebook page of one of Parson's friend's whose privacy settings were not enabled. Shaw then sought out Jones on the internet (Google search pages), the other shortlisted candidate, and found several sites that talked about Jones as the efficient project manager to rely on. The online photos that showed Parsons as a binge drinker and chain smoker made Shaw have a rethink about her choice of candidate. She has chosen to walk the rather slippery and slim boundary between private and public life (Parmar, 1-3)[footnoteRef:2].

[2: Parmar, Bidhan. "Should you check Facebook before hiring?."The Washington Post. 2011. Print.] Shaw decided to collect more information on the background of the candidates (than was proffered to her in person), as she needed to report to her seniors quickly. Obviously aware of the fact that Facebook could provide some insight about the competing candidates, she uncovered more than what the individuals in question wanted to divulge. That she had the best interests of the company behind the action is beyond doubt.

However, she may have erred in crossing the boundary between personal and professional character (and thereby, capacity). The decision she took was based on what she saw posted on a friend's page that was accessible, whereas Parsons was not. The post gives a clear indication of Parsons social life and the extremes to which he may go. As a responsible and conscientious employee, Shaw decided that Parsons inappropriate indulgences make him unfit for her company.

The possible point of contention here is two-fold; Did Shaw take the right decision, given that the interview and information she had had shown that Parson as was fit for the job as the other candidate; Secondly, Parson had been careful to present the image he wanted to publicize while saving the social ones for personal use (he used discretion, that he must have thought, needs to be respected).

Shaw actions in light of Principle Moral Framework Deontology (Halbet and Ingulli, 17) With regards to virtues and principles of ethics, Parsons lacks the integrity and character to fit into the professional work environment of the company and Shaw's dedicated team because of the information in the album that Shaw found. The album with pictures of Parsons drinking and smoking with members of his college fraternity did not speak well of him.

However, even as Shaw chooses to take the path that she did, would she, as a recipient, accept such transgression, is the question Deontology would pose. Morality, as explained by Kant emphasizes on the universality of the principle (and ensuing action thereby). The moral obligations demand consistency. The same principles should be applied in all cases, according to Kant.

Further in the theory, and of specific relevance to this case, Deontology requires that all individuals be treated with respect due to their inherent, intrinsic endowments rather than utilizing them towards certain personal advancements. Shaw's actions can be viewed from these Moral angles to judge her particular action in deciding to reject the candidacy of Parsons. According to Kant, Morality theory requires that each person has the right to take his own decisions without being manipulated into doing so, by whatever exigencies.

Parsons has exhibited the required discretion, towards which Shaw failed in showing respect. However, Shaw worked in the best interests of her company within the limitations of time she had. This is a conflict situation where both parties involved were right in their own ways, though the said moral behavior applied can be contested. We need to examine another theory that would balance the matter Virtue Theory (Halbet and Ingulli, 17)[footnoteRef:3]. [3: Halbert, Terry and Ingulli, Elaine."Making an Ethical Decision." Rpt. in Law and Ethics inBusiness Environment.

South Western Publishing, 1991.3rd Ed. 15-18. Print.] The virtue theory has been in use since the time of Aristotle and Plato. Having a set of rules is not the only thing required to execute judgment. It also involve having those virtues or dispositions that makes it easy to make the right choice about doing things right and holding on to things that do not make the actualization of goals easy.

Therefore, ethics that are based on virtue lays emphasis on some specific qualities that describe appropriate behavior and the exact action to take. Unlike the ethical theories we discussed earlier, the virtue theory fails to establish a given set of conditions to assess possible decisions. Rather, it lays emphasis on the inner characteristics of the individual we wish to establish relationships with on trust.

The main goal is for the decision maker to do the right thing in the right way at the right place and at the right time, always. Therefore, she will not want to waste either time or money when it comes to hiring the right person for the job. After all, it was not Parsons intention to leak the improper, irrelevant and possibly offensive photos (having enabled his own Facebook privacy settings) (Halbet and Ingulli, 17)[footnoteRef:4]. [4: Halbert, Terry and Ingulli, Elaine."Making an Ethical Decision." Rpt.

in Law and Ethics inBusiness Environment. South Western Publishing, 1991.3rd Ed. 15-18. Print.] Shaw has shown responsibility to her role by finding out about the candidates over and above what she acquired officially. Parsons has been equal to the other candidate in professional values required by the company. Thus, he has an equal right to the job. However, that alone may not be enough for Shaw to take a decision, as she has to work in the best interests of her company.

However, Shaw may not like to be 'snooped' upon in the way Parsons was, had she been on the other side. Thus, Shaw has not exhibited universality of Morality, as prescribed by Kant. By virtue of principles, though, Parsons indulgence make him undesirable by the company. The 'indulgences' of Parsons that robbed him of his future job may now be explored to establish the intensity of the 'vice' attached to it.

Shaw may have been hasty in arriving at the decision, because the Facebook page may not have offered the complete picture. There could be many reasons, of personal dimension why such pictures existed, none of which could possibly have a bearing on the professional acumen of the candidate. She could have asked for another one-on-one interview, even on phone (to save time) and then taken a decision.

Alternatively she could have asked both to be on probation on successful completion of which, the HR team could observe them and then take a decision based on better, consistent performance. Such actions would be in accordance with "equal opportunity to all concerned" principle as prescribed by Kant's Morality principles. Looking at both sides of the argument Marijuana- Social implications First and foremost, Parsons was drinking and smoking in one of the pictures found on his friend's Facebook page. Marijuana is a very bad substance (socially abhorred and unacceptable).

Unfortunately, most young people today believe that marijuana is a simple drug that cannot cause anyone any harm. in reality, though, it is known to be harmful, detrimental especially to the younger ones. Physicians have constantly challenged the claim that marijuana is not addictive. According to Dr. Sharon Levy, marijuana's addictiveness is not in question (PewResearch Center,3)[footnoteRef:5]. Almost half of the entire American population smoked tobacco. This level of acceptance and adoption concealed the health hazards. The fundamental biochemistry it contains can have very dire pathologic consequences.

Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in marijuana fastens to brain receptors that faintly alter systems that are ordinarily involved in some healthy behaviors such as learning, eating, and building relationships (PewResearchCenter, 4)[footnoteRef:6]. [5: Pew Research Center."Majority Now Supports Legalizing Marijuana."Pew Research Center.2013. Web.] [6: Pew Research Center."Majority Now Supports Legalizing Marijuana."Pew Research Center.2013. Web.] This dangerous cognitive system is rewired by each hit of THC: Early results from studies conducted on mice have proved that continuous exposure to THC leads to the total disappearance of these receptors.

This blunts the natural response to good behaviors and needs higher doses for the same effects to be achieved. Essential pathways are exploited by marijuana to recover a past memory, to regulate our metabolism delicately, and derive joy from our daily lives (Jangi, 3-8)[footnoteRef:7]. [7: Jangi, Sushrut. "Can we please stop pretending marijuana is harmless." Boston Globe MediaPartners, LLC.2015.

Web.] In as much as this change is the outcome of a generational shift, in the survey conducted in1977, 76% of people in Greatest Generation, born prior to 1928, established the link between the use of hard drug and marijuana. The Gen X and Millennials -- the generations that came of age from 1977-are not likely to agree that the use of marijuana encourages the use of hard drugs (36% of Gen X, 31% of Millennials).

Remarkably, the same is issue is viewed by 'Boomers' the same way they viewed it in 1977, when relatively wide support exists among this generation of legalization cohorts. Now, about 37% of Boomers claim that the use of marijuana results in the use of hard drug; 39% expressed this same view in 1977. In the same way, about 60% of Silents currently believe that the use of marijuana leads to more use of hard drugs. This is the same as the generation cohort views in 1977 (62%).

In more than four decades of conducting polls on this issue, most Americans agree with the legalization of marijuana. A national survey conducted recently showed that about 52% agree that marijuana use should be made legal, while about 45% say it should not be legalized. This is because there are more youths than older adults using marijuana. Moreover, Shaw needs a person with strong character for the senior analyst position since the position requires the handling of very complex situations. These analysts have a full understanding of business processes (PewResearchCenter, 3-5)[footnoteRef:8].

[8: Pew Research Center."Majority Now Supports Legalizing Marijuana."Pew Research Center. 2013. Web.] Even the work environment would need a lot of discipline and great commitment to work regularly. A person addicted to marijuana would not be able to cope with the job responsibilities at all (Pew Research Center, 1-5)[footnoteRef:9]. Apart from this, Parsons did not release the information willingly, and he made sure he enabled his Facebook page private settings.

Enabling privacy settings leads to doubt after the photos of him smoking with friends were discovered on the Facebook page of his friend, who did not enable his privacy settings (Parmar, 6)[footnoteRef:10]. [9: Pew Research Center."Majority Now Supports Legalizing Marijuana."Pew Research Center. 2013. Web.] [10: Parmar, Bidhan. "Should you check Facebook before hiring?."The Washington Post. 2011. Print.] Parsons demarcated his professional, public face from the private, personal pages with caution. That his friend did not follow the required security concerns on Facebook should not go against Parsons.

Any person other than the owner (or those authorized by the owner) infringes on privacy of another by accessing information without permission, which goes against normative social etiquettes. The company seeks the professional competency of individuals and a non-criminal record (at the most), socially. Parsons would expectedly shun the use of drugs and such abuses when working for a company going by the behavioral pattern shown while using Facebook.

Alternatives actions for Shaw Miranda has chosen two candidates from the many applicants, Deborah Jones and Rick Parsons, to enable her make a quick recommendation to the head of human resources department. Stumbling on Pearson's pictures of smoking and drinking made her change her decision to hire Parson. When she searched for information on the other finalist, Jones, all she found were sites that named Jones as a reliable project manager.

Discovering Parsons pictures that showed his drinking and smoking habit made her change her mind about hiring Parsons and made her bring private life issues into public matters (Parmar, 5)[footnoteRef:11]. She was left with no other choice than to select Jones, who had no trace of indulgence in smoking, drinking or any other unethical and immoral behaviors. However, Shaw can confront Parsons and promise him this job provided he takes steps, such as seeking professional help, to become sober.

She can additionally ignore what she saw and still hire Parsons based on his skill set. [11: Parmar, Bidhan. "Should you check Facebook before hiring?."The Washington Post. 2011.Print.] Additional frameworks that exist for re-framing this issue A public profile serves merely as a means of casual interaction between an individual and other social networkers. It is set casually on the personal time of the user. It is wrong for organizations to decide who to hire or reject-based essentially on what they post of their social media pages.

These are things done outside working hours and environments. Deciding whom to hire and whom to fire based on online activities can lead to legal complaints against the employer. Apart from this contention, several profile hackers are prowling around online. This is a common phenomenon in the social networking scene. Someone can easily access a friend's profile and change some information. It will be a huge mistake on the part of an employer to decide whom to hire or fire based on such online information.

The outcome will be ignoring or even rejecting a potentially excellent employee for a less qualified one. These online profiles are just some ways people get more noticed. Introverts tend to turn themselves into some kind of cyber. Some highly introverted people do put in much effort to beef up their social lives by adding more acceptable pictures and some interesting details. Such people may want to make new friends online.

When a potential employer finds information that suggests drinking and partying abound on a potential employers profile, this may make him think less of the candidate's positive traits, and thus, character (Overell, 5-8)[footnoteRef:12]. [12: Overell, Michael. "Should Employers Check Facebook Before Making a Hire?."RecruitLoop.2011. Web.] Moreover, as per scholars, the results show that the risk of marijuana or cannabis might have been overestimated in earlier studies, according to certain findings. In contrast, alcohol risk may have been underestimated.

Furthermore, they discovered that marijuana is actually 114 times less lethal than alcohol (Brindicci, 4)[footnoteRef:13]. [13: Brindicci, Macros. "Smoking marijuana is 114 times safer than drinking alcohol -- study."Reuters. 2015. Web.] When viewed from a different angle, it is unfair to reject a candidate based on a picture of him on Facebook. Online profiles on social networking sites are not meant for resumes or any formal/official cognition. It is wrong to decide on someone's eligibility based on a profile designed specifically for social purposes.

Reflection on Shaw's actions In a national survey carried out in 2013, about.