Social Media Background Checks and Hiring Ethics

Overview of the Hiring Dilemma

In this case, Shaw is torn between two candidates for a leadership position at her firm. One is Parsons, an outgoing male who is active in his community with non-profits and who has strong leadership skills. The other is Jones, a female who is equally qualified for the job. Shaw is initially leaning toward Parsons because of his leadership qualities, but when she searches both candidates on Google, she discovers unsettling photos of Parsons on Facebook — photos of him with his fraternity friends, drinking and smoking marijuana. Jones has no Facebook presence, and Google searches reveal only work-related information. In other words, Jones has a clean online presence, whereas Parsons' social media activity has sullied his reputation to some extent by revealing him to be a "partier." Shaw must now decide whether Parsons' extracurricular activities are enough to change her opinion of him and compel her to give the job to Jones, whose online profile is far more sober.

Moral Frameworks Available to Shaw

There are a number of moral frameworks that could be applied in this situation. One could adopt John Stuart Mill's utilitarian approach — that which produces the "greatest good," with a view toward both direct and indirect consequences (Halbert and Ingulli, 1999, 15). Alternatively, one could adopt the more traditional Golden Rule framework: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." There is also the legalistic framework, which would hold that because Parsons has engaged in a potentially illegal activity — smoking marijuana — he is no longer a trustworthy candidate.

Finally, there is the "look-in-the-mirror" framework, which asks whether one can look at oneself and maintain self-respect. Parsons apparently has no trouble with drinking and smoking while with his fraternity friends, since he posts these images publicly on Facebook. The question is whether others will respect him. Moreover, is he trustworthy? How dedicated to his job would he be if he is also a habitual partier?

Applying the Utilitarian Framework

The utilitarian framework serves as the primary moral lens for assessing this case. Applying it from Shaw's perspective: she has risen to her current position because of her dedication to her work. She enjoys time with friends and family but recognizes that her business takes top priority. She wants to surround herself with like-minded individuals. Even though she was initially leaning toward Parsons because of his strong leadership skills, something was holding her back from finalizing her decision. She turned to social media and discovered another side of Parsons — one she may have faintly sensed during their interviews but had not clearly identified until now.

This raises important questions about indirect consequences. How many potential clients might encounter the same images down the road and be deterred from doing business with the firm? What else in Parsons' background could surface later and damage the company's reputation by association? These are the indirect consequences of hiring him. Direct consequences, by contrast, would be measured by his impact on the business in terms of productivity, dedication, and leadership — all qualities he demonstrated clearly through his volunteer work in the community and his personal manner during the interview process.

Then there is Jones, who is equally qualified but comes with no red flags and poses no risk of online embarrassment should clients choose to research her background. Based on a utilitarian assessment alone, Jones is the preferred candidate.

References

Blair, Margaret. "Maximizing Shareholder Value versus Creating Value through Team Production." Center for Effective Public Management at Brookings, June 2015.

Halbert, Terry, and Elaine Ingulli. "Making an Ethical Decision." Law and Ethics in the Business Environment, 3rd ed. 1999.

Jangi, Sushrut. "Can We Please Stop Pretending Marijuana Is Harmless?" Boston Globe, 8 October 2015.