Social Media Background Checks: Ethics of Hiring Decisions
This paper analyzes the ethical dimensions of a hiring manager's decision to search Facebook before selecting between two equally qualified job candidates. Using deontological and virtue ethics frameworks, the paper evaluates whether Miranda Shaw acted appropriately when she discovered photographs of candidate Rick Parsons drinking and smoking on a friend's Facebook page. The analysis considers arguments on both sides — including privacy rights, the reliability of social media information, legal risks to employers, and the potential health effects of marijuana use — before offering alternative courses of action Shaw could have pursued and a personal reflection on the ethical best practices that should guide social media screening in hiring decisions.
- Introduction: The Hiring Dilemma: Shaw discovers Parsons' Facebook photos before deciding
- Shaw's Actions Through Ethical Frameworks: Deontology and virtue ethics applied to Shaw's choice
- Social Implications of Parsons' Behavior: Marijuana's health effects and generational attitudes
- Alternative Actions Available to Shaw: Options Shaw had beyond rejecting Parsons outright
- Additional Frameworks for Reframing the Issue: Privacy, legal risks, and social media accuracy
- Reflection and Personal Views on Shaw's Decision: Personal assessment and ethical hiring best practices
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper grounds its analysis in two named ethical frameworks — deontology and virtue ethics — and applies them systematically to a concrete scenario, demonstrating how abstract moral theory translates into real workplace decisions.
- It presents genuinely competing perspectives, acknowledging that both Shaw and Parsons acted reasonably within their own contexts, rather than offering a one-sided verdict.
- The inclusion of survey data and scientific evidence about marijuana's effects adds empirical weight to what could otherwise be a purely abstract ethical argument.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper models multi-framework ethical analysis: it introduces a factual scenario, applies deontological principles (Kantian universality, respect for persons), then applies virtue ethics, and finally weighs both against practical and legal considerations. This layered approach shows how different frameworks can yield different — and sometimes conflicting — conclusions, a core skill in applied ethics reasoning.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a narrative case description before moving into theoretical analysis (deontology, virtue ethics), then shifts to empirical and social context (marijuana research, generational attitudes), followed by practical alternatives for the decision-maker, a broader reframing section on social media norms and legal risk, and a concluding personal reflection. This structure moves from theory to evidence to practice — a logical progression well suited to applied ethics writing.
Introduction: The Hiring Dilemma
Miranda Shaw is a manager at a high-ranking consulting company who needs to fill a senior analyst position. She has narrowed her pool of applicants down to two finalists — Deborah Jones and Rick Parsons — and is expected to make a recommendation to the head of human resources without delay. Both candidates attended the same prestigious business school.
Both candidates performed impressively during interviews and brought strong work experience. However, Parsons' leadership skills made him stand out as the stronger candidate. Additional qualities favoring his candidacy included a track record of resilience and excellent communication skills. Before making her final decision, Shaw decided to research both candidates online.
She visited Facebook and found pictures of Parsons smoking and drinking with members of a college fraternity. The photos were not on Parsons' own page — they appeared on a friend's page whose privacy settings had not been enabled. Shaw then searched for Jones online and found multiple sites describing her as a reliable and efficient project manager. The online photos depicting Parsons as a heavy drinker and smoker gave Shaw pause. In pursuing this line of investigation, she chose to walk the slippery boundary between a candidate's private and public life (Parmar, 1–3).
Shaw decided to gather more background information on both candidates than had been offered during the interview process, partly because she needed to report to her seniors quickly. Although she was undoubtedly acting in the company's best interests, she may have erred in allowing personal character — inferred from a friend's social media page — to override professional qualifications. The decision was based on content that Parsons himself had not chosen to make public. As a conscientious employee, Shaw concluded that Parsons' behavior made him unfit for her team.
The central tension here is twofold. First, did Shaw make the right call given that both candidates appeared equally qualified during the interview process? Second, Parsons had taken deliberate steps to separate his professional image from his personal life — a discretion that could be argued deserves respect.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.