I liked Jerry E. Thurber’s Blog today, May 18, 2011 on:  Social Media Background Check: 5 Things Not to Tweet – so much so that I’m doing a Blog on Blog because I feel the subject deserves a contrary assessment on the possible downsides of actually eliminating, hiding or glossing over what could be true flaws.

Jerry offered “some simple guidelines people should take when using social media so that they don’t compromise their professional image…”  His “suggestions of 5 Things Not to Tweet if you want to stay away from problems with pre employment screening that may include a social media check:

1). The Hate Word (see Jerry’s blog for expanded comment on each thing not to tweet)

2). Racist Comments

3). Negative Comments about Employers (or employees)

4). Comments about Weapons and Violence

5). Bragging about “Taking Advantage” of Someone or Something

Concluded that: “Social media information will be used in background checking. You should not have to worry about every line you write being scrutinized, but you should also exercise good judgment about what you write (and more importantly) how you say it. It is your choice to speak openly in this new public arena, just do so knowing that your words say a lot about who you are.”  And he's right to recommend that people exercise good judgement in how they represent themselves in social media because some good, bad and ugly can come of it.

 

My take is that employers and recruiters should know enough about a candidate to consider hiring or recommending them for hire.  But here's the possible conflict and concern I have--while it is normal practice to coach, advise and help candidates put their best foot forward in how they pursue their career interests--aren't we also tipping off some truly bad guys by suggesting that they disguise their noticeable flaws if they want to contend for good jobs with good employers? 

 

For example, do we really want to recommend and/or position a proud racist to be less rather than more of a racist so that they can dupe some recruiter/employer down the road about who/what they truly are?  Do we want the true vindictive hater to come up roses by guiding them in the art of toning down their rants on social media.  How about the proud binge drinker with funny photos to match?  Are these candidates, however "qualified", that we should look the other way on because they technically qualify and will make a good impression, even in an interview, as long as they're sober, cleaned-up and coached to be their best? 

 

Frankly, I'm comfortable with letting everyone be themselves in social media so much so that what you see there is what you get.  And as recruiters that we are cognizant of the advice, or "tips" we give and to whom because every now and then hardcore character flaws, really bad taste, or crimes of passion—will surface in social media, conversation or reference checking. 

The "See, Hear, Speak NO EVIL" on bad candidates or employers presents a conundrum that may/will bite us down the road if it becomes a modus operandi.  We’re recruiters, not defense lawyers.  Don't we want to know the PLUS and MINUS factors of clients and candidates as best we can so that we can decide if it's a client or candidate we will partner with and provide our services for mutual benefit, or not?

Your thoughts?