Roth, Philip L., Philip Bobko, Chad H.
Van Iddekinge, and Jason B. Thatcher. "Social Media in Employee-Selection-Related Decisions:
Research Agenda for Uncharted Territory." Journal
of Management. Sage Journals, 10 Oct. 2013. Web. 16 Sept. 2015.
<http://jom.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/10/08/0149206313503018.full.pdf+html>.
I feel I should start by stating
that this article is bulky and largely an exhibit-based source. It contains a lot of references from
different articles, and it does not argue anything in particular. Its main function is to be an informative
piece, giving background information on topics like "The Uniqueness of
Social Media", "The Process of Social Media Judgments", Social
Media Assessments...", and "Subgroup Differences and Potential
Adverse Impact", and "Applicant Reactions to Social Media
Assessment." This journal article is about fleshing out what is involved
when an institution decides to use social media as a way of determining
eligibility for job positions. The article
reads, "Our primary purpose was to discuss theories that may help
understand the SM assessment process and outcomes, as well as to stimulate
future research"(p. 21). The
article immediately points out that the use of social media as a factor in the
job selecting process has not been well investigated as an actual study--they
have undertaken this task in this article.
The article mentions some of the confusion that could arise when
businesses/institutions use social media in this fashion: the fact that institutions are
considering/observing factors outside the business realm when they look at a
Facebook profile (is that fair?), with that in mind the institutions might be
looking in the wrong place as social media sites have diverse purposes for
individuals (communicating with others, personal promotion. etc.), and because
of this the selection process involving social media can not be standardized (leaving
room for inconsistencies). It also mentions the complexities (and consequences)
of a rather hollow social media presence.
My question (I think) involves the
issues that arise, when ones social media presence has a corporate
audience. This question matters because
social media representation and representation in the real world may become
blended and that denies a person the ability to impact their own
presentation. It is not strange to
understand that as people we wear different hats; with a corporate eye judging
and watching there is not door. The line
between virtual and real fades away. Is
that okay? What is the cost of corporate
considerations such as this?
This study relates to (part of) my
question, because I did lightly inquire on how institutions are weighing in on
the social media platform and using it as a tool to further their purposes
(which are not entirely social). It
interests me that social media does not just deal with the social anymore, it
has become something more defining and has impact outside the social
realm. There are multiple eyes looking
on what is being posted, but with different intentions. The possible institutional/corporate audience
gives social media a definite permanence present in the cyber world. One controversial post made several years ago
could very well cost a person a job, but do institutions even have a right to
look there? Yet don't they have the right to know whom exactly they are hiring? I intend to use this article as a way to give
deeper insight into "social media assessments" and as an something
that can further encourage other paths of interest I might have as I continue
to sift through articles for pertinent information relating to my question.
No comments:
Post a Comment