Gideon Schulman responds to the question of assessing the social media profiles of potential staff.
Even before I start, I hold my hands up and apologise to what could be a melodramatic title.
In the July edition of Governance, I read the letter and response to ‘Should you undertake social media checks on potential staff?’. Feeling that frustration you get when watching Question Time and being unable to respond to a point that is made, I wrote to Dorothy Dalton (the editor), who in turn invited me to respond.
In my day job I am the head of employee engagement for a multinational company (as well as being a trustee for the MS Society). While debate rages on the definition of employee engagement (for me it is about managing the emotional and physical relationship), there are a number of factors that are consistent and I would like to focus on just one of them. In general, the way you behave towards people is reciprocated. On this premise, if you treat people as if they can be trusted they respond accordingly and if you treat them like children they will behave as such. If we move this idea into the workplace, most policies apart from those relating to legislatory compliance, penalise the 98 per cent for the behaviour of the 2 per cent, rather than managing the 2 per cent. Examples of this are dress code, flexible working and social media polices.
Traditionally, in a school environment, controls such as timetables, curriculums, dress code etc are put in place. This teaches focus, discipline, punctuality, regularity, time management, conformity, encourages pupils to think in a certain way, obey authority and so on. Non-compliance would lead to punishment ranging from detention to suspension and expulsion (I am too young to remember the cane). This system is then translated into the majority of workplaces eg dress code, timekeeping. Non-compliance results in discipline through to dismissal. In short, micro-management.
Without going into detail on how to get the most out of employees of different generations (that’s another article), current research shows that people respond best to trust, respect, autonomy, encouragement, transparency, open communication, fun and positivity. Therefore, taking this into account, why then do employers insist on treating employees the same way as they were treated in school? Do we micro-manage our children or encourage them to be the best they can be?
The original article discussed social media checks. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon to carry out such checks and people forget that their digital fingerprint or personality is not only public but (at present) permanent as well. The question is, what are you looking for and where does the checking stop? Graphology, phrenology, psychometrics, lie detectors, credit or even health checks? Is this a true reflection of their personality, skills and attributes? How truly accurate, reliable and up-to-date is this information? Are you exposing yourself to discrimination due to gender, race, disability etc? Are you even sure that it all relates to the correct person? It goes without saying that legal checks must be complied with. Beyond that, the individuals should be taken on merit and trust. If you are still unsure, when you meet them ask them if there is anything they want to disclose that could affect their job or reputation of the organisation.
It may be a bold leap, but it is time we start to trust our employees and stop hiding behind sweeping policies such as checking social media and start treating employees in the same way we would like to be treated. For those individuals who are unable to cope with this responsibility, ensure your managers have the tools and skills and work with them.
Gideon Schulman is a trustee at MS Society and head employee engagement at Rational Group
