A recent article in the Guardian's Student section offers a veritable cornucopia of advice on how to water down a social networking profile in order to score in the job market. But if we're talking about a candidate's Facebook, and Googlability, we need to look at what else is out there. Issues of privacy and the multiple personalities of an internet-user make this kind of character research nigh on impossible and, ultimately, useless.
The original article, written by 'digital expert' Bernadette John, presents a pretty naive view of what employers want. We are told to 'play nicely, and never talk negatively about anyone online', and to 'never use social media when you are angry, tired, drunk or under the influence of anything else.' By all means I agree that you shouldn't use social media as a platform from which to hurl abuse at your ex or announce all the illegal substances in which you've partaken, but it's not a case of 'if you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything at all'.
Opinions are a part of life, and are sometimes negative. I don't like olives. This may be a dangerous thing to say if I am to apply to an olive distributer in the future, but chances are I won't, since I don't like olives. John goes on to say that employers are concerned the candidate will post negative statements about them, too- aside from the insecurity this suggests, it also implies social media is our only method of communication. For most people, the internet world is not the only world, and many may have talents and interests that they don't feel the need to publicise online.
Homogenisation of job candidates can never be a good thing, but this is exactly what this kind of web-filter encourages. Showing that you are suited for a specific job should be more important than wiping the slate clean- a media company will expect its employees to be very active online, and a club will favour candidates who are seen as very sociable, whereas for others constantly updating Twitter and being tagged in pictures holding a drink will be seen as an unnecessary distraction. If we tailor our profiles to what we think is 'boss-friendly' we could lose the things which set us aside from other candidates.
Avoiding swearing online is another top tip offered, but this, again, is a shady area. The way we use curse words has evolved so much that it has merited a number of linguistic studies, and while avoiding overkill, I don't see how a couple of f-bombs should cost someone a job. If you'll pardon my french, the page I Fucking Love Science is one of the most popular on all of Facebook, boasting over three million subscribers and encouraging enthusiasm and free thought which, presumably, should be qualities very much appreciated by future employers.
Following the news that the person researching your every move may check out your friends as well, the article takes a turn for the ridiculous. Now if I want a job I have to break connections with people, just because they're holding a cider can in their profile picture. The question of what we use social networking for is a simple one- for social networking. Employers looking through Facebook for dirt on you is like them sidling up to your mates in a bar and getting them to tell embarassing stories. Though sites like LinkedIn exist expressly for the purpose of business networking, these are apparently not the researcher's first port of call, choosing instead the sly all-seeing eye of Facebook and Twitter to track us.
While we can control what we publish on these sites, Google provides an entirely different kettle of fish. If like me you have an uncommon, four-syllable name, employers using this technique can find your old home address, a picture of you posing with a model crocodile, your estimated IQ, and how influential you appear to be. There are indeed so many of these sites that content posted by me directly is pushed to the second or even third page of a search engine's results. So an employer can see a basic version of my family tree, but not the reviews, interviews and articles I have slaved over in recent years.
It strikes me that if an employer thinks they can glean more about a person through a tenuous Google search than a frank face-to-face interview, they may not understand how Google, or people, work. Of course we present a different version of ourselves to an interviewer, just as we present a different version of ourselves to our friends on Facebook. I don't post pictures of myself studying or cleaning my bathroom, but that doesn't mean I don't do them. It means that during these activities students are less camera-happy than when necking jaegerbombs, so though the former may be more frequent, there will be more evidence of the latter.
A far more sensible suggestion by John is to 'never share anything you wouldn't be happy for your grandma to read'. Your grandma understands that you are young and you have opinions, and though she may not entirely approve of everything you do, she still loves you because in person you are lovely and compliment her lemon drizzle cake. By all means, we should be careful about what we post online. Big Brother is watching us, and now apparently doesn't want to give us a job because of what he sees. But Big Brother needs to understand that we don't live our lives for his benefit, online or off.
Comments
Post a Comment