Primary Research Results
The findings from the face-to-face interviews provided unique and differing perspectives on the proposed research question. For this research project, obtaining feedback and opinion from HR consultants acts as a crucial primary source, as their views are most likely developed from current practices within the white-collar industry.
Interview Results
The responses to the six questions from both interviews were analysed in order to determine common themes and different views between HR perspectives and previous literature.
Both HR consultants stated they use either LinkedIn or Facebook, or both, when reviewing a potential job applicant. Participant one claimed Facebook is strictly a personal platform, therefore should not interfere in the assessment of a candidate. However, participant two claimed Facebook allows candidates to promote their achievements, enables recruiters to cross-check with one’s resume and is beneficial when used as a character check. Congruently, Vicknair et al. (2010, p. 7) states that “…candidates have been offered jobs due to their social networking profiles reflecting well-roundedness, creativity, displays of awards, and just looking like the correct fit”. Additionally, both participants believed the process of recruitment is primarily individualised, whereby it is important to use one’s own professional judgement and discretion to avoid ethical risks.
Both HR consultants agreed that for future university graduates, it is important they are active on either LinkedIn or Facebook, whether it be for a recruiter to cross-check or for a graduate to gain exposure within the industry. According to Davison et al. (2012), HR departments are using social networking profiles of applicants to detect any differences between their resume and their virtual postings. If graduates are sensible and optimise their activity online, recruiters may draw positive connections across one’s ‘online-self’, thus maximising the potential for a job opportunity (Davison et al. 2012).
Interestingly both HR recruiters detailed unique perspectives on the pros and cons of Facebook and LinkedIn as forms of recruitment tools. Participant one focused on the ability of Facebook to be an instant and transparent source, however, detailed concerns about the continued conflict surrounding invasion of privacy. This belief is further reinforced by Clark and Roberts (2010), who state that social networking sites (SNS) serve as an inexpensive and quick source of background information, however despite recruiters legal right to use these platforms, it is not necessary unless the information obtained is essential to the job. On the other hand, participant two stated that Facebook is a tool which can determine the ‘cultural fit’ between a candidate and an organisation. Rather than raising issues around privacy, cons of Facebook centred around it not be able to fully display one’s information, due to individual’s resorting to ‘private’ settings. In regard to LinkedIn, both participants stated advantages focused around the ability to display one’s professional skills and experience, however, discrepancies may occur if a candidate’s profile is not up-to-date.
Furthermore, conflicting perspectives were highlighted when participants were asked about the risks involved with LinkedIn and Facebook. Participant one stated the ethical, moral and social risks associated when reviewing one’s online profiles are becoming invasive, thus opts out from using these platforms as a primary tool. Similarly, Landers & Schmidt (2016) concluded many recruitment practitioners believe social media use should be discouraged due to the high risks associated. Contrary to this belief, participant two believes the risks are relatively minor and differ across platforms. Both agree LinkedIn and Facebook provide efficiencies that can not be matched with traditional recruitment sources, thus concluding these platforms will not disappear in the near future.
Differing perspectives between participants also emerged when asked if they believe LinkedIn and Facebook are an effective and fair means to evaluate future university graduates on. Participant one clearly stated these platforms are not entirely equitable, as a result of discrimination and exclusion. Hazelton and Terhorst (2015) reinforce this concern, stating employers may view protected class information or sensitive and private activities that are not job-relevant, which may jeopardise a candidate’s position as a result of a recruiter’s perception. However, in terms of effectiveness, LinkedIn and Facebook’s communication capabilities and cost-savings override traditional modes of evaluation and should be utilised within a diverse recruitment strategy. Contrastingly, participant two firmly believes both platforms are fair and effective, stating it is the candidate’s responsibility to utilise their profiles as a way to differentiate themselves.
The final research question related to the perceptions of the added-value of LinkedIn and Facebook as recruitment tools. Previous literature on new technologies and social media platforms in the recruitment process, relate to their apparent cost and time savings, geographic reach and benefits from an organisational and individual perspective (Borowska-Solek & Wilczewska 2018 & EDUCBA 2019). In turn, an analysis of the qualitative data revealed that both HR consultants concurred with these theories, concluding they enable recruiters to broaden their search and reach on potential applicants, specifically graduates.
Online Profile Review Results
Both HR consultants provided detailed analysis and interpretation of three marketing students LinkedIn and Facebook profiles. The general consensus recommended all three students include relevant basic profile information on their LinkedIn profiles. Specifically, including added interests, groups and networking through connections, will boost one’s reach. In terms of Facebook, all three profiles were deemed ‘workplace appropriate’. Moving forward, continuous monitoring of one’s profile, including photos or comments shared by others, is imperative to present a uniformed and consistent persona. Summers and Smith (2014) detail “…it is very important to take great care with anything that is posted to the web”, as information that is not socially appropriate may be damaging if a recruiter sees a pattern of behaviour that does not fit with their expectations.
Recommendations for Future Graduates
When utilising LinkedIn as a tool when applying for entry-level or graduate positions, both HR consultants stated it is important all profile information is available. It is advised future graduates clean their online image, whereby a simple Google search will identify to the candidate what recruiters or employers are able to see and areas which may need to be reviewed. In addition, including a description of previous experience and relevant interests, is an important element to employ, however is commonly overlooked by graduates.
It is advised individuals are aware of ‘digital dirt’ and remove themselves from content that is not considered ‘professional’. To conclude, both HR consultants recommended weekly reviewing of one’s personal branding across LinkedIn and Facebook to ensure consistency and maximise the potential to be reviewed.
blogonwithbritt.wordpress.com 