The first thought that used to come to mind about job applications was the resume. It was the simplest and even the fastest means to find a candidate with the relevant qualifications (even after Applicant Tracking Systems emerged).
There’s been a dramatic shift as social media is turning into a real-time, multi-dimensional professional portfolio. It does make sense given the fact that 5.24 billion people use social media worldwide. A significant chunk of these users belong to the younger demographics, particularly millennials and Gen-Z.
As employers turn to digital footprints to assess professionalism and character, the lines between youthful missteps and lasting judgment get blurred. Naturally, the debate of fair evaluation arises.
This article will delve deeper into this debate. It will explore the delicate balance between transparency and grace in an age of visibility and digital hiring practices.
In This Article:
The Rise of the Searchable Self
Do first impressions still matter? Absolutely, but they’ve been reshaped in the wake of the digital era. Earlier, employers had to rely on:
- What a candidate said in an interview
- How they performed in a role
- What their references shared
Today, a simple search bar is able to replace all three. A name typed into Google, Instagram, or LinkedIn is all that is needed to unlock a personal timeline of thoughts, photos, and digital interactions.
This phenomenon is what scholars and labor analysts now refer to as the ‘searchable self.’ It is the public, searchable archive of a person’s online presence, one that includes:
- Social media posts
- Liked or shared content across various platforms
- Comment threads or forum discussions
- Tagged photos and event check-ins
- Contributions to online communities
Statistically, nearly 6 in every 10 employers use social media screening in their hiring process. 47% will not take it forward to an interview if they cannot find a candidate’s digital footprint.
What’s more, is that 88% in a survey admitted to firing an employee for certain kinds of online content. Such content may include hate speech, violations of confidentiality, sexually suggestive images, and expressions of extremist beliefs, among others.
Why Digital Footprints Matter
Is this practice in the hiring process altogether wrong? No, because digital footprints do matter. A resume is often curated with intention. Digital footprints, on the other hand, are often emotionally reactive, unfiltered, and context-dependent.
The shift towards social media screening is not inherently malicious on an employer’s part. Here’s why:
- Employers want to understand if a candidate would fit in well with their company’s culture, something that matters more than ever now.
- Digital presence often reveals valuable professional traits like thought leadership, communication skills, and consistency of values.
- It also helps in verifying authenticity and credibility.
- Social media screening comes across as a proactive approach in a competitive market.
IBM shares something similar in the context of businesses. Their digital footprint helps customers understand the brand’s values and verify consistency. It may be a powerful tool in driving new business. Similarly, negative digital footprints can drive away business.
When viewed from the same lens, it isn’t fair to reject social media screening entirely. As for the candidate, they may also stand to benefit from their digital presence. For instance, those without decades of work experience can gain visibility through simple, online, informal interactions. This is something that their resume may not be able to fully convey.
So, one may consider digital footprints to be a double-edged sword. They are not harmful by themselves, but it’s how they’re interpreted that may become an issue.
The Problem With Permanent Judgments
Before we think about interpretation, the elephant in the room is the permanence that one subconsciously assigns to someone’s digital footprints. A social media post from five years ago, often made during adolescence, can now be retrieved and judged without context or nuance.
Such a practice disproportionately affects the young generation (particularly Gen Z) that came of age online. This generation did not just inherit the internet; it has been the one to build its culture. As teens, many lacked the maturity or foresight to understand how permanent a moment of poor judgment might become.
This is not simply a theoretical concern, as the social media lawsuits filed in recent years prove. According to TruLaw, parents have alleged that these platforms are designed to maximize engagement through social comparison. It has been done in light of knowing the potential harm it may cause to teen mental health.
In a recent poll, 48% of teens stated that social media harms people their age. Parents were even more concerned about teen mental health. As conversations around platform accountability grow, it becomes easier to find out more about how these environments shape regrettable online habits.
For instance, the reward-based design encourages impulse and boundary-pushing behaviors. When employers rely on posts made years ago, they fail to recognize:
- The context in which the post was made
- The personal growth a candidate may have experienced in all those years
- The manipulative design of the social platforms
- The candidate’s actual potential and current worldview
Striking a Fair Balance
The scrutiny we just discussed is also arbitrary. One hiring manager may view a post as disqualifying, whereas another may ignore it altogether.
Marginalized young people, who may have expressed cultural critiques or political opinions, suffer the most. This is where digital screening crosses the threshold of useful insight and enters the territory of surveillance culture.
Again, this is not to say that digital footprints should be ignored completely. They do provide valuable insights into a candidate’s strengths that a resume may never convey. The need of the hour is a delicate balance.
Employers need to ask the following important questions:
- Is this content still relevant to who the person is today?
- Does it reflect a pattern or a single moment of weakness and poor judgment?
- Has the candidate demonstrated growth, reflection, and learning since then?
Another important thing is transparency. Candidates must be informed before their digital behaviors are evaluated. They should get an opportunity to explain or contextualize past posts.
As employers do away with blanket disqualifications, educational institutions must step up too. They can support the young generation by integrating digital literacy into career development. This is not about cleaning up feeds, but about safety and understanding the long-term implications of one’s online presence.
Are we witnessing the death of the resume before our eyes? Perhaps, at least that’s the name many have given to the great digital migration. One thing is clear: social media screenings will not stop anytime soon.
What’s even more interesting is the fact that not having a social account could be just as bad. Ironically, the platforms that were seen as a liability just a decade ago have become a means to preserve one’s professional identity.
That’s a double-edged sword, right? Whether social media is one’s career maker or killer will depend on digital literacy and compassion on the part of hiring managers.
