5 ms·
This is very one-sided. Hiring someone is a big investment (spending time and risking company culture, in addition to the money). Having more information is alw
by byrneseyeview 17y ago
This is very one-sided. Hiring someone is a big investment (spending time and risking company culture, in addition to the money). Having more information is always useful.
I've looked at Facebook profiles when judging potential employees. I've never ruled anyone out because of it, but one person got a lot closer to the job when I saw that that he spent his off hours talking about what he'd spend his work hours doing.
Basically, there are three possibilities when an employer looks at your Facebook: a) they like what they see (so they have better information, and you're more likely to get a job, b) they are neutral (nobody loses), or c) they dislike it (so by denying them access, you're artificially boosting your prospects -- cheating them out of the employee they want, and cheating that employee out of a job).
It's good to be suspicious of people trolling for personal data -- but I'm much more suspicious of efforts to hide information.
- scscsc 17y agoThe hiring process is a negotiation between two sides. The more information you have, the better you'll do. It's not fair for an employer to look in your private life; any more than it is fair for the potential employee to look at confidential company data. How would you like that? The company is hiding information, thereby cheating you into a job.
- nostrademons 17y agoMany companies I've interviewed at have shared confidential company data with me so that I have more information to make my decision. # of shares outstanding, expected future rounds of funding, development practices, upcoming projects I might be working on. Information in negotiations works two ways: oftentimes, it's prudent to release a bit of information as a signaling device, because it shows that you're confident the information will work in your favor.
- tptacek 17y agoIt stopped being "your private life" when you published it.
- raganwald 17y agoBut it didn't stop being your personal life.
- tptacek 17y agoAnd? The word "personal" is pretty subjective. It's a personal detail that I know the words to several Death Cab For Cutie songs. An embarassing personal detail, at that. But it is not unlawful for a company to not hire me over it.
- raganwald 17y agoDude, you have your ethics, I'll have mine. Let's not split hairs. If a company wants to hire or not hire you as a programmer over the type of music you like, I don't want to work there and I don't care how they found out. Can I be any more clear than that?
- tptacek 17y agoHey, raganwald, you jumped on my comment, not the other way around. I said, "it's not public if you publish it". You said, "it's personal, though". I'm not sure the hair-splitting card is in your hand to play.
- scscsc 17y agoTriple negation in the last sentence really helps with understanding. That being said, you should probably keep embarrassing personal details to yourself (and maybe your friends). Why would you want the company to know the embarrassing thing (since it doesn't affect work performance significantly)?
- tptacek 17y agoI agree with you completely. If I wanted to get self-righteous about being passed over for a job for knowing the words to "Title and Registration", I lost my leg to stand on when I posted it here.
- byrneseyeview 17y agoIt's not fair for an employer to look in your private life; any more than it is fair for the potential employee to look at confidential company data. Every time I interview for a job, I try to find out information from the company, particularly information they don't want released. Maybe I'm weird, but I get burned less because of it.
- Goladus 17y agoInformation you lack the context to interpret truthfully is not useful.
- byrneseyeview 17y agoA Facebook page is part of the context for interpreting an interview and resume.
- Goladus 17y agoLike a single cloud in the sky is context for interpreting whether you are being rained on, sure.