First, a huge thank you to everyone who participated in our survey! This one was particularly challenging since it's such a complex topic.

Let's dive into the complexities:

• Public vs. Private: On one hand, information posted online is no longer private. If candidates don’t want it revealed, they shouldn’t post it. Simple, right?
• Separation of Lives: On the other hand, candidates should have the same privilege as employees to maintain a separation between their personal and professional lives. This means it might be okay to review LinkedIn profiles but not Facebook, Instagram, or X accounts.
• Diagnostic vs. Biasing Information: The most critical point is this – social media profiles may contain diagnostic information that can be useful for hiring decisions, but they will for sure incorporate biasing information that isn’t relevant to job performance.

Let's break it down:

Examples of Diagnostic Information:

• The candidate is responding negatively and toxically to posts regularly.
• The candidate is passionate about social justice, reflected in frequent posts (a testimony to their values).

Examples of Biasing Information:

• Sexual orientation.
• Hobbies.
• A candidate that party heard on weekends might be seen as wild and unfit but this could just be a way for a diligent worker to unwind.

So, what's our take?

Most people can’t differentiate between diagnostic and biasing information (which can also vary by position). That's why we recommend avoiding reliance on candidates' social media for hiring decisions.

But if you just can't help yourself, at least try to consider which information is truly relevant and diagnostic for the position and which is simply biasing you.

Let’s keep our hiring practices fair and focused on what really matters!