Introduction<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
It has become the norm, among recruiters, to utilize professional social networks like LinkedIn to screen prospective employees (Chiang & Suen, 2015; Davison et al., 2016; Guillory & Hancock, 2012; Jansen et al., 2012; Kuznekoff, 2012; Paliszkiewicz & Madra-Sawicka, 2016; Society for Human Resource Management, 2013; Tifferet & Vilnai-Yavetz, 2018). It is easy to think that this style of recruitment might be efficient. However, this paper will show that while professional social networks like LinkedIn can be useful recruiting tools, the profiles on such platforms should be viewed as idealized and therefore are inauthentic representations of a professional self. This paper will briefly examine LinkedIn, then go on to look at the presentation of self. Drawing from Pearson (2009), Paliszkiewicz & Madra-Sawicka (2016) and Guillory & Hancock (2012) this paper discusses performances of self online and inauthentic presentations of self on LinkedIn. The work of Donath (1999) and Guillory & Hancock (2012) was used to illustrate veracity and identity concealment on LinkedIn profiles. Finally we will examine the usefulness, or rather, uselessness, of LinkedIn as a tool for recruitment, with help from the work of Davison et al (2016)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
LinkedIn<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
With more than 610 million users worldwide, LinkedIn is the worlds largest online professional social network (LinkedIn, 2019a). The purported vision and mission of LinkedIn is to boost economic opportunity for the global workforce and make them more productive and successful by being the conduit through which they connect (LinkedIn, 2019a). While this sounds altruistic and can indeed be very helpful we must remember that LinkedIn is a for-profit business and has no legal or moral obligation to ensure, or enforce people to provide honest representations of themselves or their skills and abilities. LinkedIn is the world\u2019s most popular online space to create and maintain professional networks over time. Employers, recruiters and head-hunters alike utilize LinkedIn to seek out and screen potential employees and in turn, job-seekers utilize LinkedIn to create the most professional profile they can to ensure they appear to be a perfect candidate to any employer (Paliszkiewicz & Madra-Sawicka, 2016). The latter is where the inauthentic presentation of self is exhibited. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Presentation of Self<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
There are fewer online\nspaces where the performance of self is as consequential as LinkedIn. Success\nor failure in this arena can determine whether or not a person can achieve, or\nmaintain, their desired lifestyle. There are few things worth lying for but\nthis is one of them. This is not to say that everybody with a LinkedIn profile\nlies but I wish to highlight the perceived importance of success in the online\njob market. Like many online social networks LinkedIn has many customizable\nfacets that comprise the online profile wherein the presentation of self can be\nexhibited in any way the creator deems worthy. These facets include spaces for:\nuploading a photograph (portrait); writing a biography; outlining your\nexperience, skills, interests and endorsements. Each of these facets provides an\nopportunity for a recruiter to learn about a potential candidate, however, it\nis here that the inauthentic presentations of self can be found. Some of them\nare more useful than others at conveying misinformation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The aim of the LinkedIn\nprofile is to present the person as being acceptable of consideration by a\nrecruiter by attempting to prove expertise in an area and by attempting to show\nmorality and ethicality as perceived by said recruiter (Miller, 1995). The\nperformances of self online, as explained by Pearson, are \u201c\u2026disembodied,\nmediated and controllable\u2026\u201d meaning they are separate from the offline self \u2013\nas if almost a completely new creation, and they are thoughtfully, carefully and\npurposefully constructed, this is especially the case with LinkedIn profiles (Pearson, 2009). The\npurpose of maintaining a LinkedIn profile is usually to expand current\nnetworks, become employed, or obtain better employment, so it is within the\nbest interests of LinkedIn members to appear to others as the best self you can\n(Guillory & Hancock, 2012). This\nmeans thinking about – and manufacturing your profile according to – the\nperceptions of others (Guillory & Hancock, 2012; Paliszkiewicz &\nMadra-Sawicka, 2016; Pearson, 2009). According\nto Guillory and Hancock (2012), LinkedIn\nprovides interesting opportunities for deceit that cannot be replicated in\nface-to-face interactions. Guillory and Hancock (2012) conducted\na study that found that people were just as likely to lie on the resumes they\nprovide on their LinkedIn profiles as they are within an old-school paper\nresume. Further to this, Guillory and Hancock (2012) attest to\nidentity based deception occurring more in computer mediated communication than\nin face-to-face interactions. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Deception online<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
In discussing deception\nonline, Donath (1999) explains\nthe difference between assessment signals and conventional signals through an\nethnographic lens and it\u2019s useful to draw upon that here. Assessment signals\nare those that are costly to the signaler but are reliable to whoever receives\nthe message. Whereas, conventional signals are those that have little cost to\nthe signaler but are less reliable in terms of the actual message (Donath, 1999). The\nexample Donath (1999) provides\nis that of the stag with large horns. The horns show that this stag is strong\nand would make a tough adversary and a good mate. The horns are heavy and\ncumbersome which is costly for the stag in terms of energy output and these\ntypes of assessment signal are almost impossible to fake (Donath, 1999). According\nto Donath (1999), statements\nmade during an interview are an example of assessment signals because they\nusually denote actual experience, whereas statements made within a LinkedIn\nprofile are conventional signals and can be falsities or exaggerations. In\nreality, every aspect of a LinkedIn profile exemplifies a conventional signal\nthat, in fact, cannot be trusted to be accurate or authentic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Further to this, in a 2013\nstudy, one quarter of organizations cited the doubtfulness of the veracity of\nthe information contained in social network sites as a reason to not use sites\nlike LinkedIn for recruitment (Society for Human Resource Management, 2013). This\ncannot be surprising information. Like Donath (1999), Pearson (2009), Kuznekoff\n(2012) and Paliszkiewicz\n& Madra-Sawicka (2016)\nillustrate, self presentation is dependent upon the audience to which the self\nis presented. In the case of LinkedIn we are aspiring to achieve the best\npossible first impression online, yet also present ourselves as part of an\nonline community. This requires careful selection and omission of information.\nMuch of the time the concealment of identity occurs in omitting details, for\nexample, if a person thinks they may like to work for an animal rights group\none day they will not feature their love of hunting in their LinkedIn\n\u2018interests\u2019 (Donath, 1999). So what\npeople are trying to do is make a good first impression while adhering to the\nunwritten rules of the cohort – an activity that is fraught with fallacies (Paliszkiewicz & Madra-Sawicka, 2016; Pearson,\n2009). Interestingly, according to\nDonath (1999) when faced\nwith a possible fallacy we are more likely to manipulate our interpretation of\nevents (or things we\u2019ve read) to align with the fallacy, rather than go back and\nchange our views accounting for new information (Donath, 1999). . <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Possible fallacies and\nexaggerations negatively impact on the ease and success of recruiting the best\ncandidate for the job, but what about the deception performed on LinkedIn that\ncan ruin people\u2019s lives through identity theft, cyber-crime and spreading\nviruses? Due to its success as a global networking platform, LinkedIn has gone\nfrom being a pool of recruits to a pond for phishing. Cyber criminals are\ntaking advantage of the trust users have in LinkedIn to obtain private,\nidentity authenticating information such as email addresses and passwords, as\nwell as spreading viruses and committing other types of cyber-crime (Gray, 2018). Fake\nprofiles are created with ease and both individuals and businesses are at risk.\nLinkedIn knows this and has created a site specifically to guide and educate\nusers to protect their vital information (Gray, 2018; LinkedIn, 2019b). Luckily\nfor the average user, criminals on LinkedIn tend to target bigger companies by\nsending fake emails to finance departments with the aim of fooling them into\nmaking large deposits into scammers accounts (Cropp, 2016). LinkedIn and\ncyber security experts make the recommendation that users only connect with\npeople they actually know (Cropp, 2016; LinkedIn, 2019b). However,\nif we adhered to that guideline, LinkedIn would be nothing more than a\nglorified contacts list not unlike those currently on our cell phones. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Concessions should be made\nto note that there are mechanisms in place online that encourage honesty but\nthese can be easily circumvented (Guillory & Hancock, 2012). For\nexample, a profile that links to other people becomes a source of reference for\nthe person in question, but these could be friends or associates who will\nhappily uphold the stretching of the truth, or an outright lie, to assist in job\nobtainment (Guillory & Hancock, 2012). Other\nonline mechanisms that promote honesty include rating systems such as those\nfound on eBay and AirBnB, which provide feedback about both the service\nprovider and the consumer, but no such function is provided on LinkedIn. This\nmeans that recruiters will only see the very best information a person chooses\nto provide about them. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Reason to lie?<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
The Australian Human Rights\nCommission (2015) suggest\nthat when seeking candidates for a position, recruiters need to view information\nabout potential candidates based on the selection criteria for the job in\nquestion and not take into account factors that could be discriminated against.\nThis cannot happen by viewing LinkedIn profiles for two reasons. Firstly,\nbecause the information given on profiles on LinkedIn is that which has been\ndeemed worthy of inclusion by the creator not necessarily with a particular job\nor position in mind at the time of creation (or during any subsequent updates\nto the profile). Secondly, because we cannot know which aspects of our\nidentity, as displayed on LinkedIn, may be discriminated against. As explained\nby Guillory and Hancock (2012), a job\nseeker can \u201cinfluence recruiter evaluations by impression management\u201d but what\nif this happens in a negative way, relating to aspects of a potential candidate\nthat cannot be controlled? In societies like ours, on old school paper resumes,\nit is not uncommon for Asian people to choose to use Western names, for women\nto choose more masculine names and for older people to leave out their date of\nbirth entirely, for fear of discrimination. Imagine the lengths people will\nhave to go to now, to avoid being discriminated against on LinkedIn! We cannot change\nthe colour of our skin, yet, with a LinkedIn profile a screener can simply\nchoose to not select a person based on this (Davison et al., 2016; Turnbull & Howman-Giles,\n2014). <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defective Techniques<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Despite the wealth of\nstudies in this area the potential usefulness of social media as a personnel\nselection and hiring resource remains to be seen (Davison et al., 2016). Davison\net al. (2016) attest to\nthe need for there to be a \u201csound theoretical rationale\u201d for using such sources\nand describe relevance, consistency, reliability and validity testing abilities\nas part of such a technique. In terms of standardization there are currently no\nadequate measurements for \u2018scoring\u2019 potential recruits on LinkedIn (Davison et al., 2016). Further\nto this, different recruiters and screeners will be looking for different\nthings, and making judgments differently from each other based on what they\nsee. In other words they are \u201cusing their own idiosyncratic standards\u201d for\nevaluation (Davison et al., 2016). Without\nan established criteria, profiles cannot be scrutinized equally and therefore\ndiminishes the ability for the screener to employ consistent, reliable and\nvaluable evaluation methods (Davison et al., 2016). Accordingly,\nDavison et al. (2016) break down\nsome of the findings from the study done by the Society for Human Resource\nManagement (2013) and\nconclude from this that highly trained and qualified Human Resource\nprofessionals have doubts about the usefulness of LinkedIn as a recruitment\nscreening tool. If those that lead the industry in human resource management are\nin doubt about LInkedIn, we should be too.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Recruiters Beware!<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
LinkedIn is the world\u2019s\nlargest online space for professionals. It can be used reliably for expanding\npersonal and professional networks and is a useful way to keep abreast of\nglobal and local business knowledge. However, using online social media\nprofiles, like those on LinkedIn, to make recruitment decisions is a fruitless\nexercise, given that inauthentic presentations of self can, and are, provided. Impression\nmanagement techniques are employed to fool recruiters and profiles on LinkedIn\nshould not be relied upon for screening candidates. The profiles on LinkedIn\nare thoughtfully and purposefully crafted with the perceptions of the audience\n– the recruiter or the employer – in mind and are therefore a better\nrepresentation of what people think employers want than being accurate\nrepresentations of each individual person (Jansen et al., 2012; Pearson, 2009). Moreover,\nLinkedIn is an unreliable tool given there are no reliable measurement\ntechniques or validity testing techniques that can provide fair and just\nreviewing of the profiles of potential job candidates. The profiles on LinkedIn\ntake part in a \u201ccozy conspiracy\u201d whereby appearing to be flawless is the main\nconcern (Miller, 1995). As we can\nsee here, alternate performances of self are displayed on LinkedIn, therefore\nproving that through online impression management techniques, inauthentic\nprofessional self-presentations are made. Recruiters beware!
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
References:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Australian Human Rights Commission. (2015, February 11). A step-by-step\nguide to preventing discrimination in recruitment. Retrieved April 1, 2019,\nfrom\nhttps:\/\/www.humanrights.gov.au\/employers\/good-practice-good-business-factsheets\/step-step-guide-preventing-discrimination<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Chiang, J. K.-H., & Suen, H.-Y. (2015). Self-presentation\nand hiring recommendations in online communities: Lessons from LinkedIn. Computers\nin Human Behavior<\/em>, 48<\/em>, 516\u2013524.\nhttps:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.chb.2015.02.017<\/p>\n\n\n\n Cropp, A. (2016, April 27). LinkedIn scams\nland big \u201cphish.\u201d Dominion Post; Wellington, New Zealand<\/em>, p. B.5.\nRetrieved from\nhttp:\/\/search.proquest.com\/docview\/1784231046\/abstract\/2B31A93944E64222PQ\/1<\/p>\n\n\n\n Davison, H. K., Bing, M. N., Kluemper, D.\nH., & Roth, P. L. (2016). Social Media as a Personnel Selection and Hiring\nResource: Reservations and Recommendations. In R. N. Landers & G. B.\nSchmidt (Eds.), Social Media in Employee Selection and Recruitment: Theory,\nPractice, and Current Challenges<\/em> (pp. 15\u201342).\nhttps:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/978-3-319-29989-1_2<\/p>\n\n\n\n Donath, J., S. (1999). Identity and Deception\nin the Virtual Community. In P. Kollock & M. Smith (Eds.), Communities\nin Cyberspace<\/em>. Retrieved from\nhttp:\/\/smg.media.mit.edu\/people\/Judith\/Identity\/IdentityDeception.html<\/p>\n\n\n\n Gray, R. (2018). Common LinkedIn phishing\nscams and how to prevent them. Retrieved from Wandera website:\nhttps:\/\/www.wandera.com\/mobile-security\/phishing\/common-linkedin-scams-and-how-to-prevent-them\/<\/p>\n\n\n\n Guillory, J., & Hancock, J. T. (2012).\nThe Effect of LinkedIn on Deception in Resumes. Cyberpsychology, Behavior,\nand Social Networking<\/em>, 15<\/em>(3), 135\u2013140.\nhttps:\/\/doi.org\/10.1089\/cyber.2011.0389<\/p>\n\n\n\n Jansen, A., K\u00f6nig, C. J., Stadelmann, E. H.,\n& Kleinmann, M. (2012). Applicants\u2019 Self-Presentational Behavior: What Do\nRecruiters Expect and What Do They Get? Journal of Personnel Psychology<\/em>,\n11<\/em>(2), 77\u201385. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1027\/1866-5888\/a000046<\/p>\n\n\n\n Kuznekoff, J. H. (2012). The Online\nPresentation of Self: Re-examining Goffman\u2019s Presentation of Self Across\nContemporary CMC Contexts<\/em> (Ph.D., Ohio University). Retrieved from\nhttp:\/\/search.proquest.com\/docview\/1034564908\/abstract\/9A165B2E0E1B4685PQ\/1<\/p>\n\n\n\n LinkedIn. (2019a). About LinkedIn. Retrieved\nMarch 25, 2019, from https:\/\/about.linkedin.com\/<\/p>\n\n\n\n LinkedIn. (2019b). LinkedIn Safety Center.\nRetrieved from https:\/\/safety.linkedin.com\/<\/p>\n\n\n\n Miller, H. (1995). The Presentation of\nSelf in Electronic Life: Goffman on the Internet<\/em>. 8. Retrieved from\nhttp:\/\/www.douri.sh\/classes\/ics234cw04\/miller2.pdf<\/p>\n\n\n\n Paliszkiewicz, J., & Madra-Sawicka, M.\n(2016). Impression management in social media: The example of LinkedIn. Management<\/em>,\n11<\/em>(3), 203\u2013212. Retrieved from\nhttp:\/\/www.fm-kp.si\/zalozba\/ISSN\/1854-4231\/11_203-212.pdf<\/p>\n\n\n\n Pearson, E. (2009). All the World Wide Web\u2019s\na stage: The performance of identity in online social networks. First Monday<\/em>,\n14<\/em>(3). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.5210\/fm.v14i3.2162<\/p>\n\n\n\n Society for Human Resource Management.\n(2013). SHRM Survey Findings: Social Networking Websites and\nRecruiting\/Selection<\/em>. Business. Retrieved from\nhttps:\/\/www.slideshare.net\/shrm\/social-networkingwebsitesrecruitingselectingjobcandidatesshrm2013final<\/p>\n\n\n\n Tifferet, S., & Vilnai-Yavetz, I.\n(2018). Self-presentation in LinkedIn portraits: Common features, gender, and\noccupational differences. Computers in Human Behavior<\/em>, 80<\/em>, 33\u201348.\nhttps:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.chb.2017.10.013<\/p>\n\n\n\n Turnbull, J., & Howman-Giles, C. (2014,\nFebruary 13). Social media in the workplace – the good and the bad. Retrieved\nApril 1, 2019, from Workplace Law & Strategy website:\nhttps:\/\/www.workplacelawandstrategy.com.au\/2014\/02\/social-media-in-the-workplace-the-good-and-the-bad\/<\/p>\n\n\n Abstract: The purpose of this paper is to highlight the ineffectiveness of utilizing LinkedIn as a recruiting tool for screening and subsequently selecting job candidates due to the ease of which inauthentic presentations of self are delivered. Using the works of Chiang & Suen, (2015); Davison, Bing, Kluemper, & Roth, (2016); Donath, (1999); Guillory &… Continue reading LinkedIn for Recruitment? No, Thanks<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":28,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[14,12,15,17,11,16,7,19,9,8,10,13,20],"class_list":["post-31","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-identity","tag-assessment-signal","tag-authentic","tag-conventional-signal","tag-identity","tag-inauthentic","tag-influence","tag-linkedin","tag-network","tag-presentation-of-self","tag-recruitment","tag-self-presentation","tag-signal","tag-standard"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/28"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=31"}],"version-history":[{"count":8,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":40,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31\/revisions\/40"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=31"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=31"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Curtin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=31"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}![\"Creative](\"https:\/\/i.creativecommons.org\/l\/by-nc-sa\/4.0\/88x31.png\")
<\/a>
LinkedIn for Recruitment? No, Thanks<\/span> by Cesarina Fitzgerald<\/a> is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"