Online Employment Screening and Digital Career Capital

554657
research-article2014
MCQXXX10.1177/0893318914554657Management Communication QuarterlyBerkelaar and Buzzanell
Article
Online Employment
Screening and Digital
Career Capital: Exploring
Employers Use of
Online Information for
Personnel Selection
Management Communication Quarterly

2015, Vol. 29(1) 84113
The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0893318914554657
mcq.sagepub.com
Brenda L. Berkelaar1 and Patrice M. Buzzanell2
Abstract
This study explores how employers report using online information to
evaluate job candidates during personnel selection. Qualitative analysis
of 45 in-depth employer interviews emphasizes how new and different
information visibility afforded by the Internet simultaneously replicates and
shifts how employers evaluate reconstructed information about candidates
during personnel selection. Data revealed that employers evaluate the
relative presence or absence of certain types of visual, textual, relational, and
technological information in patterned and idiosyncratic ways. We discuss
the likely consequences for theory and practices of personnel selection and
careers, emphasizing the increasing expectations for workers to curate digital
career capital to manage the expanding contexts within which employers
construct and evaluate professional and/or workplace identities.
Keywords
cybervetting, personnel selection, digital career capital, curating online
identity, information visibility, organizational processes, impression
management
1The
University of Texas at Austin, USA

University, IN, USA
2Purdue
Corresponding Author:
Brenda L. Berkelaar, Department of Communication Studies, The University of Texas at
Austin, 2504A Whitis Avenue (A1105), Austin, TX 78712-0115, USA.
Email: b.berkelaar@austin.utexas.edu
Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at E-nformation SRL on February 28, 2016
Berkelaar and Buzzanell
85
Employers consider personnel selection a central strategy for establishing

competitive advantage (Kraaijenbrink, 2011). Effective personnel selection
depends on acquiring sufficient, trustworthy information about job candidates to evaluate who fits present and anticipated organizational needs
(Dipboye, 2014). Until recently, such information focused on work-related
information sources primarily authored by job candidates themselves.
However, employers increasingly question the credibility of the information
job candidates provide, citing concerns of extreme impression management
(Weiss & Feldman, 2006) and deception (Griffin, Chmielowski, & Yoshita,
2007). Moreover, as employers try to avoid libel claims from former employees, references have become less available or provide little more than dates of
employment (Shilling, 2009). When added to employers growing liability
for negligent hires (Peebles, 2012) and competing legal and economic pressures (Dipboye, 2014), it is clear why employers want alternative, easily
accessible sources of candidate information.
Given easy access to the Internets burgeoning supply of information
(Bohn & Short, 2009) with its promises to address the growing information
gap, most employers now search online (Cross-Tab, 2010). The Internet provides access to sources and types of information difficult or impossible to
access until recently, despite employers long-term interest in such information (Solove, 2008). Even given ongoing ethical debates and unclear legal
precedent regarding online information use for personnel selection (Peebles,
2012), most employers cybervetusing the Internet to acquire informal, noninstitutional, other-sourced, and/or aggregated information (Berkelaar,
Scacco, & Birdsell, 2014) that job candidates did not share or necessarily
intend for employers use (Solove, 2008).
Although many employers consider cybervetting analogous to conventional information-seeking processes such as background checks, it is not.
Cybervetting changes the amount, source, order, context, type, and/or channel of information (Berkelaar, 2010). Such changes alter evaluations (Case,
2012) and subsequent personnel decisions (Jablin, 2001). In addition, Internet
uses and affordances alter expectations of what information is or should be
available (Berkelaar, 2014; Treem & Leonardi, 2012). Such expectations are
consequential. In offline contexts when expected information is absent,
employers are more likely to disqualify job candidates (Jablin, 2001). Yet, the
processes underlying employers acquisition and use of online information
for personnel selection remain largely unexamined.
This study examines how employers report using online information to
evaluate workers during personnel selection. Although personnel selection
involves hiring, promotion, and termination, our focus is primarily on
employers reported sensemaking during hiring. Analysis of interview data
86
Management Communication Quarterly 29(1)
reveals how employers acquire, recontextualize, and use the presence and
absence of different types of online information to make sense of job candidates. Thus, this study addresses ongoing calls to consider everyday practices
of personnel selection (Dipboye, 2014) and the impact of new technologies
on organizational processes and outcomes (Treem & Leonardi, 2012).
Understanding how employers use online information can inform personnel
selection practicesthe outcomes of which affect organizational productivity, employee satisfaction (Ployhart & Weekley, 2010), individual quality of
life, and social justice (Cheney, Lair, Ritz, & Kendall, 2009). This study also
highlights how growing information visibilityand expectations thereof
affects employment relationships and career management. In particular, we
consider how cybervetting increases demands on individuals to curate their
digital professional image in spatio-temporal contexts previously excluded
from personnel selection. We begin by describing the information context of
contemporary personnel selection before examining how cybervettings
characteristics likely influence job candidate evaluations.
The Context and Characteristics of Cybervetting

Personnel selection is a dynamic process in which job seekers and various
agents of the organization exchange information and construct meaning in
the pursuit of their individual objectives (Dipboye, 2014, p. 1). Employers
make sense of job candidates by piecing together available information to
determine whether a good match exists between individual offerings and
organizational needs. Such sensemaking often involves quick disqualifications using easily acquired information (Dipboye, 2014), particularly when
supply and demand favor employers. Employers tend to be more diligent
about increasing information quantity rather than improving quality (Jablin,
2001) or using acquired information more effectively (Dipboye, 2014).
The Information Context of Cybervetting

In post-industrial personnel selection, employers primarily evaluated job
candidates using information from work-oriented communications (e.g.,
rsums, applications, interviews, references). Given growing concerns
about candidate-supplied information, employers want to acquire information from sources they consider more credible (Solove, 2008). For example,
access to non-work contexts, unobtrusive observations, and people other than
job candidates themselves promise insights into a persons true identity, character, and work ethic (Berger & Douglas, 1981; Solove, 2008). Moreover,
growing assertions that employees are extensions of an organizations image
87
and brand (Edwards, 2005) amplify employer interest, encouraging employers to view such information as valuable, even necessary, for assessing fit
(Berkelaar et al., 2014). Employers who buy into the employee-as-brand
mindset assume that employee actions outside contexts or times typically
associated with paid-work contracts can affect an organizations imageand
should be controlled (Edwards, 2005). Employers have long wanted such
information; however, until recently, acquiring it was usually cost- or timeprohibitive, limited to recommendations, references, or conversations made
possible by shared networks. Now, the growing popularity of online activities
(Bohn & Short, 2009) and advances in search and aggregation make different
sources and types of information visiblethat is, both available and easily
accessible (Treem & Leonardi, 2012). Although employers desire for such
information is not new, how employers are fulfilling this desire is quite new.
Cybervettingthe process whereby employers seek information about job
candidates onlineis typically covert, enabled by the Internets extractive
possibilities (Ramirez, Walther, Burgoon, & Sunnafrank, 2002). Cybervetting
often focuses on acquiring information from non-institutional, non-governmental, and informal online sources (Berkelaar et al., 2014) such as social
media (Table 1). However, search engine and aggregator results often intermingle social media and governmental, institutional, and/or (former) employment information. By shifting sources and contexts, cybervetting alters the
scope of information and the proportion of work versus non-work information, and when and how different information becomes included in personnel
selection. Such changes affect evaluations and subsequent decisions (Case,
2012; Jablin, 2001), making cybervetting an important, timely site for understanding contemporary personnel selection.
The Communicative Characteristics of Cybervetting

Despite its growing popularity, cybervettings communicative characteristics
remain taken for granted. Cybervetting is often considered an extension of
offline practices (Peebles, 2012), although scholarship on information seeking and communication technologies suggests otherwise (Metzger, Flanigan,
& Medders, 2010; Ramirez et al., 2002). We argue that cybervettings communication characteristicsits how, when, what, where, and whylikely
affect job candidate evaluations and subsequent personnel selection
decisions.
Prior to cybervetting, candidates had more controlif limited expertise
when communicating the availability and value of accumulated career credentials. Job candidates made particular information visible to employers via
interactive, if asynchronous, processes expressly designed to gain
88
Table 1. Comparing Cybervetting and Traditional Background Checks.

Information . . .
Cybervetting
Traditional background checks
Sources
Search engines
Social network sites
Aggregators
e-commerce
Virtual worlds
(Micro-)blogs
Government agencies (e.g.,

Sex Offenders Registry,
Federal Election Commission,
Criminal Records)
Consumer reporting agencies
(e.g., Credit Bureaus)
Types
Age
Interests/hobbies
Political views
Relationships
Relational/familial status
Sexual orientation
Access
Individually determined
Restricted
Corporate privacy
policies
Institutional/organizational
permission required
Individual notification and
approval required
Construction
and
Management
Informal
Emergent
Formal
Institutionalized/legislated
Due process requirements
Goals for
Information
Construction
Individually oriented
Social; and/or
Personal/private
Collectively oriented
Public records
Institutional records
Credit information
Criminal records
Political donations
Vital records
employment (e.g., rsums, cover letters, interviews; Lair, Sullivan, &

Cheney, 2005). Although references offer secondary sources, candidates
often select recommenders designed to reinforce impression management
goals (Shilling, 2009). Consequently employers view this information with
less trust than unobtrusive observations (Berger & Douglas, 1981) that cybervetting affords. Although people historically were hesitant to trust information acquired via computer-mediated communications, research suggests this
tendency may be changing (Metzger et al., 2010; Walther, Van Der Heide,
Kim, Westerman, & Tong, 2008).
Employers find cybervetting desirable because job candidates have less
control over online informationpresumably making it less subject to
extreme impression management. Online information becomes visible as a
result of communicative interactions, communicative extractions (Ramirez
89
et al., 2002), and information aggregation (Solove, 2008). It is not just job
candidates, but also other people and technologies, that create, share, order,
and compile informationoften for purposes other than employment (boyd,
2007). Even if individuals restrict access to social media sites, impressions
are shaped by friends, physical attributes (Walther et al., 2008), the design
of online spaces (Back et al., 2010), and the (unintentional) aggregation and
information visibility of the technologies themselves (Zuboff, 1989). In contrast to credit reports or criminal background checks, most online information
is created via informal, emergent processes (boyd, 2007) without due process. Even if individuals attempt to manage online information, data fragments often remain after removal attempts (Solove, 2008), sources may
refuse to remove information, and information may be broadcast further than
expected as networks are more expansive and visible than people realize
(boyd, 2007). Consequently, employers acquire information candidates may
not have intended to share with them or to share in that way (Solove, 2008).
Such information is desirable for those trying to get a sense of candidates
real identities (Berger & Douglas, 1981) although it may not always be as
credible as often believed.
Information acquired online is reconfigured based on the algorithms of the
particular search engines or aggregators (e.g., Bing produces different
results and differently ordered results than Google. Because cybervetting
occurs asynchronously and remotely, information becomes temporally and
physically decontextualized from its original context. Even if the information
acquired was framed appropriately for its originally intended communicative
context and audience, employers likely recontextualize job candidate information given personnel selection goals because evaluators embodied context
and evaluative intent shape attributions (McGlone & Pfeister, 2009).
Decontextualization and recontextualization affect evaluations as communications intended for other audiences and contexts are filtered through individual differences (Mayfield & Carlson, 1966; Metzger et al., 2010) and
professional norms (Cheney et al., 2009). Given that research demonstrates a
lack of interrater reliability for popular offline selection strategies (Mayfield
& Carlson, 1966), it is likely such effects will be amplified during cybervetting because information cues often become more salient and attributions
more extreme in distributed contexts (DeAndrea & Walther, 2011).
Yet, employers rarely consider the implications of their information-seeking practices. Employers often assume expertise enables accurate evaluations
(Miron-Shatz & Ben-Shakhar, 2008). However, consistent with satisficing
and common information-seeking heuristics (Metzger et al., 2010), employers stop searching after quickly reviewing initial search results (Berkelaar et
al., 2014). Negative information is rarely verified (Jablin, 2001) and is often
90
more salient when evaluating job candidates (Jablin, 2001; Webster, 1964).
More problematically, attempts to discount irrelevant information tend to
make such information hyperaccessible and therefore more salient (MironShatz & Ben-Shakhar, 2008).
Many people presume online information is better because it is easier to
access more data online (Treem & Leonardi, 2012); however, online information tends to be incomplete and fragmented (Solove, 2008). The common
presumption that more is better often obscures the need to critically evaluate
information quality and relevance (Dipboye, 2014; Metzger et al., 2010).
Such beliefs will likely improve evaluations for those who disclose more, all
else being equal.
In particular, cybervetting can increase the proportion of non-work information considered during personnel selection (Cross-Tab, 2010) because the
Internet makes certain information more visible: interests, hobbies, interpersonal interactions, religious/political views, relationship/parental status, and
sexual orientation (Bohn & Short, 2009). The Internet also provides more
relational, technological, and visual information than most conventional
sources and does so in a streamlined fashion (boyd, 2007). Research on
offline selection highlights how such differences can alter attributions (Jablin,
2001) such as when access to visual cues alters evaluations (e.g., attractive
applicants ranked higher; Dipboye, Fromkin, & Wilback, 1975).
Our point is not that cybervetting is a completely different personnel
selection process; rather, we argue that cybervettings communicative characteristics are an understudied yet consequential aspect of personnel selection. Cybervettings communicative characteristics expand the spaces and
time within which job candidates are evaluated, the content considered, and
the order and configuration of informationall of which affect evaluations
and subsequent decisions (Case, 2012). To locate and elaborate more fully on
the ways cybervettings characteristics affect personnel selection, we asked
employers to describe what information they acquire and how they use, and
have used this information to inform job candidate evaluations.
Method
Sample
Participants included 45 employers (24 men, 21 women) who had actively
participated in hiring. Ranging in age from 23 to 60 years (median = 35),
participants were primarily Caucasian (82%). The sample primarily included
human resource (HR) staff, recruiters, and hiring managers (~75%) because
these are the primary roles involved in personnel selection. Because hiring
91
decisions involve other people, we deliberately sampled a diverse set of

occupational roles across organizational levels: HR personnel (9) and HR
directors (6), hiring managers (12), recruiters (7), directors (4), team members (3), owners (2), executives (2), and an employment lawyer (1).
We recruited participants from diverse industries. Because norms differ
across worker classifications (white-collar, blue-collar; Cheney et al., 2009),
differences in the types of workers recruited could affect online information
acquisition and use. Participants represented consulting (3), financial services (8), government (1), K-16 education (8), law (2), information technology (6), manufacturing (2), media/communication (4), non-profits (5),
recruiting/staffing (6), service (2), utilities (3), and entertainment (2) industries. The count of industry type is greater than the sample size because some
participants listed their organization as bridging multiple industries.
Data Collection
The first author recruited participants using purposive, snowball sampling to
help identify information rich, key informants, who could offer insights of
theoretical interest and were willing to discuss sensitive topics (Charmaz,
2006). We contacted initial participants primarily via cold calls and professional contexts, recruiting a few via social media. Our intent was to create
different recruitment chains as disconnected from the researchers as possible
to mitigate limitations of snowball sampling. We initially targeted HR personnel and recruiters. We expanded levels and roles as potential characteristics of interest (e.g., industry, organization size, type, organizational role,
occupation) emerged from the data. After each interview, participants were
asked whether they could recommend people who might offer different perspectives. We contacted subsequent participants based on whether they
seemed likely to help refine and test emerging themes (Charmaz, 2006).
Our semi-structured interview protocol allowed us to gain unexpected
insights while focusing the research on a central topic of interest (Charmaz,
2006). The first author initially asked participants to describe personnel
selection experiences and types and sources of information used. She then
asked about interpretations and evaluations made using online information.
More than half of the participants spontaneously described their use of online
information for personnel selection. Besides asking for examples of specific
situations, the first author probed for types and sources of information and the
relevance of such information for personnel selection as needed. Given
cybervettings debated legality and ethicality and many organizations protection of hiring practices as proprietary (Shilling, 2009), we included indirect and hypothetical questions known to increase response rates and accuracy
92
for sensitive questions (e.g., Can you tell me about someone who . . .;
Charmaz, 2006). With participant consent, all interviews were audiotaped,
transcribed, and verified against recordings for accuracy. Interviews averaged 54 minutes (range: 30-90 minutes), for a total of 38.7 hours recorded
and 682 single-spaced transcription pages, along with more than 300 pages of
handwritten field notes, and 12 pages of typed notes for three corrupted/poorquality recordings. After 40 interviews, responses seemed to be replicating
earlier participant responses. To verify this assumption, the first author interviewed five additional employers, and we discussed emerging results with
experts. These processes helped confirm our conclusion that the data were
saturated (Lindlof & Taylor, 2010).
Data Analysis
As part of a larger project, this study focused on how employers reported
using online information for personnel selection. A separate analysis examined employer and applicant data on information ethics and an emerging digital social contract (Berkelaar, 2014). For this study, we relied on systematic
inductive and abductive data analyses (Ezzy, 2002). Taking a constant comparative approach informed by sensitizing concepts (Charmaz, 2006), we
compared and contrasted each subsequent interview with what had (not)
emerged previously. We used Atlas.ti to memo throughout data collection
and analysis. We noted emerging themes, codes, and ideas suggested by each
interview. On our first reading, we recorded initial thoughts and reactions
paying particular attention to how participants reported identifying and evaluating applicants online information. We attended to the information types
acquired and interpretations and valuations employers constructed.
After initial coding, we reread and recoded data; ran reports of all coded
items, including surrounding text to retain context; and then grouped codes
into initial axial groupings, reevaluating occurrences of the themes in the data
set based on new groupings. We generated alternative groupings to question
our initial assumptions and to test and evaluate emerging codes: We sorted,
disassembled, and reassembled the codes multiple times, independently, collaboratively, and in conversation with experts (Charmaz, 2006). During this
process, we noted how participants evaluated different types of information
in terms of absences and presences. Once confident we had identified prominent themes, we reread the data, coding for additional occurrences and testing
themes by identifying negative cases. For example, initial uses of technological information seemed isolated to people working in technology industries
or roles. After rereading the data, it became evident that people used technological artifacts to evaluate job candidates across industries and occupations.
93
To validate findings, we conducted member checks with participants from

different companies, industries, and levels (Lindlof & Taylor, 2010) and consulted with content and method experts. Furthermore, we provided interview
examples and excerpts to enable readers to judge the credibility of our analysis (Charmaz, 2006).
Findings
We focus on how employers report using the presence of visual, textual,
relational, and technological online information combined with the
absence of expected online information to construct and evaluate careers
and employability. These data show how employers evaluations and
expectations replicate and shift conventional personnel selection processes
(Table 2).
Employers Reports of Cybervetting

Consistent with prevalence surveys (e.g., Cross-Tab, 2010), the vast majority
of employers directly acknowledged cybervetting. Although the remaining
participants denied cybervetting, all participant responses, except perhaps
two, described behaviors consistent with cybervetting (e.g., doing a quick
Google check). Overall, cybervetting processes tended to depend on particular job search characteristics and employers habits. Most participants
reported cybervetting interesting applicants soon after receiving rsums;
cybervetting was deferred, when applicant pools were large. A few participants reported cybervetting at multiple stages (e.g., for screening interviews
and to inform final decisions). These were often people who reported relatively detailed online exploration (e.g., following rabbit trails to see where
the information led). Consistent with habitual Internet use (Bohn & Short,
2009), participants generally referenced cybervetting in an off-hand manner
describing how you just go online and Google them or whatever, you
know Facebook them and such.
Although their responses suggested some engagement in cybervetting,
HR personnel reported discouraging cybervetting and generally considered
cybervetting an anomaly outside their control: Youre always going to have
that 1% who was burnt previously by somebody who fooled them using
conventional selection strategies. Such denials might address cybervettings
legal uncertainty or another reason not evident here. Yet, these employers
reports illustrate that online informationwhether present or absentaffects
job candidate evaluations.
94
Table 2. Online Information Employers Report Using for Personnel Selection.

What information
How used
Present or visible online information

Visual
Definitely Pictures
Illustrations
Avatars
Site design
To disqualify because of red

flags
Red flags are not limited to
salacious information, vices,
or illegal activity; they may
simply be unprofessional
Employers rarely validate
accuracy
Textual
What, how, and amount

written, including:
Spelling and grammar
Textspeak
Online content (e.g., blogs,
forum posting, pins, status
updates, tweets, websites).
Email addresses
To qualify or disqualify
candidates in terms of character,
professionalism, written
communication skills
To assess whether people had a
singular passion aligned with the
position
Relational
Connection to same people

Industry and roles of
connections
Number of connections
Demographics of connections
To assess and/or verify

reputation and trustworthiness
To evaluate relevant social
capital
Technological
Ways people used

technologies
Technologies used
Timestamps
Settings
Participation indicators (e.g.,
counts of postings, responses,
community ranking)
To qualify candidates who

participated in relevant
projects, received high
rankings, and/or aligned with
professional expectations
To disqualify candidates who
visibly engaged in a lot of
leisure activities, who did not
use adequate privacy settings,
or who did not appear fully
committed to work
Absent or invisible online information
Lack of professional or workrelated information online

Lack of regular participation in
forums related to occupation
or job
De facto or functional
invisibility from having popular
name or sharing name with
celebrity
Primarily to disqualify candidates

during later stages, especially
when compared with otherwise
equally qualified candidates
Not limited to social media
positions
It might not apply to people
considering covert occupations
95
Evaluating the Presence of Different Types of Online

Information
As they constructed images of job candidates competence, character, and
motivation, employers recontextualized and evaluated the presence of information types online. Visual images tended to be more salient, often salacious,
disqualifiers, whereas employers reported using textual, relational, and technological information to qualify and disqualify candidates.
Visual information. When asked what information they sought online, participants consistently responded definitely pictures. More than 90% reported
using online photos to evaluate job candidates. Although photos tend to be
excluded from contemporary U.S. applications, employers have used other
visual information previously.
Visual cues such as attractiveness or attire as well as choice of font and
paper matter to evaluations of professionalism (Lair et al., 2005) and expertise, although effects may disappear for exceptionally qualified people
(Dipboye et al., 1975). These data indicate a shift in focus. How applications
looked used to be such a big deal [and] unfortunately folks had to finagle a
lot with fonts and looks and stuff. Now standard online applications strip
previously used visual cues for professionalism as online forms force people to conform to standard fonts and formats. This automation removed an
easy indicator of professionalism and now just kind of takes the focus off
that [formatting] to really focus on the content. In place of abstract formatting cues, participants reported using online images to evaluate whether candidates met baseline expectations for professionalism.
Typically, participants used online photos to disqualify candidates who
evidenced the problematic red flags of popular media reports (e.g.,
Eaton, 2009). Employers disqualified applicants who posted photos of
inappropriate and lewd behavior, pictures of them doing drugs or
something like that, or naughty pictures, or . . . habitual, I got drunk this
weekend, kind of pictures and those kinds of things that would not reflect
well. More than a third of the participants used euphemisms to describe
photography that has raised my eyebrows. A few othersincluding a
recruiter who did executive-level hiringoffered more detailed examples,
disqualifying people for inappropriate photos involving nudity or
sticking your tongue down somebodys throat and posting that picture
online. Less salient, but repeatedly noted, were photos of unprofessional
behavior where the person wasnt the kind of person I would want to work
for me. Such evaluations applied culture-specific symbols as unvalidated
heuristics to simplify evaluations. Even when prompted, no participant
96
reported confirming whether the negative information was accurate or

belonged to the job candidate (e.g., pictures of candidates drinking from
red Solo cups indicated excessive partying or underage drinking
whether or not candidates were of legal drinking age or drinking nonalcoholic beverages). In sum, participants reported using notable presences
of questionable online information to quickly disqualify applicants from
executive- through entry-level positions.
In contrast to the frequent, often specific, descriptions of image-informed
disqualifications, employers did not offer examples of images that would
qualify candidates, although a few suggested it might be possible. As exemplified by one manager, job candidates would rarely benefit from online
information because the Internet provides more of the red flags. Im not sure
that it becomes the capstone that sells anybody. Only two participants considered the possibility that visual information might qualify candidates for
further review. However, they provided vague examples, juxtaposed with
more specific negative information:
Id have certain things highlighted or flagged if they disturbed me, or if I found
them impressive. Id still put all the info in front of the execs. If they had just
commissioned a wide search and I found someone, ah, you know, with boobie
pictures up, I would definitely not put that person in front of them . . . I would
hope that recruiting takes, you know, the average sales or customer service
person just as seriously.
Not only does this example illustrate how employers flag information that
might contribute to evaluations, it also suggests expanding professional
expectations for workers across organizational levels. Employers may now
cybervet average candidates for entry-level sales and customer service
positions as well as more prominent upper-management positions that have
been conventionally held to higher information visibility standards.
Moreover, the specificity and preponderance of negative examples reportedly used to disqualify candidates demonstrates the continuing salience of
negative information during personnel selection (Jablin, 2001). This is
likely because these employers reported using images to avoid risk and
minimize costs.
When making sense of online artifacts, employers consistently recontextualized information through an employment lens. Thus, even if a job candidates behavior might be considered appropriate for a pictures original
context or intended audience, employers disqualified candidates whose
online information violated norms for employment audiences or contexts. I
wouldnt hire them, participants repeatedly asserted:
97
If they leave something on their Facebook account that they shouldnt have
there and they know who I am and . . . that Ill be able to see that stuff, theyve
made a decision that impacts their job rather than me making a decision that
impacts their job.
Thus, employers expected applicants to be aware of cybervetting and employers evaluative perspective, even as employers themselves abdicated responsibility. Instead, employers placed responsibility (and blame) on candidates:
Evaluations depend on applicant behavior (theyve made a decision)
because applicants should be aware of employment audiences (know who I
am). Employers did not consider how their communicative involvement or
cybervettings covert processes affected evaluations or whether visible online
records provided sufficient or accurate indicators of identity or employability.
Yet, these descriptions demonstrate how employers communicatively deand, then, recontextualized applicant information. Participants decontextualized online informationfailing to consider intended contexts and
audiences. Simultaneously, employers recontextualized through contemporary frames of professionalism (Cheney & Ashcraft, 2007). Moreover,
employers consistently articulated the socially acceptable party line that
protected information (e.g., age, race, pregnancy status) would not be considered. Participants emphatically asserted that even if they acquired irrelevant information, they could exclude it from evaluationsI can ignore
itdespite findings to the contrary (Miron-Shatz & Ben-Shakhar, 2008).
Thus, in contrast to offline sources, online information provides access to
different visual cues, often during early stages of review, thereby altering
what informs early impressions.
Textual information. Employers did not exclusively focus on salacious vices
or illegal behavior. Three quarters of the participants described using textual
information to construct and evaluate images of job candidates. Employers
reported using online textual information to evaluate written communication
skills, professionalism, character, motivation, and passion.
Given that employers continue to rank written communication as a top
skill (Graduate Management Admission Council, 2014), it is unsurprising
that employers used online information to assess writing skills. Participants
repeatedly noted how online sources access everyday writing in contrast to
formally edited cover letters and rsums considered subject to extreme
impression management. Participants reported examining various writing
contexts online to efficiently construct a picture of applicants career potential regardless of job: I look at their writing. I look at how they write online.
I look at their blogs. I look at their Facebook. I look any place where theyre
98
writing online. Such information provides access to the everyday interactions (e.g., email, text, memos) that dominate many employees work.
Employers also reported using textual information to construct and value
applicants professional image. How as well as what and how often applicants
wrote mattered when making sense of candidates professionalism. Emphasis
on spelling, grammar, and formal English presumably evidenced levels of
professionalism, attention to detail, and suitability for employment. In particular, a subset of four employers who did not text or use social network sites
themselves expressed greater concerns about writing than those who reported
using a broader range of media. As one manager emphatically maintained,
I really cannot stand typos, and I dont like it when people type injargon is
not the right wordbut just the shorthand that people use . . . the one who does
write out all the words and is kind of maybe a little more like me and kind of a
freakazoid about that kind of stuff . . . if theyre more well-spoken than the
others in writing, thats a plus.
As illustrated above, employers assess job candidates careers through their

own expectations, habits, and perceptions. They often adopt offline communication standards for online communication practices, although research
suggests offline and online contexts are not necessarily analogous (Williams,
2010). Even when probed to describe situations in which shorthand (textspeak) might be appropriate, good writing standards of formal spelling and
grammar either added a plus or presumably subtracted from the value of
particular workers careers. Moreover, evaluations often depended on
homophily as they elevated the character of people a little more like me.
Thus, in addition to assessing written communication as a skill, employers
also constructed and morally judged professional identities based on written
language: So, on a probably more potent note, spelling acumen, grammar,
use of pejorative terms on profiles . . . you dont want to hire people, who you
know for a fact, have no moral or ethical standards.
Consistent with offline selection (Jablin, 2001), employers did not confirm negative online information, despite its easy construction or communication by other people or technology. Employers confidence in their initial
impressions (e.g., you know for a fact) likely derived from their reported
assumptions that the Internet offered insights into the whole person, trust in
their expertise and intuition (Dipboye, 2014), and pressures of limited time.
In addition to evaluating skill, professionalism, and character, employers
constructed a sense of job candidates mission and passion using textual information. Participants reported using the frequency and (perceived) amount of
time someone spent writing about a particular subject online. How much and
99
how often a person wrote about a particular topic operated as a proxy for motivations. When assessing content created by or about applicants, employers
noted that online information provided access to individuals core passions or
drive: Online, you can learn tons about their true interests and hobbies,
[plus] often times I can tell if someone has too much time on their hands. Such
examples evidence employers assumptions that people have a singular passion, and should choose and do work in it (Berkelaar & Buzzanell, 2014).
Some reported specific examples where they did not hire or promote people
who had visible online information about incompatible non-work hobbies.
Moreover, employers consistently suggested that visible free time should be
spent doing something worthwhile from employers perspective (not that
Farmville game) otherwise candidates motivation would be questioned.
Unlike visual information, textual information sometimes helped qualify
rather than disqualify job candidates, particularly in white-collar work.
Employers ascribed greater professional commitment to candidates who had
online evidence of work-related behavior outside work times and spaces
compared with those who did not. Participant responses suggested that the
right online information could add value and help discriminate the good
applicants from the best. As one IT recruiter exemplified,
[I want to see their] life outside of the interview, see if they are trying to help
others in the support forums . . . [Its] the final endorsement . . . If theres
nothing there, why would I want to hire them over someone else . . . if youre
using that as just kind of a gauge of what a person is doing with their life, its a
good thing to do.
In essence, textual information provided a way for employers to assess

what a person is doing with their life to see whether their work was more
than just a job.
Although these descriptions seem to initially suggest that employers tally
positive and mostly negative online information to form their evaluations,
this is not the case. A few participants acknowledged how the broader economic context affects evaluations of online information. Three participants
noted employers willingness to compromise professional expectations if
candidates address crucial skill shortages. For example, one manager reported
how programmers with in-demand skill sets could misspell words and . .
. still get jobs despite persistent critiques about atrocious communication.
As an employment lawyer reiterated,
You know, when theres 4% unemployment, employers might not have as
much luxury to just turn down people for stupid reasons; but when theres 10%
100
unemployment, they do because theres a whole bunch of other people waiting

for that job.
Thus, the economic contextor perceptions thereofmoderates online

informations effect on evaluations.
Relational information. Who someone knows has long been a factor for getting
a job (Granovetter, 1973). What is different with cybervetting is that online
sources, particularly social network sites, make larger, and often different,
connections within applicants networks visible in new ways. Even as people
leverage online connections to find jobs, these data indicate that employers
also use relational associations to verify credentials, competencies, and
character.
Just under half of these employers reported using visible relational information to verify social capital and trustworthiness. For example, almost one
third of the employers provided explicit examples describing how they hired
candidates because of rich and deep online networks: He got the job
because he could just log into LinkedIn and show us his network there, all
those people . . . and his connections to me. Particularly in jobs such as sales
and recruiting, or positions involving leadership or customer service, relational visibility legitimated expertise and access to the social capital needed
to be a successful employee.
Employers also reported using visible networks to assess the trustworthiness of applicants character or reputation. The visibility of a candidates network provided employers a way to find people I trust that are already a little
more verified. Visible connections to the employer (i.e., connections to
me) increased confidence in a candidates character and provided a form of
reference check. In addition, visible connections to key people across relevant industries established trustworthiness and enhanced reputational evaluations. In one example, a recruitment manager used applicants visible
connections to (re)present the candidates as well-connected professional[s]
to the high profile employers who were their customers. Employers did not
question the nature of the relationship between visible connections, the motivations leading to the connections, or the connections not visible online.
Rather, employers intuited that I can quickly see how close a candidate
is to influential or desirable contacts, assuming that the existence of connections with positive others offered votes of confidence.
Technological information. More than half of these employers constructed a
sense of job candidates using technological information. How people used
technologies and what technologies they used were central to employers
101
constructions and evaluations of candidates competencies and character.

Employers have used technological cues previously. For example, typewritten application forms communicate a higher level of professionalism, skills,
and/or commitment than those completed by hand. However, online sources
of information allow access to more and different forms of technological
artifacts.
These data illustrate how employers used technological artifacts to evaluate candidates work ethics and skills, often in non-work contexts. New technologies make artifacts of non-work behavior more visible. In these data,
applicants with visible artifacts of leisure were often devalued or disqualified. For example, games on social media sites leave time stamps and other
activity indicators on status pages (e.g., [Name] just bought a cow.).
Employers often questioned the motivation of candidates who played these
gamesor simply participated in Facebook itself. As exemplified by one
manager, If you are on Facebook all the time or playing those games, what
are you doing with your life? Thus, technological artifacts left by game
playing presumably indicated lack of motivation as employers emphasized
the need for applicants to be solely focused on finding work.
However, if technological information aligned with employers expectations, it could improve evaluations. This was particularly evident during later
stages of personnel selection or when employers sought passive applicants.
Employers ascribe professionalism and visible expertise when they view
candidates engaged in ongoing participation in relevant projects. Employers
often extrapolated expertise and professionalism from the number of postings
and responses and any other indicators demonstrating a postings popularity
or usefulness:
You can see [online] if theyre involved in, like, open-source projects, to see
how they deal with collaborative efforts. If youre looking into some of the
newer technology, like cloud computing, you can see if theyve got expertise in
that or what their thoughts are or are they more traditional in their programming
or are they comfortable learning new things and working outside the box and
exploring.
Positive evaluations of job candidates were amplified when community

members or aggregators offered high rankings, thereby validating a candidates value. Employers thus used visible involvement in online forums to
ascribe candidates occupational philosophy and competence level using
rankings and indices from other users and technologies to validate
assessments.
102
Although the topic of cybervetting lends itself to discussions of privacy,

these employers rarely considered privacy during these interviews except
when evaluating professionalism. Half of our participants evaluated job candidates professionalism based on their privacy settings. As exemplified by
one recruiter, This particular guy . . . happened to have a public Facebook
page, which I found extremely weird. So I automatically start judging and
thinking he must be a voyeur or something, right? Such assessments were
prominent in, but not limited to, situations involving hiring or recruiting IT
professionals. Employers emphasized that nothing is private online even if
settings are at the highest level or items are deleted. Why? Because technology fails or settings change revealing information people believe to be
secure. Even as they acknowledged the limits of technological privacy settings, most employers considered failure to use them as a testament to personal stupidity, irresponsibility, and indicated a lack of overall
professionalismeven if no problematic information was disclosed. As
one manager argued, questionable information compounded questions about
candidates professionalism: If they would post that out publicly and not
turn on the privacy settings, what are they going to do at my company?
Thus, employers expected candidates not only to manage what is technologically visible online but also to signal intention to manage information online.
Overall, employers used the presence of visual, textual, relational, or technological information to make sense of job candidatessometimes to quickly
disqualify (i.e., visual information), and at other times, to consider whether
candidates should be qualified or disqualified. Throughout this process,
employers placed responsibility on candidates to manage their online information. As outlined in the next section, such expectations required job candidates to manage not only online information visibility but also (de facto)
invisibility.
Evaluating the Absence of Expected Information

In response to popular media reports, many job candidates restrict online
accounts, remove potentially offensive information, and otherwise do their
best to digitally scrub problematic information, going so far as to deactivate
or delete accounts (Eaton, 2009). Their concerns are not unfounded. Surveys
(Cross-Tab, 2010) and these data confirm that employers reject applicants
based on red flags: Really and truly I think theyre looking for dirt, you
know? They dont want to hire the one that has the pictures of the parties and
those types of things. Theyre looking for the more responsible ones . . . Red
flags lower evaluations.
103
Unfortunately, these data also suggest that removing or hiding online

information may lower evaluations. Valuation of any assetincluding ones
career, employability, or reputation depends on the visibility of information. Just as lacking a credit history lowers credit scores, these data suggest
that lack of visible online information negatively affects employability
assessments. Almost half of these employers expected candidates to have an
online presence, noting that the absence of online information lowered evaluations: If Im at the very end of the search and Im trying to decide between
three candidates who all seem fairly equally qualified, that [relative presence
or absence] might help me make that final decision between those three.
Thus, employers not only evaluate candidates based on what online information is present, they also evaluate candidates based on absent information
they expected to find.
Visible online presence is particularly but not exclusively necessary for
people in certain occupations. For example, job candidates for communication or social media positions clearly benefited from demonstrating visible
rather than reported expertise as one creative director vehemently asserted:
If they have nothing online, it is clear that this is not the career for them.
He went on to provide examples from a recent search where the final candidate was chosen because she was the only one with a substantial online
presence:
I mean if you want a job in Internet marketing, you should have a face out
there, for sure, somehow. You know, make yourself a blog, make yourself a
web site, put yourself on social networking sites, but do it professionally.
Thus, unsurprisingly, digital presence is necessary for people who want to be

employable in occupations with clear connections to social media or the
Internet.
Yet, it is not simply social media jobs that require digital visibility.
Employers across industries offered specific examples where they disqualified candidates because expected online information was missing. One manager considered lack of regular online activity evidence that the position did
not align with the candidates one, true passion, what this manager believed
necessary for establishing the organizations competitive advantage.
Especially when juxtaposed with the presence of information about leisure
activities, the absence of expected work-related information disqualified candidates. Interplays of presences and absences are evident in another executives talk about how one workers blog clearly demonstrated interest in
baking. The executive went on to represent this individuals hobby as indicative of a bad fit as she was clearly interested [in] a different passion.
104
Thus, employers disqualified candidates who were absent online or who were
not present in expected spheres.
In general, these employers used the absence of expected information to
construct a sense of job candidates as less committed. They did not consider
alternative explanations for information absences. They situated their assumptions of visibility in contemporary notions that equate visibility and transparency with honesty. Indeed, the majority of these employers argued that job
candidates should be unconcerned by cybervetting if they have nothing to
hide, a phrase repeatedly used by these employers to justify cybervetting.
By framing themselves and/or cybervetting as honest and straightforward
and implicating those who hide or remove information as less honest or ethical, employers may reflect a nave understanding of the potential for misinterpretation. This also may arise from having a boring, more normal, and
less decorated life: I dont know how I would feel if I was someone who
had, you know, a colorful lifestyle . . . You know, someone with a story [e.g.,
biker chick, gay/lesbian]. Would I feel differently? Maybe I would. Like
this director, participants may feel as though they have nothing to hide
because they conform to dominant social norms.
Thus, although these employers advised digital scrubbing before job
searches, their responses also indicated that attempts at digital clean slates
may be detrimental. Not having an online presence creates information void
during evaluation processes, which may be as much of a liability as having
red flags. Not only is expertise defined through visibility (Treem & Leonardi,
2012), our data suggest job candidates might also need to communicate interests and passions for specific types of work to be considered valuable in the
marketplace.
Such need for a digitally visible career is complicated by information
noise. To be valuable, desirable information needs to be clearly linked to
particular applicants. For people with popular names, information about people with the same name can create de facto or functional invisibilityor
potentially problematic misinformation. Although it is beneficial to disassociate from red flags, candidates need to be visible when seeking employment
or promotions. Unless people work diligently and have access to IT expertise
and resources, it is difficult to make their names, and associated information
stand out from the professional athletes, beauty queens, show dogs, semipro
wrestlers, and others with whom candidates report sharing names (Berkelaar,
2010). Moreover, employers did not express concerns that information might
be inaccurate or might not refer to candidates under scrutinyrather, their
focus seemed to be on minimizing any possible perception of negative effect
to their organizations because of online information that seemed to be connected to particular individuals.
105
Discussion
This study contributes to communication and personnel selection research in
two ways. First, by examining what information employers report acquiring
online and how they indicate making sense of acquired and missing information, we help explicate cybervetting as a new tool for employment sensemaking (Table 2). Employers use of easily accessible secondary sources and
unobtrusive observations aligns with research on information seeking (Berger
& Douglas, 1981; Case, 2012; Treem & Leonardi, 2012) and personnel selection (Dipboye, 2014; Jablin, 2001). However, cybervetting differs in how it
leverages increasing information visibility to expand contexts, times, and
roles considered during selection and associated impression management.
Empirically examining cybervetting answers calls to consider everyday personnel selection (Dipboye, 2014) and to explicate when, if, and how online
and offline processes align (Treem & Leonardi, 2012; Williams, 2010).
Second, in light of increasing information visibility and other technology
affordances (Treem & Leonardi, 2012) undergirding cybervetting, we show
how cybervetting offers a useful context to examine contemporary assumptions and expectations about work and careers and the contested, changing
nature of contemporary professionalism and employment relationships.
Although new technology affordances have been explored within conventional organizational boundaries (e.g., when using organizationally sponsored or developed tools and/or within paid-work times, places, or roles;
Treem & Leonardi, 2012; Zuboff, 1989), this study examines how cybervetting expands personnel selection beyond conventional timespacerole
boundaries of paid work. In highlighting how information visibility and
expectations thereof appear to be reshaping personnel selection, our data
suggest that employers now expect, acquire, and make sense of moreand
oftentimes differentnon-work information during personnel selection.
Specifically, cybervetting further erodes boundaries between work and nonwork in ways similar to, yet beyond, fuzzy workhome boundaries (Golden,
2013). Thus, cybervetting offers a context in which to address calls for
research on redefinitions of what counts as work and non-work in the digital
era, including how familial, civic, personal, and professional identities are
constructed, promoted, and evaluated (Cheney & Ashcraft, 2007; Gregg,
2011).
Although our study provided access to employers sensemaking of applicants online information, our approach and sample size limit generalizability.
Despite gathering data from diverse industries, organizations, and roles, we
cannot make claims about potential occupational, cultural, or demographic
characteristics. Future research should consider different occupational or
106
organizational scenarios. For example, individuals interested in working for

clandestine organizations or occupations requiring discretion (Scott, 2013)
might benefit from online invisibility. Further ethnographic and experimental
work could identify differences between what employers report and what they
do. For example, direct observation that includes think-aloud protocols
(Jskelinen, 2010) could illuminate how employers construct job candidates professional identities when cybervetting as compared with, or in combination with, conventional practices. This would enhance understanding of
contemporary constructions of professionalism, employability, and employment relationships from employers perspectives.
Theoretical Implications
This study illuminates how cybervetting and the information visibility and
collapsed spatio-temporal contexts undergirding it are changing the assumptions and everyday work of personnel selection and impression management
and expanding these practices into non-work life. Such extensions increase
sociotechnical and communicative demands for employers who cybervet and
for current and potential employees who now need to digitally curate their
professional image. Employers expect qualified job candidates to consciously
and consistently construct an online professional presence across time, space,
and (role) contexts previously excluded from personnel selection. At the
same time, job candidates are increasingly distanced from these sensemaking
and sensegiving processes (Weick, 1995). Because employers extract information during cybervetting, workers lack many of the cues used to adjust
impression management and sensegiving (Hogan, 2010) in the more interactive if asynchronous exchanges of conventional personnel selection. Because
cybervetting often involves acquiring information intended for, created by,
and/or aggregated by other people and technologies, workers often only learn
about and can monitor online information after the fact (Hogan, 2010). This
distancing is motivation for, and an effect of, cybervetting.
Thus, this study shifts attention from more episodic information exchange
and meaning-making processes (Dipboye, 2014) toward persistent development and management of a relatively new phenomenon that we label digital
career capital, which builds on Inkson and Arthurs (2001) notion of career
capitalthe competencies, identities, motivations, and relationships providing career value. Drawing on our findings about how employers value applicants using information presences and absences, digital career capital extends
earlier perspectives by emphasizing the importance of making career capital,
and thus employability, digitally and persistently visible. Rather than focusing on visible employability during active job searches, workers are expected
107
to cultivate enduring shows of competence, professionalism, and connectedness across any sources employers might use. As part of this process, workers
are expected to fulfill growing expectations to view and enact work as ones
singular passion (Berkelaar & Buzzanell, 2014).
Such expectations require sophisticated impression management skills as
people work to develop and manage the stable, desirable, schema-compatible
image (Goffman, 1959) employers desire during early sensemaking (Weick,
1995). Cybervetting highlights how individuals sensegiving and impression
management need to take into account physical and temporal distance as well
as information reordering and recontextualization. Even as research in online
impression management provides clues into how people leverage different
technological affordances to manage online impressions, such research often
focuses on particular platforms (e.g., Twitter; Marwick & boyd, 2010) or
agreed-upon role contexts (e.g., supervisors and supervisees managing
impressions using organizational technologies; Erhardt & Gibbs, 2014).
Moreover, although research suggests that employees working at a distance
increase their use of impression management tactics (Barsness, Diekmann, &
Seidel, 2005), it is not clear whether and how impression management tactics
increase when individuals do not or cannot identify (and therefore do not
respond to) specific audiences and/or discrete (sets of) impression management situations. Researchers do not fully understand how impression management works when people need to manage the multiple roles, context
collapse, and other-sourced information implicated in cybervetting, although
Marwick and boyds (2010) Twitter study provides early insights. Future
research should explore the ironic likelihood that awareness of cybervetting
will extend career-oriented impression management into online contexts (see
Lair et al., 2005) originally considered desirable because of their perceived
lack of career-related impression management.
These data suggest that employers cybervetting demands workers lifelong attention to and mindfulness about how digital artifacts might be perceived and reassembled by employers. As employers engage in sensemaking
about information acquired or found missing through cybervetting, they
attempt to locate individuals across time, space, (role) and context (Maclean,
Harvey, & Chia, 2012) often appealing to agreed-upon assumptions of what
constitutes the professional or professionalism (Cheney & Ashcraft, 2007).
Before becoming job candidates and paid workers, individuals are now
expected to prioritize workplace standards and expectations in online communication. Such asymmetrical expansion of work interests is consistent
with empirical (Golden, 2013) and conceptual (Deetz, 1992) research on
worklife boundaries and arguments that organizational socialization may
happen earlier than often assumed (Berkelaar, 2013). By considering workers
108
as extensions of organizational brands (Edwards, 2005), employers who

cybervet validate all visible information as contextually relevant fodder for
employability sensemakingincluding leisure activities and digital artifacts
from childhood. Given the implications for women, minority, and less technically savvy workers, the potential for differential career effects and need for
further research are substantial.
Practical Applications
At least two possible applications emerge from this analysis. First, employers
need to consider how cybervettings communicative and information consequences shape effectiveness of personnel selection practices. Employers currently rely on intuitive, communication-as-transmission processes because of
time and resource constraints and the risks and pressures of failed selection
decisionsbecause when youre tired, cold, and hungry, any old map will
do (Anacona, 2012, p. 6). Researchers could help employers adapt evidencebased selection strategies to meet cybervettings temporal and habitual conveniences and employers needs for outcome accuracy, while also attending
to the practical ethics of cybervetting.
A second pragmatic implication involves quandaries between applicants
need to simultaneously manage present and absent information online and
positive and negative digital artifacts that could affect employability.
Although people have habitually monitored their professional image
(Goffman, 1959), digital impression management and information curation
involve relatively sophisticated communication strategies. Making relevant,
audience-valued information visible demands attending to the Internets collapsed contexts, myriad authors, temporal demands, artifact decontextualization and recontextualization, and invisible audiences (boyd, 2007). However,
cybervetting offers few, if any, and mostly ambiguous, longer term cues for
workers (e.g., repeatedly not getting the job), with little ability to self-correct
as retrievable deletions might prompt questions about the authentic person
(Hogan, 2010; Marwick & boyd, 2010). Moreover, non-work goals, relationships, and narratives (boyd, 2007) necessarily compete with professional
images workers want to create when seeking employment.
Conceptualizing cybervetting as a problem to be redressed through training that fixes people who do not fit the ideal worker image precludes challenging assumptions of what indicates competence; what skills, commitments,
and roles are (de)valued; what is useful and ethical from multiple standpoints;
and variations within and among social identity groups that might be problematically interpreted. To handle such quandaries, educators and researchers
should work with employers and workers to make visible potential strategic
109
alignments of organizational and individual interests while reconsidering the

ethical implications of centering the professional as anchor for digital identities. Future research can offer insights into ascertaining what, how, and why
certain online information might and should be curated in ways that address
organizational bottom lines and that befit individuals complex identities.
In conclusion, findings show that different technological affordances and
shifting information characteristics may affect organizational processes and
outcomes, and in turn individual lives and social norms, in various ways.
These findings highlight how present and absent information intersect with
employer expectations to inform contemporary employability evaluations,
and how (potential) workers now face the need for digital information curation even when they are not actively seeking a job.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was partially funded by a
Bilsland Strategic Initiatives grant sponsored by Purdue University.
References
Anacona, D. (2012). Sensemaking: Framing and acting in the unknown. In S. Snook,
N. Nohira, & R. Khurana (Eds.), The handbook for teaching leadership: Knowing,
doing, and being (pp. 3-20). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Back, M., Stopfer, J., Vazire, S., Gaddis, S., Schmukle, S., Egloff, B., & Gosling,
S. (2010). Facebook profiles reflect actual personality, not self-idealization.
Psychological Science, 21, 372-374. doi:10.1177/0956797609360756
Barsness, Z. I., Diekmann, K. A., & Seidel, M. L. (2005). Motivation and opportunity:
The role of remote work, demographic dissimilarity, and social network centrality in impression management. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 401-419.
doi:10.5465/AMJ.2005.17407906
Berger, C. R., & Douglas, W. (1981). Studies in interpersonal epistemology: III.
Anticipated interaction, self-monitoring, and observational context selection.
Communication Monographs, 48, 183-196. doi:10.1080/03637758109376058
Berkelaar, B. L. (2010). Cyber-vetting: Exploring the implications of online information for career capital and human capital decisions (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.
Berkelaar, B. L. (2013). Joining and leaving organizations in a global information
society. In E. Cohen (Ed.), Communication yearbook 37 (pp. 33-64). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
110
Berkelaar, B. L. (2014). Cybervetting, online information, and personnel

selection: New transparency expectations and the emergence of a digital social contract. Management Communication Quarterly, 28, 479-506.
doi:10.1177/0893318914541966
Berkelaar, B. L., & Buzzanell, P. M. (2014). Bait and switch or double-edged sword?
The (sometimes) failed promises of calling. Human Relations. Advance online
publication. doi:10.1177/0018726714526265
Berkelaar, B. L., Scacco, J. M., & Birdsell, J. L. (2014). The worker as politician: How online information and electoral heuristics shape personnel
selection and careers. New Media & Society. Advance online publication.
doi:10.1177/1461444814525739
Bohn, R. E., & Short, J. E. (2009). How much information? 2009 report on American
consumers. San Diego, CA: Global Information Center. Retrieved from http://
hmi.ucsd.edu/pdf/HMI_2009_ConsumerReport_Dec9_2009.pdf
boyd, d. (2007). Why youth social network sites: The role of networked publics in
teenage social life. In D. Buckingham (Ed.), Youth, identity, and digital media
(pp. 119-142). Boston, MA: MIT Press.
Case, D. O. (2012). Looking for information: A survey of research on information
seeking, needs, and behavior. Bingley, UK: Emerald.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London, England: SAGE.
Cheney, G., & Ashcraft, K. (2007). Considering the professional in communication studies: Implications for theory and research within and beyond the boundaries of organizational communication. Communication Theory, 17, 146-175.
doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2007.00290.x
Cheney, G., Lair, D. J., Ritz, D., & Kendall, B. E. (2009). Just a job? Communication,
ethics, and professional life. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Cross-Tab. (2010). Online reputation in a connected world. Retrieved from http://
go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9709510
DeAndrea, D., & Walther, J. (2011). Attributions for inconsistencies between
online and offline self-presentation. Communication Research, 38, 805-825.
doi:10.1177/0093650210385340
Deetz, S. A. (1992). Democracy in an age of corporate colonization: Developments
in the communication and politics of everyday life. Albany, NY: State University
of New York Press.
Dipboye, R. L. (2014). The role of communication in intuitive and analytical
employee selection. In M. E. Gordon & V. D. Miller (Eds.), Meeting the challenge of human resource management: A communication perspective (pp. 4051). New York, NY: Routledge.
Dipboye, R. L., Fromkin, H. K., & Wilback, K. (1975). Relative importance of applicant sex, attractiveness, and scholastic standing in evaluation of job applicant
rsums. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 39-43. doi:10.1037/h0076352
Eaton, K. (2009, August 19). If youre applying for a job, censor your Facebook page.
FastCompany.com. Retrieved from http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/kiteaton/
technomix/if-youre-applying-job-censor-your-facebook-page
111
Edwards, M. R. (2005). Employer and employee branding: HR or PR? In S.

Bach (Ed.), Managing human resources (pp. 266-286). New York, NY:
Wiley.
Erhardt, N., & Gibbs, J. L. (2014). The dialectical nature of impression management
in knowledge work: Unpacking tensions in media use between managers and
subordinates. Management Communication Quarterly. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0893318913520508
Ezzy, D. (2002). Qualitative analysis: Practice and innovation. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York, NY:
Doubleday.
Golden, A. (2013). The structuration of information and communication technologies and worklife interrelationships: Shared organizational and family rules
and resources and implications for work in a high-technology organization.
Communication Monographs, 80, 101-123. doi:10.1080/03637751.2012.739702.
Graduate Management Admission Council. (2014). Corporate recruiters survey. Retrieved from http://www.gmac.com/~/media/Files/gmac/Research/
Employment%20Outlook/2014-corporaterecruiters-final-release.pdf
Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology,
78, 1360-1380.
Gregg, M. (2011). Works intimacy. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Griffin, R. L., Chmielowski, T., & Yoshita, Y. (2007). Do applicants fake? An examination of the frequency of applicant faking behavior. Personnel Review, 36, 341357. doi:10.1108/00483480710731310
Hogan, B. (2010). The presentation of self in the age of social media: Distinguishing
performances and exhibitions online. Bulletin of Science, Technology, & Society,
30, 377-386. doi:10.1177/0270467610385893
Inkson, K., & Arthur, M. B. (2001). How to be a successful career capitalist.
Organizational Dynamics, 30, 48-61. doi:10.1016/S0090-2616(01)00040-7
Jskelinen, R. (2010). Think-aloud protocol. In Y. Gambier & L. Van Doorslaer
(Eds.), Handbook of translation studies (Vol 1, pp. 371-374). Amsterdam, The
Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Jablin, F. M. (2001). Organizational entry, assimilation, and disengagement/exit. In
F. M. Jablin & L. L. Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods (pp. 732-818). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kraaijenbrink, J. (2011). Human capital in the resource-based view. In J. C. Spender
& A. Burton-Jones (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of human capital (pp. 218-237).
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Lair, D. J., Sullivan, K., & Cheney, G. (2005). Marketization and the professionalization of self. Management Communication Quarterly, 18, 307-343.
doi:10.1177/0893318904270744
Lindlof, T. R., & Taylor, B. C. (2010). Qualitative communication research methods.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
112
Maclean, M., Harvey, C., & Chia, R. (2012). Sensemaking, storytelling, and
the legitimization of elite business careers. Human Relations, 65, 17-40.
doi:10.1177/0018726711425616
Marwick, A. E., & boyd, d. (2010). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter
users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society, 13,
114-133. doi:10.1177/1461444810365313
Mayfield, E. C., & Carlson, R. E. (1966). Interview decisions: First results
from a long-term research project. Personnel Psychology, 19, 4155.
doi:10.1111/j.1744-750.1966.tb02434.x.
McGlone, M., & Pfeister, R. A. (2009). Does time fly when youre having fun or
do you? Affect, agency, and embodiment in temporal communication. Journal
of Language and Social Psychology, 28, 3-31. doi:10.1177/0261927X08325744
Metzger, M., Flanigan, A., & Medders, R. (2010). Social and heuristic approaches
to credibility evaluation online. Journal of Communication, 60, 413439.
doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01488.x
Miron-Shatz, T., & Ben-Shakhar, G. (2008). Disregarding preliminary information when rating job applicants performance: Mission impossible? Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 3, 1271-1294. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008
Peebles, K. A. (2012). Negligent hiring and the information age: How state legislatures can save employers from inevitable liability. William & Mary Law Review,
35, 1396-1433.
Ployhart, R. E., & Weekley, J. (2010). Strategy, selection, and sustained competitive
advantage. In J. Farr & N. Tippins (Eds.), The handbook of employee selection
(pp. 195-212). New York, NY: Routledge.
Ramirez, A., Jr., Walther, J. B., Burgoon, J. K., & Sunnafrank, M. (2002).
Information-seeking strategies, uncertainty, and computer-mediated communication: Toward a conceptual model. Human Communication Research, 28, 213228. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00804.x
Scott, C. (2013). Anonymous agencies, backstreet businesses, and covert collectives:
Rethinking organizations in the 21st century. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.
Shilling, D. (2009). Complete guide to human resources and the law. New York,
NY: Aspen.
Solove, D. J. (2008). Understanding privacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Treem, J., & Leonardi, P. (2012). Social media uses in organizations: Exploring the
affordances of visibility, editability, persistence, and association. In C. Salmon
(Ed.), Communication Yearbook, 37 (pp. 143-186). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Walther, J. B., Van Der Heide, B., Kim, S., Westerman, D., & Tong, S. T. (2008).
The role of friends appearance and behavior on evaluations of individuals on
Facebook: Are we known by the company we keep. Human Communication
Research, 34, 28-49. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00312.x
Webster, E. C. (1964). Decision making in the employment interview. Montreal,
Quebec, Canada: Industrial Relations Centre, McGill University.
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
113
Weiss, B., & Feldman, R. S. (2006). Looking good and lying to do it: Deception as
an impression management strategy in job interviews. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 36, 1070-1086. doi:10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00055.x
Williams, D. (2010). The mapping principle, and a research framework for virtual worlds. Communication Theory, 20, 451-470. doi:10.1111/j.14682885.2010.01371.x
Zuboff, S. (1989). In the age of the smart machine: The future of work and power.
New York, NY: Basic Books.
Author Biographies
Brenda L. Berkelaar, PhD, Purdue University, is an assistant professor of communication studies in the Moody College of Communication at the University of Texas at
Austin. Her research centers on work and career, with a particular emphasis on the
ways new technologies shape how we understand and practice work and career.
Patrice M. Buzzanell, PhD, Purdue University, is a professor of communication in
the Brian Lamb School of Communication (and professor of engineering education by
courtesy) at Purdue University. Her research centers on the everyday negotiations and
structures that produce and are produced by the intersections of organizational communication, career, and gender.

Online Employment Screening and Digital Career Capital

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Online Employment Screening and Digital Career Capital

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

554657

MCQXXX10.1177/0893318914554657Management Communication QuarterlyBerkelaar and Buzzanell

Management Communication Quarterly

Brenda L. Berkelaar1 and Patrice M. Buzzanell2

University of Texas at Austin, USA

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at E-nformation SRL on February 28, 2016

Berkelaar and Buzzanell

Employers consider personnel selection a central strategy for establishing

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at E-nformation SRL on February 28, 2016

Management Communication Quarterly 29(1)

The Context and Characteristics of Cybervetting

The Information Context of Cybervetting

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at E-nformation SRL on February 28, 2016

Berkelaar and Buzzanell

The Communicative Characteristics of Cybervetting

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at E-nformation SRL on February 28, 2016

Management Communication Quarterly 29(1)

Table 1. Comparing Cybervetting and Traditional Background Checks.

Traditional background checks

Government agencies (e.g.,

employment (e.g., rsums, cover letters, interviews; Lair, Sullivan, &

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at E-nformation SRL on February 28, 2016

Berkelaar and Buzzanell

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at E-nformation SRL on February 28, 2016

Management Communication Quarterly 29(1)

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at E-nformation SRL on February 28, 2016

Berkelaar and Buzzanell

decisions involve other people, we deliberately sampled a diverse set of

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at E-nformation SRL on February 28, 2016

Management Communication Quarterly 29(1)

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at E-nformation SRL on February 28, 2016

Berkelaar and Buzzanell

To validate findings, we conducted member checks with participants from

Employers Reports of Cybervetting

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at E-nformation SRL on February 28, 2016

Management Communication Quarterly 29(1)

Table 2. Online Information Employers Report Using for Personnel Selection.

Present or visible online information

To disqualify because of red

What, how, and amount

Connection to same people

To assess and/or verify

Ways people used

To qualify candidates who

Absent or invisible online information

Lack of professional or workrelated information online

Primarily to disqualify candidates

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at E-nformation SRL on February 28, 2016

Berkelaar and Buzzanell

Evaluating the Presence of Different Types of Online

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at E-nformation SRL on February 28, 2016

Management Communication Quarterly 29(1)

reported confirming whether the negative information was accurate or

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at E-nformation SRL on February 28, 2016

Berkelaar and Buzzanell

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at E-nformation SRL on February 28, 2016

Management Communication Quarterly 29(1)

As illustrated above, employers assess job candidates careers through their

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at E-nformation SRL on February 28, 2016

Berkelaar and Buzzanell

In essence, textual information provided a way for employers to assess

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at E-nformation SRL on February 28, 2016

Management Communication Quarterly 29(1)

unemployment, they do because theres a whole bunch of other people waiting

Government agencies (e.g.,