Defining Corporate Culture: Google Takes A Stand

The recent events in Charlottesville have forced companies from small startups to Fortune 500s to ask themselves difficult questions about what they stand for as an organization. This blog is the first in a series spotlighting companies that have had to make tough decisions about what their core values actually mean in practice. Today we take a look at the recent controversy around the released memo written by a Google employee.

This past week, the tech giant fired an engineer who wrote a controversial memo criticizing, among other things, the company's diversity efforts and the role of women in the workplace. The memo spread like wildfire internally and then went viral, causing a massive PR headache for the company. The news story is a setback for Google which has been already under fire for gender discrimination. According to Tech Crunch, "The timing of the saga is not good for Google, which was hit by a lawsuit in January to obtain compensation data, ending up with a snafu over gender pay discrimination."

If Google is serious about addressing the real issues of gender discrimination in their organization, then they have some difficult work cut out for them. To do it, an organization must be committed to consistent communication to their employees of the values of the organization and be willing to take controversial stands when those values aren’t upheld.

However, these efforts will likely be futile absent a systematic approach to bringing on board individuals who are aligned to the company’s values and mission. Building a strong corporate culture is hard enough when team members do generally agree on values; it’s almost impossible when most don’t.

If your organization cares about your mission statement being more than just a tab on your marketing page, it will have to make decisions like the one Google recently made. The blowback from Google’s actions were magnified because it had failed to convince the public and its own organization of its authentic commitment to those values. Looking at strength of character in addition to job experience of your candidates is one way to do just that. You may even prevent hiring someone who discriminates against your employees or causes a media scandal for your organization.

How To Screen: On-Demand Employees

This is the fourth in a four-part series of articles—"How To Screen"—that explores the challenges that HR faces when screening different levels of employees and helps informs employers what they should be looking for. 


So far we've looked at how age and experience levels often determine the nature and intensity of your search. Today, we're considering how the type of job someone is applying for also factors into what you are analyzing online. Specifically, we're looking and the on-demand economy; fast-rising and successful companies like Lyft, Seamless, and Postmates in this platform-based "gig sector" employ 14% of all Americans in some capacity. 

What do we know about these employees demographically? According to a Burson Marsteller survey, the majority of them are young (18-34), male (61%), and tend to live in big cities. They also, according to the survey, report making more and more money from these on-demand jobs every year.


So, if you're a platform-based on-demand company, offering a quick service or good to someone with the press of a button, how are you to best screen candidates for these gig jobs? The first thing to remember is that extreme scrutiny is very important. These people are potentially being sent into homes, driving cars, and babysitting kids. Attention to detail is important; just because your HR department may be vast, distant, and never meet these employees, doesn't mean they shouldn't screen their social media carefully; do they exhibit behavioral red flags, like violence, drug abuse, or hate filled beliefs through their social content? You can find this out easily and mitigate a lot of risk. Furthermore, these are people representing your company and brand in the field; for better or worse, they are your ambassadors. If they have public social media content that illustrates poor judgement, or values that do not align with your company or culture, that can be extremely problematic and telling of greater issues down the road.


Another thing to remember is that because of these people's age, you can assume they are active in at least some form of social media and as a result there will probably be a lot of noise to sift through; they'll simply have more content across the platforms than any other group. Folks under 30 are probably going to have some alcohol or perhaps even drug-related content. It's up to you to determine if the quantity and nature of these posts is a disqualifying factor. Furthermore, what you might deem as "bad language" may have a different context for people in their teens or early twenties, and may not be indicative of a true red flag. This is not to say you should be overly forgiving of younger candidates; if you come across anything related to bigotry or violence, that's a total no-go.


Another element to consider is: what specific traits are not permissible for the particular gig job someone is applying for? If they're a babysitter applicant, you'll want to be overly thorough in your examination of their social media; if they're a driver, you may not necessarily care about their bad language or controversial political opinions (as long as they are not inflammatory or out of control). As long as you are applying consistent values with your analysis of candidates, you should be just fine.


Intelligent and sensible scrutiny is key to finding the best people for on-demand jobs. The task of analysis may seem less important because you aren't seeing these people in an office every day (perhaps you'll never meet them at all), but considering they are the ones directly interacting with your customers, it is necessary to do a thorough social screening. 

How To Screen: Executives

This is the third in a four-part series of articles—"How To Screen"—that explores the challenges that HR faces when screening different levels of employees and helps informs employers what they should be looking for. 


Each age group and level of work experience requires a specialized level of scrutiny that is beneficial for both employers and their prospective candidates. People use social media differently depending on their age and the nuances of that use can be hugely important in the hiring process. This week we are taking a look at what to expect when you are screening candidates for senior level positions; this is typically for people ages 50 to 65. According to a Pew research poll, 64 percent of these folks use social media. There's certainly a stereotype that because people are above 50, they either don't use social media or aren't well versed in it. Don't make that mistake; screening these people can be just as relevant, as we found these people are just as technologically versed as their middle aged counterparts. There are a couple of points to remember: the first is that red flags on social media for these people are low probability. It's likely that they are old enough to have good judgment and a lifestyle (especially if they are applying for a senior position) lacking an online life full of alcohol, inappropriate posts, or inflammatory thoughts. But that actually makes it trickier and brings us to our second point: this group is extremely high risk. Their flags carry more weight due to their age andm\ a large aquantity of posts alarming, and points to a lack of judgment and a projection of a poor performance as a senior leader in your office.


Let's first look at the probability. You should screen these people like you would your younger, mid-level candidates. If they have photos of alcohol or drugs, or a bunch of bad language or inflammatory political posts, it probably tells you more about their personality than it might for a millennial. Somebody having a glass of wine in a profile picture is probably nothing, but if they have a bunch of instagram posts where they are taking shots at a club, at age 58, you might want to ask a few questions. According to Pew Research, people over 50 use Facebook (61 percent of them in America) over 3 times more than they do any other site or app. Thus, that is where you'll find the majority of information. However, simply because of their age, it's unlikely you will find more red flags than you might for younger people, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth it to try.


Social media imprints seem to get smaller as we look across the age spectrum, but that means they carry more weight. We expect a lot of senior level workers, as leaders and mature, thoughtful people who contribute to our companies both in and out of the office. So that would make a red flag like cyberbullying or discrimination more alarming, and a potential liability down the road. You might be able to forgive this behavior case-by-case in younger candidates, but if you see someone in their sixties who is posting some horrible thing on Facebook, that's nothing short of a threat to avoid.


The dynamic of screening senior level people comes down to the low probability/ high risk quandary. It may seem like screening is less necessary, but the weightiness and potential ramifications for your company, on a cultural and legal level, are too much to avoid. Careful, nuanced scrutiny where you're thinking about someone's age and experience is the most efficient way to manage your screening and hiring processes.

How To Screen: Mid-Level Employees

This is the second in a four-part series of articles—"How To Screen"—that explores the challenges that HR faces when screening different levels of employees and helps informs employers what they should be looking for. 


This week's blog is the second entry in our series about what to expect when you're thinking about conducting social media screens. We have found that it is important to delineate the differences between how to screen people based on their age, levels of work experience, and social media use; some of those differences are not immediately evident and available, but it's important to dig deep so you get the most valuable and useful information about your candidates.


Today's article concerns screening mid-level employees; this mainly covers people ages 30-49, although there is some fluctuation in that range. When it comes to social, this is a relatively difficult group to understand, and from a hiring standpoint, we expect a great deal more of responsibility and maturity from older people, so the expectations in screening their public online profiles and content may be different.


Why are they so difficult to understand? Well, mid-level employees are typically at the beginning of middle age, which means they're young enough to use and understand almost all social media, but old enough to feasibly understand its consequences in a hiring process. When someone who is 22 has a bunch of pictures of them drinking, we may not pay that too much mind as they are just out of college; but when someone who is 41 has a dozen photos of themselves getting drunk or around drug paraphernalia, that's more of a red flag. Also, most of your data on midlevel people will be on facebook; according to Pew Research polls, 79% of them use Facebook, and only about a third are on Instagram, while a fifth of them are on Twitter.  You can observe patterns of quantity or frequency of suggestive or inappropriate facebook photos, for example, to see if a candidate might be a binge drinker. Furthermore, if they have a few inflammatory tweets, it might be less forgivable than someone who is only a few years removed from being a teenager, and may in fact be more illustrative of who they are as a developed person. 


The other reason this is a difficult age group to analyze is that we have different expectations of them than other people, some that are perhaps difficult to qualify. We expect our midlevel employees to assume a greater degree of leadership and responsibility in the office, both vocally and by example. If you see that someone's Facebook profile is full of curse words or sexual innuendo, you might be worried that they would set a poor example in the office, or that their presence might be toxic for your culture. Again, we see that our analysis might be less forgiving for midlevel employees. 


In essence, midlevel employees who are in their thirties and forties will probably have a much smaller social media footprint than their younger entry-level millennial counterparts. Yet, because we imbue these candidates with higher expectations for leadership and maturity, we should analyze their social media background checks with a greater degree of scrutiny and caution.

How To Screen: Entry Level/Millennial Employees

This is the first in a four-part series of articles—"How To Screen"—that explores the challenges that HR faces when screening different levels of employees and helps informs employers what they should be looking for. 


Today marks the first entry in our July blog series about what to expect when you're thinking about conducting social media screens. Every level of employee, from entry-level college kids to experienced executives, are candidates for screening, but the calculus for how to screen them and what to expect varies by their age and work experience. 


Our first blog concerns screening the millennial, entry-level demographic. It can be incredibly difficult to even imagine how large the social media footprint is for most of these young folks, especially considering that, according to a Pew Research Poll, nearly 90% of people 18-29 are active in some form of social media, and have been since elementary school. There are a few cardinal rules to remember with this group. The first is that you should expect a lot of noise; you might find a kid with twenty thousand tweets and content filled with alcohol and bad language. These people are usually right out of college, and this behavior is more normalized and permissible in their generation. Sensible scrutiny is a virtue in conducting these screens. The second rule, which applies to all levels of candidates, is that content pertaining to bigotry, violence, or crime carries the most weight. This sounds like a no-brainer, but it bears reiterating.


In terms of overall usage for teens and young adults aged 12-24, Instagram is the most used, followed by Twitter and Facebook. It's important to cull all these sources and more, including Snapchat and Tumblr, to find red flags and a holistic picture of the millennials you are screening. Not every piece of "negative" evidence is a determinant factor in who the person is and how they will behave as an employee. You want to be able to figure out what is relevant for the people you are screening, as it pertains to the job they're applying for. If you found that someone tweeted about drugs two times five years ago, does that really say much about them as an employee?


These entry level people are much more likely to have a massive social media presence than any other group, given their age. This might seem like a positive but because of all the noise, it actually makes the search much more difficult. That's why it's important to have a measured analysis of whatever results come up. Figure out where you draw the line, and what matters to you as a business. Consistent values go a long way in navigating the milieu of millennial social media content. 


In conducting background checks of young people, we tend to find the most troubling content, but that is usually a quantity problem; they've simply posted more than any other age group, having been active on social media since childhood. Along with that, youthful judgment may yield more problematic posts or pictures. Entry level employees will hopefully be with your company for a long time, so you want to screen and hire intelligently; just remember that also means taking their footprint with a grain of salt.