Is cybervetting valuable?

Abstract

Cybervetting is the widespread practice of employers culling information from social media and/or other internet sources to screen and select job candidates. Research evaluating online screening is still in its infancy; that which exists often assumes that it offers value and utility to employers as long as they can avoid discrimination claims. Given the increasing prevalence of cybervetting, it is extremely important to probe its challenges and limitations. We seek to initiate a discussion about the negative consequences of online screening and how they can be overcome. We draw on previous literature and our own data to assess the implications of cybervetting for three key stakeholders: job candidates, hiring agents, and organizations. We also discuss future actions these stakeholders can take to manage and ameliorate harmful outcomes of cybervetting. We argue that it is the responsibility of the organizations engaged in cybervetting to identify specific goals, develop formal policies and practices, and continuously evaluate outcomes so that negative societal consequences are minimized. Should they fail to do so, professional and industry associations as well as government can and should hold them accountable.

Politics speak louder than skills: Political similarity effects in hireability judgments in multiparty contexts and the role of political interest.

“…Cybervetting is a growing but controversial practice (Landers & Schmidt, 2016;Mönke & Schäpers, 2022;Roth et al, 2016;Wilcox et al, 2022). Given that social media risk exposing recruiters to job-unrelated applicant information (e.g., political affiliation; Zhang et al, 2020), the PAM (Roth et al, 2017(Roth et al, , 2020 serves as an important conceptual capstone to better understand similarityattraction effects in cybervetting.…”

More on why Lakisha and Jamal didn’t get interviews: Extending previous findings through a reproducibility study

“…Extant research has shown that when application procedures are anonymous, discriminatory effects can be minimized (Åslund & Skans, 2012), likely because name-blind applications limit available stimuli that can activate biases. Anonymous applications also limit the evaluator's ability to engage in cybervetting, which can have additional discriminatory impacts (Wilcox et al, 2022). Name-blind application processes are, however, an imperfect solution (O’Connor, 2016) as application information other than names can signal demographic characteristics and bias the selection process (Foley & Williamson, 2018).…”

Organizational perspectives on digital labor market intermediaries

“…Among for‐profit employers, especially small ones, cybervetting is viewed as a virtual necessity for minimizing the risk of problem hires. However, the practice is often eschewed by large and/or public sector organizations, which likely face higher expectations for transparency and fairness in their hiring practices (Wilcox et al., 2022). dLMI use also shifts with organizations' specific hiring goals.…”