Balancing a job search with the social media dichotomy

The world of job hunting amounts to a sneaky balancing act. There exist a number of jobseekers who proudly announce, “I do not believe in social media,” as if it were integrated into one’s belief system. Social media is, of course, a reality, and not subject to debate like UFOs or Greek mythology.

Below superficial beliefs, there exists an ongoing dichotomy. Some people just do not want to be found. Job hunters, however, do not have the luxury of having it both ways. When you are job hunting, you want employers to find you: You just don’t want your employer finding out. That’s the dichotomy.

How does one put him/herself out there on the job market without attracting unwanted attention?

A plethora of social media is available just for the asking. Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn rank among the more popular. I often caution clients not to Tweet or respond to Tweets while in job-search mode. Your oh-so clever Tweets may not be viewed in the context you intended.

Facebook has its own set of drawbacks. It was intended as a social connection tool for close friends and relatives. Today, Facebook has mushroomed into a cacophony of friends of strangers and shirttail relatives for which you may be clueless as to who they are. Your reputation can be tarnished by their indiscreet actions (postings)—regarded as guilt through association.

If you have a Facebook account, and you are an active jobseeker, it is time to limit your exposure. From the top navigation bar where your name appears, toward the right of that line you will find the image of a padlock. Pressing the padlock opens the dropdown menu. The first option: Who can see my stuff? It is time for jobseekers to adjust that access, or suspend that account. At the minimum, remove questionable posts and photos, including references to your political and religious preferences.

LinkedIn is different. Every serious jobseeker needs to have a publicly visible account. The lack of an account raises more questions than having this footprint. The two biggest dangers are alerting your employer and having an account that materially conflicts with other information. If your LinkedIn page says one thing and your résumé or credit history states otherwise, that amounts to a serious red flag discrepancy.

Updating and perfecting your LinkedIn account while gainfully employed represents an ongoing hazard. Each time you adjust your information, LinkedIn assumes you want the world to know what you’re up to. To avoid tipping off your employer that you are actively on the job market, simply turn off the network notification feature.

This easy fix is often overlooked by novice LinkedIn users. To turn-off having LinkedIn announcing your every update, sign in to the account. To the right of Home on the navigation line is Profile. Use the dropdown feature and select Edit Profile. Toward the bottom right corner of the Edit page you will see, Notify your network. If Yes appears, switch it to No.

For jobseekers to assume they are not leaving a social footprint amounts to extreme naiveté. Fear over Big Brother prying into their lives pales in comparison to what Corporate America can accomplish. They have easy access to credit information, court documents and proceedings, voting info, medical records and driving history. If they need to know more, that too is available.

While we pretend to live in a participatory democracy, it is merely an illusion, masquerading as a false truth. (How is that for doublespeak?) Today, we live in a well-represented plutocracy. Like those who don’t believe in social media, it is reality whether we openly admit it or not. 

Copyrighted (c) 2015 by Robert James

The Newspeak Employment Era has arrived

In the past, dating back to as far as the Eisenhower Administration, the nation routinely goes through an employment boost at the onset of presidential election cycles. Those coming up for reelection in Congress open the federal purse strings, which in turn creates at least a temporary sense of employment euphoria. For elected federal officials, this is their insurance policy for staying office.

Since the inauguration of Barak Obama as President, that employment cycle is on the verge of breaking down, and not of his doing. During the 2010 election, and specifically the House, something bizarre happened. For better or for worse, the Tea Party faction hijacked the House of Representatives.

The recently elected Tea Party members of the House have learned to apply Orwellian newspeak. For those unfamiliar with term, newspeak refers to the deliberate use of ambiguous and contradictory language used to intentionally mislead and manipulate the masses. By the way, if you vote, you are one of the masses.

The one big drawback in our form of representative democracy is that everyone of legal age, regardless of his or her cognitive abilities or level of education, is allowed to vote. Hence, the ability to vote wisely, rationally or even in one’s best interest is not a qualifying factor or consideration.

Our flawed form of democracy allows us the right to elect individuals not fit to hold high public office. Warren G. Harding, Spiro T. Agnew and Dick Chaney come to mind, but a few others could probably be added. We are not alone in committing election folly during times of crisis. Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini all used various forms of newspeak propaganda to garner high office.

Newspeak works most effectively when you manufacture a crisis or instill a sense of panic among voters. In today’s political environment, jobs are at the forefront of most voters thoughts. Today’s manufactured crisis is the lack of employment, in large measure caused by the lack of government spending on proposed job-stimulating projects.

Such large-scale projects might include building state-of-the-art schools, scientific laboratories, major bridge repairs, a high-speed rail network, developing alternative energy resources and urban infrastructure redesign. Would such massive undertakings create more employment? Of course, they would. That, however, is not the question. The real question is why has it not occurred?

To answer that question, you have to know which political party controls the government’s purse strings. Ignorance, however, abounds. I have a second cousin named Charles living in Cincinnati who honestly thinks the black guy living in the White House controls the nation’s budget. My second cousin’s cockeyed thinking is highly prejudicial, based large measure upon his over-the-top racial beliefs. Charles is also a devout Tea Party supporter. –No surprise there.

The President does not control the nation’s budget, any more than the U.S. Supreme Court. The part of government that controls those employment dollars is of course the House of Representatives. So who controls the House?

If you do not know who controls the House of Representatives—and by inference, your employment future—you probably should abstain from voting. Undoubtedly, you most likely entertain the notion that less government spending will create jobs. That too, is illogical and mindless nonsense.

Except for those in control of the House, the vast majority of voters want higher employment. The downside, however, if that were to occur, it might make the President look good. In a blatant effort to prevent that from happening, both Mitch McConnell (minority speaker of the Senate), and John Boehner (speaker of the House), have publically vowed that their top priority is to see that Barak Obama is a one-term President.

This pledge to unseat the President has nothing to do with improving the nation’s employment dilemma. Nonetheless, it does not preclude them from assailing the President for the nation’s lack of employment growth. The oxymoron is that John Boehner’s House of Representatives control the purse strings that could create that employment! In short, the House is blaming the President for a problem it created. It is hard to imagine anything more ironic or illogical than that.

All employment is a political issue. Make no mistake about that. The decision to upgrade schools, improve the nation’s infrastructure or launch a high-speed railway network all generate ancillary employment, expand business opportunities and boost the general economy. This is often referenced by the phrase, a rising tide lifts all ships.

This election season, the anticipation of a rising tide does not appear to be in sight for an overriding cause—namely, the attempt to hijack the White House and embarrass the President. The steaks for undertaking this dubious mission, however, are high. In the event the Tea Party gamble backfires, it could cause John Boehner and his Tea Party cohorts to lose control over the nation’s budget.

Executive Job Seekers Beware

Occasionally, a job-seeking high roller will need résumé help. This week, two contacted me, both with executive-level positions in mind. While their occupations were different, each individual is employed with billion-dollar global corporations.

Job seekers at this level need to exercise a level of due diligence. Those employed at these upper levels cannot jump into shark-infested waters and start splashing about screaming for help. When they do, they will surely attract attention, but not necessarily the type they want or need.

For most job seekers—especially if unemployed, announcing to the world your availably is no big deal. You can list your most recent employer and flaunt yourself. If, however, you actively hold a sensitive position with a major corporation, that would not be prudent.

The employment waters at the deep end of the pool hold many dangers. One of those dangers involves the distribution of the résumé. Should that item fall into the wrong hands, and you shamelessly expose yourself in public, do not be too surprised to discover the next advertised job announcement you apply for might be your own.

Not all headhunters are ruthless, but a sufficient number are to warrant extra caution. Tell the wrong body snatcher you are available, and you have just informed that individual where his next meal ticket is located. Worse yet, the recruiter may be on a first-name basis with your Director or VP of HR!

There are two additional dangers that need to be addressed. One of them is your résumé. If you identify your employer by name in your résumé, you run the risk of shooting yourself. Knowing how to camouflage pieces of information discretely can pose a challenge. (Note: For those with mid-level and lower positions, this is a less important issue. You still need to take a few minimal precautions.)

The second item to adjust and modify are your social networking accounts such as Facebook and LinkedIn. As long as you are not actively seeking new employment, there is nothing to worry about. That all changes the instant you start transmitting résumés. You may want to suspend your Facebook account while actively seeking employment.

My clients are cautioned not to post anything on their social media accounts that conflicts with their résumé. Once your résumé is prepared—professionally or otherwise, immediately and discretely go back and adjust those accounts. You need to address who the employer is indirectly, as well as the specific city location. Usually, mentioning the region of the country will suffice.

Concealing the employer’s name and location is not a major turn-off as many may suspect. Most employers are perceptive enough to know that senior-level management needs to be both discrete and cautious. When you fail to take these cautionary measures, that too sends an unintended message.

If you would like additional job-related issues addressed, feel free to send them to rjames279@gmail.com.

Social Media Issues

Talk about an awkward moment: Being asked during a job interview to turnover your Facebook and Twitter usernames (and passwords) can pose quick-decision stress. If you have not given this forethought, you will be caught off guard or flat-footed.

The Internet community—especially job seekers, the ACLU and indigent legal purists—erupted with a hue-and-cry. Their loud clamor even woke up sleepy Congress. They collectively thought this to be an egregious privacy violation.

Egregious behavior and ethics notwithstanding, if you need a job to keep food on the table, most job seekers will reluctantly turnover the information requested. If you display a disgruntled look, or perhaps proffer a mild protest, and in some cases get up and walk out, the employer basically obtained what he or she wanted to know: How you react to real-time stress.

In a post-ethics society, ethics have become passé. Bottom line is that they are in war to stay in business, and ethics became a casualty of that war. It would be nice if that were not the case. Some employers will rationalize that if you have nothing to hide, what’s your problem? 

For Joe job-seeker, what is the solution? My recommendation for those actively seeking employment is to temporarily suspend your social media accounts such as Facebook and Twitter. That way, if you are asked in a job interview to furnish such information, you have the best response: “Gee, I don’t have one at the moment. Do I need to get one?”

Believe it or not, there is a large segment of the population that could no more suspend their social-media activities a few months than they could strangle themselves. If you are unable to suspend such activities for five or six months, then you have far more serious psychological and co-dependency issues to confront.

If you are seeking an important position, be assured a background investigation will be performed. If you have been putting trash on the Internet, you have left a footprint. The casual Internet user may not be technically savvy to find these things, but highly skilled background investigators can locate them. 

It only requires a few items gleaned from your past to reveal the real you. Aside from your Internet activities, your detailed credit reports, a quick search of public court records and previous employer comments will suffice.

Technically, previous employers are limited in what they can legally say—especially to a stranger over the phone. Over lunch or casual conversation, people tend to be blabber mouths. Usually, when a previous employer simply responds emphatically with, “No comment,” over the phone, the prospective employer is able to draw a snap conclusion. 

Closing suggestions are as follows:

1.      Suspend your social media activities while job hunting.

2.      Search your court records online for any red-flag issues.

3.      Request the detailed version of your credit report. (The credit score alone will not suffice. You are allowed one free copy a year, but you have to request it.)

4.      Obtain written references and performance or evaluation reports from past employers. (If they hesitate to do so, that is a potential red-flag issue.)

Top of Form