Cybervetting, Person–Environment Fit, and Personnel Selection: Employers' Surveillance and Sensemaking of Job Applicants' Online Information

Abstract

As the perceived credibility and availability of conventional sources of applicant information wanes, employers increasingly use online information to evaluate prospective employees' fit. This qualitative study explores how employers communicatively frame online screening—or cybervetting—to inform fit assessments during personnel selection. Findings suggest that employers legitimize cybervetting by framing the practice as risk work (i.e. due diligence and professional identity work), reputation management, efficient, fun, and transformative. Findings evidence shifting understandings of how fit assessments occur and what constitutes a “good fit” and an ideal worker as employers extend organizational surveillance beyond conventional work roles and contexts. Recommendations include assessing cybervetting's effectiveness at accomplishing risk, reputation, and efficiency goals; complicating singular notions of identity; considering bona fide information environments when developing employment legislation; and expanding training to improve employers' and workers' socio-technical and communicative competencies.

Keywords:

• Cybervetting
• Online screening
• Surveillance
• Personnel selection
• Person–environment fit
• Careers

Acknowledgement

This research was partially funded by a Bilsland Strategic Initiatives grant sponsored by Purdue University.

Notes

[1] Third-party contractors who screen social media accounts for employers must request permission and provide adverse action reports to targeted applicants. Their reports to employers must also exclude information protected under employment law (Federal Trade Commission, 2011). However, such contracted online screening does not reflect typical cybervetting practices—which often are covert and focus on acquiring different types of information that employers find desirable (Berkelaar, 2010).

[2] Including frequencies in qualitative research remains controversial. Because this sample is nonrandom, counts should not be generalized to broader populations.

[3] We are not legal scholars; therefore, we encourage employers to partner with legal counsel given emerging and conflicting legislation surrounding cybervetting.