On Careers

In Defense of Bozeman

By G.L. Hoffman

Posted: June 23, 2009

There was big news this week out of the city of Bozeman, Mont. Seems that job applicants were asked to supply Bozeman officials with the usernames for their social media accounts, as well as the passwords, as part of the background check process.

Commentators piled on Bozeman city officials, ultimately leading to Friday's announcement that they were no longer asking for such information. It was a win for HR and the privacy-concerned everywhere.

But since most of us just got the rabid version--“Can you believe what Bozeman just did?!”--I thought I would come to their defense.

First, Bozeman is an awesome place. It is beautiful--blue sky, great views, even greater people.

We all know that governments and companies are doing background checks--and with good reason. Suppose a city employee working at the public pool is found out later to be a child predator/molester. Think local parents would buy into a more complete background check? Still, privacy issues are of concern to me, too.

But, I read the city memo that explains the origin of this hiring practice. (The memo is posted on the city's Web site.) Reading it made me feel better about Bozeman. The city manager writes: "This was an honest mistake. Human Resources, our Police and Fire Departments were doing something they believed was consistent with our core values."

I think well-meaning people make simple mistakes. I imagine that some HR person in charge of doing background checks was checking out sites such as MySpace and Facebook and thought, “Sure would be easier if I had the username and password.” So, at the next interview, they asked the applicant for it. And the applicant, needing the job badly, gave it to them, which made the background check process simpler and faster.

This is not exactly the same thing, but one of our managers asks potential sales reps, “What do you really want to do? It’s not sales, is it?” You would be surprised at how many people say, “No, I really want to be in marketing, not sales.” For us, this is an immediate disqualifier, as we want people who really want to be in sales.

Every employer looks for simple and effective ways to screen applicants. Sometimes, though, even good employers can take it a little too far.

G.L. Hoffman is a serial entrepreneur and venture investor/operator/incubator/mentor. Two of his companies have traveled the entire success path from the garage to IPO. Currently, he is chairman of JobDig, and his blog can be found at WhatWouldDadSay.com or at JobDig.com.

 

Too Much

I agree with your defense of Bozeman in part. Yes, I'm sure it was a well-intentioned mistake. It would make the process much easier. However, it's still something that I would never agree to and would never want to see the light of day.

Why? Because it's privacy invasion of the most intimate kind. Oddly, despite this being the "World Wide" Web, we still have very sensitive information on it, including financial records and love letters.

Not to mention it directly violates many sites' Terms of Service, including that of Facebook, which, according to Newsy.com, last week reported it would be in touch with the city about the violation.

Daniel of MO @ Jun 24, 2009 15:16:35 PM

No excuse for the request of passwords

I just don't get why a well meaning person would ask for a password. If you've ever been given a password or PIN for anything you know that you're not supposed to give it out.

I could get why they'd ask for a user name: they want to be able to look you up online by your alias(es). Whether or not they should ask for it at least I can understand why they'd ask. (If you're not also making what you post under an alias private then you have to assume they might run up on it anyway.)

But you're never supposed to give out passwords, period. End of story. Even someone who's not Internet or computer savvy should know this. Protecting your password is basic stuff.

If I were asked to provide my user name and password for anything in relation to a job search I'd assume it was some sort of scam.

RP of GA @ Jun 24, 2009 15:02:33 PM

Too far?

Count me among those who viewed Bozeman's background check efforts as going too far. I understand the city's desire to provide the most protection possible, but background checks are too often perceived as the be-all and end-all of the protective bubble with which we want to surround our children and other vulnerable populations and assets. You can't let your guard down just because someone passed a background check. Someone's illegal activities may have yet to be uncovered. The background check may be state-only, missing convictions in other states. It may have been conducted using a private database with limited scope. The background check may be name-only and the subject used an alias. We must do the best we can while recognizing that there is only so much we can do. In the end, we must still be vigilant in protecting our children, etc., and let common sense guide how much trust we are willing to grant those entrusted with their care. Ultimately, trampling on society's privacy and confidentiality expectations to check someone's background won't provide more protection than a watchful eye and a parent's "sixth sense."

southcityej of CA @ Jun 24, 2009 12:17:23 PM

Add Your Thoughts
About You

advertisement

On Careers

On Careers

Find savvy job advice from the brains behind top careers blogs, including Jobacle, Ask a Manager, What Would Dad Say, Newly Corporate, Cheezhead, Evil HR Lady, The M.A.P. Maker and Execupundit.

advertisement

advertisement

Subscribe

U.S. News Digital Weekly

A weekly insider's guide to politics and policy — in a multimedia, digital format. 52 issues for $19.95!

U.S. News & World Report

6 months of U.S. News & World Report's print edition for only $15. Save up to 67% off the cover price!