Why are employers asking for workers' Facebook passwords?

Why are employers asking for workers' Facebook passwords? Why does anyone care? If people spent as much time on marriage as they do when going through the process of hiring an employee, the divorce rate in the United States would be zero.

First off, I have no sympathy for people who post revealing pictures online, join controversial causes, or write controversial material and sign their name to it, and then get upset when it's used against them in some way. I don't think there's anything wrong with doing it - but why not just mark the pictures as private or friends-only on sites like Facebook, or use an anonymous name when writing a controversial blog? That is, if you're looking for a real job.  If you want to become a well-known pundit like Bill O'Reilly, then by all means publicize your views.  Or if you want attention like entertainers get, then make those pictures available for the world to see.  Just don't expect to get a regular job if you do.

That being said, I have no idea what looking at pictures on someone's Facebook page can tell you about how a potential employee will perform in a job. Will the people who do please come forward and explain this concept to me?  I'm willing to change my opinion, if you tell me what your reasons are, and they make sense.

Am I supposed to believe that the people making hiring decisions are perfect? They've never made mistakes, gotten drunk, or done something stupid or silly? Come on. It makes no difference if you don't have a picture of it - you still did it, so how can you judge someone else? Why not find out what someone can actually do on a job, instead of just guessing as to how they would perform based on their Facebook page?  What if you think their Facebook page is too boring? Does that knock them out as a candidate as well?

Funny how people get all flustered when it comes to hiring a new employee....but then, lots of people just jump into marriage or a relationship. If people spent as much time on relationships or potential relationships as they did when hiring a worker, the divorce rate in this country would be zero.

Why do bosses ask their workers to do this?

I’ve never understood why organizations ask their workers to do silly stuff that really has nothing to do with the kind of job a person can do, or has any relevance to the organization’s success.

 

Like expecting employees to attend various social events.  Why is this kind of thing so important?  Do you really need to feel liked by everyone in your organization?  Do you really think that camaraderie among people can be created? Not likely. If it’s going to happen it’s going to happen naturally. You can’t force it to happen. A better idea would be to have several events that might appeal to large group of people within your organization. Going to a basketball game, volunteering at some kind of activity, or having a day at an amusement park for people with kids are better than expecting people to hang out at the bar after work, or expecting people to donate money so you can “celebrate” every single person’s birthday at the office.

Along those lines, what’s the point of “team-building” exercises? You don’t need to know about an employee’s private life. You do need to know how to help an employee improve their performance on the job.  When hiring a new worker, you need to know if they can do the job in an efficient manner. Asking them what kind of an animal they would like to be isn’t going to help you to determine that.

A person’s private life is considered private because they don’t want the whole world to know about it. Getting to know someone too well can make me want to work with them less, not more. Team-building activities can make people too uncomfortable to work together, not work well as a “team.”  Discuss performance and results, not inner demons.

Another question is, why ask certain people to do someone else’s job?  John has a project to do but hasn’t finished it, so you ask Tom to do it since you know it will get done on time. That’s wrong. If you’re going to do that you better pay Tom a bonus.  Come one, deal with John and let Tom do his own work.

Maybe a lot of these concepts came to be because certain people in organizations didn’t have enough to do, and they felt like they needed to justify their salary. ….

Long-winded bosses, asking employees to evaluate themselves and their peers, and other American job nonsense

Ever have a boss who asks you to keep them on track, then when they start droning on about nothing at a meeting and then when you signal them to stop, they ignore you? I would think I’m not the only one.  I guess whatever the boss was saying (I don’t remember anything of what they were talking about) was just too critical for them to say, that they couldn’t stop talking. Some people just need to make themselves feel important, I suppose.

Can anyone tell me what the point is of having workers evaluate themselves? How silly. Someone who is doing an excellent job is going to wonder why you, as a boss, don’t already know that. Someone who is doing a lousy job isn’t going to give themselves a poor rating, obviously (or not obviously to people who think these things up). Instead of self-evaluations why not ask workers what the organization can do to help them improve their skills – which would benefit the organization as well as the employee.

Maybe worse are “peer” evaluations. It doesn’t matter if the evaluations are confidential or not, who wants to work with someone who is critical of them? That’s hardly the best way to develop a “team first” attitude among your workers.

Does anyone have any proof that the above concepts actually do produce positive results in an organization, and I’m wrong? Let’s see it…