I don’t know if anyone has caught the news, but Angie the Anti-Theist used her blog and twitter profile to share the circumstances of her pregnancy and her decision to abort. She live-tweeted her experiences with RU486 and the whole world exploded into a banal debate about abortion, murder, and Jesus.
I talked to a few friends in HR/Social Media about this situation, and I wanted to share some of the comments from the conversation.
- That poor woman just ruined her brand. [Not knowing anything about her brand.]
- Wow, she is using social media poorly. [Really? She's using social media to communicate an authentic experience.]
- She will never be able to get a job, again. [Bollocks. Also, who says she's looking for a job?]
- She just fucked. it. up. for every job seeker in America named Angie Jackson. [Only at stupid companies.]
This comes as no surprise to long-term PRHR readers, but I think it’s reckless for employers to use social media tools to screen potential employees. The internet is rife with misinformation, and you never know if the data on your computer screen is fact or fiction.
Furthermore, candidates can either do the job or they can’t do the job. I’m sick of employers taking on a paternalistic tone when it comes to social media and the implications for employment.
What bothers me most is that one-third of American women have had an abortion, which is a legal procedure. The idea that unplanned pregnancies happen to teenagers and poor women in liberal, east coast cities in wrong. I know this from being a woman AND working in HR: corporate leaders, executives, brand managers, and PR professionals who earn six-figure salaries get pregnant by men. They all have their reasons for not carrying the baby to term. To hear social media dilettantes and HR professionals say that live-tweeting an abortion is tantamount to career suicide is naive and offensive. It shows a complete misunderstanding of the freedom and power of social media.
*
This is what I coached when I was in HR.
- Once you demystify something, you can have an honest conversation about it.
I think this lesson can apply to employee benefits, executive compensation, and abortion.
*
Oh, and for the record, I would hire Angie Jackson in a heartbeat. The woman has a way of creating community and having a conversation with her audience. You should be so lucky to have those skills in your organization.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 35 comments… read them below or add one }
Maybe Angie Jackson can post about Religion, Politics, and Sports Opinions, too, while she is at it…those will get her tons of replies on both sides of the fence, as would abortion. On second thought, maybe she should spare herself the grief.
Anyway, it is her body and her choice to make. No one should take that away from her. She will have the rest of her lifetime to always reflect back on that decision and mull whether it was the right/wrong/stupid/best decision she made at the time. Sometimes peoples’ opinions change over time and she may look back and think differently.
I never had much of an opinion on the topic other than – its a woman’s (or couple’s) personal choice until I had a daughter 16 months ago. She is the best thing that has ever happened in my life and I watched her grow every week in the womb thru ultrasounds and all the heartbeat monitors, etc, etc. I saw her moving and I saw her heartbeat at an ultrasound at 7 weeks after conception. From that point forward I always considered her an actual real person – not a weird faceless zygote or an alien-looking embryo or whatever. I wouldn’t be able to make that decision to abort….
…BUT its still a woman’s choice.
I wish that you were the norm rather than the maverick. Every HR person I have worked with would completely freak.
I think so much of this ‘outrage’ comes from the misguided conclusion that many people reach that equates ‘That is not what I would do’ with ‘What you are doing is wrong/evil/abhorrent, etc.’. Lay off the judgment for five minutes and live your own life.
Large companies are conflict and controversy-avoidant. She probably did close the doors to a pretty big segment of employers. She probably also became taboo to any Evangelically-owned private companies (Chick Fi La, for instance, is very vocally Christian-conservative). But isn’t that true of any active blogger who states an opinion on something about which people feel strongly? On the flip side of that she probaly opened some doors to more progressive-leaning organizations. And I’m thinking someone who is “with it” enough to twitter about such a personal experience is not all that into selling chicken sandwiches or rocking the grey pantsuit at a Fortune 500.
Bravo, Laurie. The comments you reported are just what I would expect from the HR community. They sort of suck, but they are workplace- and career-focused. HR sort of sucks, but is workplace- and career-focused.
A very good friend writes Women’s Health News (http://womenshealthnews.wordpress.com), and mentioned this very story. I will also be sharing your perspective with her.
Thank you for your common sense.
I’m sure she did close doors on her brand and future job prospects. She may have opened others, but in this country she probably closed more than she opened. I do think that is the reality and it is a dangerous reality for companies. It is utterly stupid to make hiring/firing decisions based on “facts” discovered through social media. It is however so easy for recruiters/managers to Google stalk employees/candidates, that I think the temptation is too great for many. If you can’t defend a hire/fire with a legitimate business decision, be prepared to defend yourself/company against an allegation that the decision was based on a protected reason. It is way to easy to learn things you don’t want to know and/or have part of you business processes. And that doesn’t even touch on Laurie’s point regarding the validity of the information you find.
For full disclosure, I am pro-life, but I understand there are a few circumstances that abortion is the only decision.
That being said, I don’t mind if a person mention they had an abortion, I just don’t want to know the process of it. Same goes to people who are giving birth (Looking at you Evan Williams and his wife). I found that narcissist and egomaniacal. It’s like showing your pro-life and pro-choice on your license plate because somehow you’re proud of it but instead, you want a soapbox of how great you are.
However, as a hiring manager, this would have no bearing into the decision. Whatever she does is her own business. If she has the skills and brings the right chemistry in the organization, she’s hired. The only downside is it only takes one person to ruin it, so it could be her or someone else that makes the organization uncomfortable because of this incident. This is where HR makes their money by controlling the situation and either they adapt or keep it a hostile environment.
I don’t know enough to have an opinion on whether this will permanently damage her brand–any vocally Christian conservative company probably wouldn’t hire a blogger named “Angie the Anti-Theist” anyway–but I am glad she spoke out.
(OK, here I go entering the banal debate on abortion. Sorry… I can’t seem to help it.) In my opinion abortion is another topic on which the far right has been able to alter the public discourse to where, hearing comments like those you cite, you would think it wasn’t a completely legal health care procedure that women (for now) have, at least in theory, a right to in this country. (In many areas, and for poorer women, Roe v. Wade amounts to very little because there is no access to abortion providers.) It’s one of those things where you get painted into a corner, giving a little ground here and apologizing for something else there, until you have basically conceded your own position. There is this overall view of abortion (or even emergency contraception!) as a terrible, dirty, incredibly uncommon necessity that is only undertaken by desperate women who then regret it forever, when really, as Laurie pointed out, it is a choice many women make at one point or another in their lives, and their reaction to/fallout from it varies widely depending on the person.
That was one of the things about the health care bill debate that drove me up the wall–the idea that it would be totally normal to codify in the bill that federal funding would not be used for abortion procedures. Whether you agree with it or not (and I personally have a very old-school outlook on the whole thing, that what is inside my body should never take legal precedence over me as an actual autonomous person, nor should people other than me get to decide what I must do with my own body… so to me that is beside the point… but obviously I understand and respect that a lot of people have a very different view of the situation) this is currently a LEGAL PROCEDURE upheld by the Supreme Court. The fact that you cannot get an abortion in government health-care facilities or under the nonexistent “public option” in the bill is not consistent with that fact as far as I’m concerned.
Anyway, I realize “outing” yourself as having made such a personal choice–and this instance was a bit more immediate and therefore probably uncomfortable for people to hear about than many–but I am of the general view that it is healthiest to be yourself to some degree in the workplace (i.e. not stirring up shit just to do it, being disruptive, or being stupid enough to tell your coworkers about your pot habit, but rather not taking great pains to erase your personality or hide who you are because that can lead to a lot of unnecessary stress) so I am glad Angie feels OK with being honest about this experience. It destigmatizes it some for everyone else, even though that is not really her job and it was really just her writing about a personal choice.
She violated the pregnancy mystique. Openly admitting to anything besides a drug free vaginal birth is sin against the mystique.
If she had twittered that she was having a scheduled c-section or she had scheduled an epidural; she would still have received hate mail.
My head and heart always disagree on this issue. My heart cherishes all life, yet my head knows there are circumstances that to many seem undaunting. To document and share such an experience takes a great deal of courage and self-confidence something no one can take from her. I agree with Laurie about the demystification of things to have real conversations. My Dad always said “someone who really knows what they are talking about, can explain it to a kindergarten in terms they can understand”. I find this works in almost every field and function. Something to point out about her brand is it’s being picked up all over the world giving her a brand a bigger voice she can use to grow a business from. With a big voice she won’t have to worry what the corporate recruiters think of her experiences because they will be irrelevant!
My first impression of this woman was she is doing this out of an egomaniacal, self-serving nature— creepy in a OctoMom sort of way. Is she looking for cash prizes at the end??? Interviews with Diane Sawyer?? An abortion reality show, maybe???
On the flip side— she’s making a constitutional statement about how abortion and a woman’s right to choose— and it being a part of our reality– no matter how in “Creationist Tea-Bagging Evangelical” denial you’re in. Get used to it— I think everyone’s known someone who’s HAD to have an abortion. And if you don’t??— you must be stuck in some abstinence “It can’t be happening!!” cave somewhere.
About her destoying her brand??? Not at all!!! She just galvanized the brand she was already— and narrowed down the potential companies for any future job opportunities– thus saving her time and being hired by a narrowminded, stick-in-the-mud company where she would be miserable anyway! Good for her!!
I’m with Steve, quit judging.
Laurie, you just gave parents everywhere great advice. Demystify the issues and have the open & honest conversations. Holy Crap, if my parents/teachers/nuns & priests had done that, I wouldn’t have spent time and $$ in therapy.
She’s selling a book and is branding her extreme views, nothing shocking about that. She states on her blog that she tweets anything and everything, something a company might have concerns over.
She really doesn’t leave any doubt about her views, where she is coming from and what she is advocating for. She could be a breath of fresh air in some companies and completely toxic in others. Not taking what she has published into consideration would be irresponsible… it’s not like it is hidden, or rumor… she wrote it and confirmed it. Why should that be off-limits?
It’s easy for anyone discussing this to make this a conversation about pro-choice vs pro-life, and the choices one makes in their own personal lives.
I don’t want to diminish the importance of that discussion but the bigger picture here is how much all of us are willing to share about our private lives. Anyone who’s a blogger has to think long and hard about where that line in the sand is.
Sometimes there’s a fine line between shedding light on your personal experiences….and getting into the narcisstic look-at-me, Jon-and-Kate territory.
I have to connect the dots here and remember the incident where Penelope Trunk tweeted about her miscarriage, and how many people felt about that.
Reproductive health is a part of every woman’s life, and it doesn’t happen in a vacuum (a fact lost on some of the men in any given corporate culture). Granted, Penelope isn’t one to mince words. She knew she was But she did demystify something that happens probably every day to a woman in the workforce in this country.
I’m sure Angie’s disclosures did close some doors – it would be naive to think otherwise. Ultimately the best course for her is to OWN her personal brand and the information she’s shared about herself. Same for all of us. We all have something that, all other things being equal, someone will perceive as a negative or that will close a door or a window. The question is, as it always is: where can you build your network and open windows and doors?
PS – Love the use of the word “bollocks”, Laurie. A little residual Britspeak? I’m just waiting for you to say “pants!”
In more conservative professions, probably a no-go. In others, probably not a factor. Depends on the culture as to how much a company can handle. Should it be a factor? Probably not, though in reality it is. Someone who can have a public conversation on a tough topic can bring that ability to their work – which is a positive. Passing over people who speak out on any topic can mean missing out on a great employee.
I don’t think it was classy
Feel as if something like that should be more personal and kept quiet
Yet, if she has great skills and potential, why not hire her.
Personal percepctions are very different than actual performance!
Oops…sentence cut off in my prior post: “She knew she was going to get an intense response.”
Regarding using social media to screen candidates. If you Google my name, April Dowling, without adding HR you get the April Dowling from Big Brother a few years ago; along with comments about her posing for Playboy. In the south, that’s a big deal; most of the conservities down here blow a gasket over (pun intended) ‘inappropriate behavior’. I dont have a problem with using social media to research candidates but it should not be the first, last, or final decision maker in your recruiting process. And for the sake of bacon, if you find something you are concerned about ask the candidate.
Regarding the live tweeting, more power to her. That’s a tramatic experience and I’m sure it helped her cope; if people dont want to read it about, dont’ read it. If she can come into my office, work hard to get her job done, improve my business and increase my revenue and make my customers happy, I’d hire her and defend her tweeting to anyone. Like @Marsha Keefer said above, I’m sure it depends on the culture and how much they can handle; I’m sure it’d be a no go in most Alabama based companies though.
And on a side note, I love @Steve Boese comment. If I could run across the hall and fist bump him for that, I would.
@Adowling I hate being the only LRuet on the block. That being said, someone could tag me with pictures that don’t belong to me. Ask. Ask. Ask. Verify. Don’t assume. Love your points.
@Bejamin McCall How does one have a classy abortion? “Stay classy, abortionist.” Do you mean that she should have stayed quiet? Not judging… just curious.
@Marsha I love this sentence. Passing over people who speak out on any topic can mean missing out on a great employee.
@Patrick Totally insightful but I hate the idea that grown women of legal age can’t talk about abortion unless we follow some imaginary rules that we didn’t create and we don’t control. That seems like bollocks (yes, britspeak) to me.
@Jim Because sometimes life is off-limits from employers. Or it should be.
@John Dude, I’m still spending that $$.
@Patty I agree with you about galvanizing her brand, but let me suggest this: what if an abortion is just an abortion and not a brand? What if I got pregnant and blogged about RU486? What would that do for my employment prospects? That scares me.
@SalesComp Or what about those mothers who choose not to breastfeed? They get hate mail, too. I hate people who talk about other women’s bodies.
@SCG Again, an amazing comment and I love this sentence. It destigmatizes it some for everyone else, even though that is not really her job and it was really just her writing about a personal choice. Hopefully someone will read Angie’s blog and realize that they’re not a total failure for having an unintentional pregnancy and this is still American and we still have some options. Sorta.
@Tracy Thank you for taking such a measured approach to this. Love you and your comment — although I dunno, childbirth is narcissistic but it’s a part of life. Like pooping. You don’t want me to blog about pooping??
@Corey I want to punch googlestalkers in the face.
@Jeff I’ll check out the link. Thanks!
@Scott It bothers me that some assume she can’t rock the gray paintsuit in the future because of her choices. What if her desires change and she wants to work in marketing at a fortune 300 company in the future?
@Steve xoxoxo
@Angela I am the norm. Most HR women have dealt with the freaked out employee who is pregnant — or we are the freaked out employee who is pregnant — or it’s our coworker — and we know how to reach planned parenthood. Trust me.
@Chris Yup, it’s a woman’s choice. Thanks for the comments.
I actually think the exact opposite: it is extremely reckless for companies to NOT screen candidates using social media.
First, this whole idea of branding yourself and having a web presence is specifically linked to the idea that employees are finding and screening candidates using social media. It isn’t going away. We don’t live in a world of “should” so let’s figure out ways to cope with that process.
Second, participants in social media seem to think that the only thing that can come from social media branding are happy flowers, rainbows and sunshine. That’s naive. Good things can come, bad things can come and (most likely) nothing can come of social media. People want to be discovered but only for the good they’ve done.
Third, I’ve got an obligation to find out about a person’s background to protect the company. We do interviews and reference checks for that purpose too and interviewees and references have given me some of the most reckless personal information that I never would have found online. Yes, occasionally you stumble over something not relevant to a company’s interests. You move on just like you do in an interview or reference check. If you’re making a decision based on a single forum posting or a dumb picture, that’s just ridiculous.
Lastly, the average personally generally controls what they have online. While employers face consequences for their actions in social media (often unintended), candidates do too (again, likely unintended). There is balance there that I don’t think is considered enough. If companies are expected to make decisions in a rational matter, candidates should be following that lead too. If someone posts about illegal (but unreported) activity online, that’s not rational.
In consideration of this particular case, would I hire Angie? Of course. Assuming she’s the best for the position of course. Talent is finite and you always go with the best unless you have a business risk reason not to do so. That being said, I don’t know how anybody could be terribly shocked that someone might have an issue with how she is handling it. In some corporate cultures, that just isn’t going to fly. Those companies have bigger issues than rejecting her based on this though.
@lance
1. Maybe we should live in a world of should. You shouldn’t kill. You shouldn’t punch strangers in the face for no reason. You shouldn’t use social media as the default way to screen candidates.
2. People may not want to be discovered at all, and I worry about the invasion of privacy. When is a job a job and when is your life your life?
3. Reference checks are (for the most part) reliable, valid, and accepted as part of the federally compliant way of hiring people. Googlestalking is not. Fix it up and I’ll be okay with it. Make it valid and reliable and we’ll talk.
4. I don’t control much of what’s online about me, anymore. So maybe I’m an exception to the rule, but I don’t want to be disqualified for employment based on what former acquaintances and other bloggers have to say about me. That’s not fair.
5. I’m not terribly shocked by the response, but I think we’re in a stage of infancy with social media, and it bothers me to hear that SHE’S RUINED HER PERSONAL BRAND based on this action. It’s a bit extreme for a sociological phenomenon we don’t quite understand.
Also, I adore you. Good comments.
I don’t know how many people are looking for cultural fit through social media and I think that’s what you’re talking about. I think that most responsible companies wouldn’t go for that outright. Here is what I looked for as an example:
1. Criminal activity – This one is straight forward. I see your ass tagging a fence on a MySpace picture and you’re out.
2. Resume consistencies – Education is one of the most lied about and hardest to verify but this can be good to find out missing jobs and those sorts of things.
3. Online bullying, hacking or destructive behaviors – And really, this is the most subjective portion of what I look for so I look for patterns (i.e. multiple, verifiable instances).
At least from the screening out part, that’s where I go. If a company I worked for lost a ton of money because of a bad hire and I could have found out job relevant information that could have prevented it, I would feel stupid.
Now I have found information online that has been extremely helpful. Like one fellow who had done translation work in the military but hadn’t included the language on the resume. Or another who worked for a competitor but under a different company name.
My main point is that much of the standard hiring process is fraught with information that could be used for the wrong things regardless of whether you Google a person or not. That’s why credit checks are getting so much public scrutiny. And I don’t think any of these tools are bad by themselves but they can be abused.
@lance I’m not sure that I’m talking about cultural fit. I’m talking about using social media as a CYA endeavor. What else is it used for? (…beyond your awesome examples.)
PS – I need to take the fence-tagging photos down from MySpace — STAT!
@SalesComp What about an episiotomy?
My issue is also with privacy rather than actual deed. Dude, she just broke the TMI scale; I have no interest in hearing about someone’s experience in this. Can’t understand why anyone would tweet about something so private, but reading the ‘about’ page on her blog shows that she’s coming from a very different place.
I can see some companies shying away b/c they think if she has no personal secrets, she cannot keep corporate secrets, LOL. But as others said, I doubt she’s looking out for that kinda gig.
And I vote for “personal brand” to be put in a bonfire & burnt to a crisp. That phrase is now begging for retirement.
A lot of this doesn’t compute with me, but I think that is because of potential cultural differences. The girl had an abortion, nothing new there. She wrote about it, nothing new there. The only difference is the immediacy of the process through social media. But then you can choose what you read, it is not a subject matter that I would want to go into, but I have control over the content I put in front of my eyes.
As for not employing her? So we don’t employ people that have had abortions? What next…? Personally I employ humans not myths.
@econopete: Probably not in the US, since they are primarily used in only emergency situation. Of course, if a woman blogged that she was choosing to have one; the hate would come rolling in.
@Lance: How do you know that you have the correct, MySpace page? Are you going to require them to supply a personal photo or their myspace id so you can properly match the results?
If you post it, be prepared to hear about it later whether you like it or not. That is my rule of thumb on posting info. Wedding pics, drunk pics, interview feedback, it’s all there so be prepared if you want to post it. That’s what I have to say about it! You NEVER know who is watching and everyone has their own comfort level with privacy in their life. I think once people realize that they have no privacy online, then they will realize, it’s not worth it.
@AMy What if you don’t post it? What if someone else posts it? Or it looks like something it isn’t? I hate the idea that we have no privacy online, btw. If I win the lottery, I’m using my winnings to fix that. And to go on vacation. Then to fix it.
@TheHRD If we don’t employ women who’ve had abortions, we don’t employ women. That’s about as basic as it gets.
@Geekette With social media, you can opt out of TMI. That’s the beauty of Twitter & whatnot.
I’ve gotten out of the habit of visiting PRHR, and I’ve obviously been poorer for my absence.
Your post highlights much of what I’m frustrated about in the workplace, if not daily, then maybe every other day. Given that our world (including HR) has changed dramatically, if not exponentially over the past five years (heck, the past five months!), I regularly experience professionals that are still trying to communicate via 1950s methods, with little real energy to stay current with social media, other than playing Farmville on Facebook (which isn’t engaging with social media, IMHO), or failing to engage via LinkedIn (such as checking their inbox).
It was refreshing to intersect with your post in light of what’s happening in my own life and according to my astrological orientation (Aquarius) for March.
Because of social media, and my awareness that others might be “watching” or reading what I post, I’ve struggled of late with my writing, being censorious about what to post (or not post), fearing the disapproval of others. Not a good place to be as a writer, at least in my opinion.
Obviously, you’ve validated much of what I’ve been working through for the past couple of months, but even better, I think you are spot on about an organization being richer for the skills that Angie Jackson (and others like her) possesses. Too few companies are embracing the kind of skill sets necessary for the 21st century, excluding people like Angie that understand the world that we now live in. Complaining about technology and the need to stay current doesn’t diminish one’s responsibility to keep up.
Personally, I think this stands in the way of their growth and success. I also recognize that many in positions of power don’t see Angie’s abilities as a plus, which reinforces my point.
It’s time for me to get my punk rock swerve back on.
I admire her honesty. I understand people want privacy, but isn’t wanting privacy the same as not wanting people to judge you on your personal choices? By tweeting about this, she was being honest about her choices, her life, and that’s a level of transparency that people aren’t comfortable with. For me, that honesty is something I want to strive for, even when my decisions don’t really have a big support within the mainstream or when my choices are just plain dumb. That is owning it, in a big, hard way. So the debate isn’t whether talking about having an abortion is in good taste, it is more about the level of naked life that people can handle. (IMO) And for those that can’t deal, stick your head in the sand and we’ll call you when its all clear.
As was far as an “online brand” is concerned… I think that is a lot of crap. So what if your ‘brand’ deems you an expert.. show me in the results otherwise I won’t believe it. Online brand might get you in the door, (or get the door slammed shut) but your results are what keep you in the building.
Laurie – I love your blog, I love the honesty from you and from Angie. I did not catch it but the funny thing is all I had to read was she tweeted about her abortion and I knew how people would respond. I try every day not to be judgmental of other people – I don’t always succeed – but imagine how nice people would be to each other if we all tried that. Life is so short – why be so bitter, hostile and judgmental? Thanks again – I truly enjoy your blog! @kacyoden
Ah…personal decision. Remember, there is no such thing as bad publicity. Someone will visit her blog after taking such a rusque’ promotion. I took a chance too. Recently, I blogged about my position on the Death Penalty. Really more about the fractured juducial system in the US. But, people are on death row because of this falible system. I referenced the recent argurment about a man serving an 8 year vehicular homicide conviction. As it turns out, he was driving a Camry which may have been involved in the recent Toyota recall and his situation could be directly related to the faulty parts.
In sum, she did what she thought was right. She is the one who will suffer the consequences or reap the rweards. But, it is her decision.
Wow… a long threaded discussion re: abortion… imagine that
Despite coming from an Irish, Catholic, staunchly “pro-life” (I use that term loosely) family – with many, many, dinner table discussions about the issue, I’m a pro-choicer (so please humor me as I play devil’s advocate):
I only have one question about Angie’s decision: How will something like this affect the argument that a decision for an abortion is a private one to be made with a woman and her doctor and her god?
It’s the basis for my argument with my anti-abortion friends.
No real agenda with the question – rather a curiosity as to what people think!