Reading Brian Solis’ “The Socialization of Your Personal Brand,” this jumped out at me:
It’s been said that Google is the new resume. Truth be told, any search engine, whether social or traditional, is the resume – it’s the Wikipedia entry for the rest of us. It’s no longer what we decide to curate onto a piece of paper or onto one traditional one-page digital resume. It really is moot in a world when anyone can practically piece together your story without the help of a document designed to shape and steer our perception.
“Seventy-seven percent of recruiters report using search engines to find background data on candidates. Of that number, 35 percent eliminated a candidate because of what they found online.”
– Kevin Donline, Star Tribune Minneapolis, St. Paul, Minnesota
Not because it made me think about myself, but because it reminded me of an ethical question that’s taken me a long time to answer.
A few weeks ago, as my collaborator and I discussed potential article ideas, he brought up a friend of his. “Great investigator,” he told me. “Very knowledgeable.” And then he had to get off the phone, leaving me alone with my questions–and Google.
What I found frankly shocked me. My collaborator has an excellent reputation as an investigator and trainer. His friend, however, had been brought up on an infraction: supplying alcohol to a minor. He’d pleaded no contest, paid a fine, and resigned from his position at the police department he worked for. The defense attorney representing a pair of individuals took that infraction a step further, however, insinuating that an inappropriate relationship existed between this detective and the minor, a police Explorer in the same department.
I fired off an email to my collaborator: “Tell me there’s another side to this story.” There was. The detective and the Explorer had participated in a sting which resulted in the arrest of a liquor store proprietor. When it was over, the detective bought her something to drink. She picked an energy drink–one that contained alcohol. This was before the demand to repackage alcoholic energy drinks, so neither of them noticed the problem. “I would’ve done the same thing,” my collaborator said.
In the ensuing investigation, “energy drink” became “beer,” and the friend’s union rep gave him what my collaborator called bad advice: to resign before he was fired (a probably unlikely scenario). The friend went to another agency, had no problem getting hired. And the lawyer’s claim? Well, apparently, that was just a defense attorney doing what a defense attorney does best: using any trick available to introduce reasonable doubt.
The problem, of course, is that this presented one hell of a trick. Because it didn’t just affect that case. It also affects my ability to use this investigator as a source. Not only do I have only two sides to a story; anyone else Googling this man’s name (say, to get his contact information) will find what I found.
This makes me contemplate how even the most innocent of interactions can be blown out of proportion. And how the most devious of intentions can seem so innocent. (Think pedophile asking a child to help him look for a lost puppy.) Ultimately, I don’t think I can use this guy as a source. I hate to say that, because I do trust my collaborator’s judgment. Yet even he, not privy to the full investigation, doesn’t have the whole story.
He understands my dilemma, tells me it’s okay. (This is not the first time we’ve dealt with ethics; the reason we call ourselves “collaborators” is to continue our close working relationship more easily than “a source who became a friend” would explain.) Still, though I’m doing my best to be responsible to my publishers’ reputations as well as my own, it doesn’t feel too good to think I might be perpetuating a stain on an otherwise good cop’s reputation.
Had this happened to my collaborator, incidentally, the reader Googling his name would find very different results: news stories about the infraction, and the sheer amount of training he’s done, not just for other cops, but also for community groups and business leaders. It would, in other words, give the reader a hard reason to stop and think about the cop he’d otherwise be so quick to judge.
Solis is right when he says, “Indeed, there are many stories that fuel the urgency for everyone to take control of their online persona.” As I start my own personal branding efforts via various social media, I wonder to what kind of writer, mother, human being people see. And the extent to which what I do online makes as much difference as what I do off. How the two complement each other, and how they contradict. I’d like to think that the online isn’t very much different from the off.
And you? How do you come across to the people you love and the people you serve? How much does it matter to you?