This content requires Adobe Flash Player version
or later.
Either you do not have Adobe Flash Player installed,
or your version is too old,
or there is a problem with your Flash installation and we were unable to detect it.
TABLE 2: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR FEMALE VERSUS MALE RESPONDENTS (N=210) Factors
Females n
RF RL PF PL
WBF WBL
145 145 145 145 145 145
Mean – 2 2.74 3.23 4.14 3.20 4.35 3.28
Std. Dev. - 2 0.88 0.94 0.89 1.20 0.87 1.35
Males n
65 65 65 65 65 65
Mean – 1 2.57 3.36 4.03 3.00 4.09 2.88
Std. Dev. – 1 0.90 0.93 0.84 1.10 0.97 1.24
Table 3 represents the descriptive data for the six factors relevant to this paper. It is evident that Recruitment Facebook had a mean score and standard deviation of 2.69 and 0.89 respectively, whereas Recruitment LinkedIn had a mean of 3.27 and a standard deviation of 0.94. From these results it can be deduced that the respondents perceive recruitment via LinkedIn as more acceptable than recruitment via Facebook. Furthermore, the standard deviations obtained indicate that the responses for Recruitment LinkedIn were more scattered around the mean than the responses for Recruitment Facebook.
Based on Table 3, Personal Facebook scored a mean of 4.10 and Personal LinkedIn scored a mean of 3.14. These means indicate that the sample agree that the use of Facebook in the staffing process is an invasion of privacy. Additionally, the standard deviation of 0.87 for Personal Facebook and 1.17 for Personal LinkedIn indicate that the responses from the sample with regards to Personal LinkedIn were more dispersed around the mean than the responses to Personal Facebook.
TABLE 3:DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR SIX FACTORS (N=210) Factors
Mean Median
RF RL PF PL
WBF WBL
2.69 3.27 4.10 3.14 4.27 3.15
2.58 3.33 4.33 3.00 4.67 3.00
Min.
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Max.
5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00
Lower
Quartile 2.00 2.50 3.67 2.00 4.00 2.00
- Upper
Quartile 3.17 3.83 5.00 4.00 5.00 4.33
-
Quartile - Range
1.17 1.33 1.33 2.00 1.00 2.33
Variance
0.79 0.88 0.76 1.37 0.83 1.76
Std. Dev.
0.89 0.94 0.87 1.17 0.91 1.33
Work Behaviour Facebook scored a mean of 4.27 and Work Behaviour LinkedIn’s mean was calculated at 3.15. This noticeable difference indicates that the sample agrees that information displayed on their Facebook profiles does not affect their current or future work behaviour / abilities. The high standard deviation of 1.33 for Work Behaviour LinkedIn indicates that the responses for this factor were more scattered around the mean than the responses to Work Behaviour Facebook.
Table 4 summarises responses to the forced choice items. It is apparent that the majority of the respondents stated that they have not used Facebook (90%) or LinkedIn (88.1%) to apply for vacant positions. It is also observable that the majority of the respondents answered “no” regarding whether a vacant position has become known to them on both Facebook (59.6%) and LinkedIn (70%). The assumption would be that more positions will be advertised on LinkedIn than Facebook, but based on these results more vacant positions have become known to the sample through the use of Facebook than through the use of LinkedIn. Table 4 also indicates that 34.3 percent of the respondents believe that the use of Facebook in the pre-employment screening process is illegal, whereas only 24.8 percent of the respondents believe that the use of LinkedIn in the pre- employment screening process is illegal. Furthermore 53.3 percent (Facebook) and 57.6 percent (LinkedIn) of the respondents stated that they “don’t know” whether the use of these social networks in the pre-employment screening process is illegal.
INDIVIDUALS' PERCEPTIONS TOWARDS FACEBOOK AND LINKEDIN AS RECRUITMENT TOOLS: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY 749