New Media, New Rules of Engagement

Harvard Business Review has launched its first ever Interactive Case Study. That, in itself, is pretty cool. But the case study itself “We Googled You” raises interesting questions and changes the meaning of a background search on potential employees. You can download a PDF version of the case study and send in a response.

The case outlines a search for a new person to open a flagship Shanghai operation for a clothing company. The CEO, Fred, identifies a vibrant, creative, and well-qualified young women, Mimi, who also speaks Mandarin. In the course of background search, the HR person googles Mimi and discovers that , just after graduating from Berkeley, Mimi was a leader of a nonviolent but vocal group that protested China’s human rights policies and treatment of dissident journalists, including photographs of Mimi at a sit-in in front of China’s San Francisco consulate and evidence of her organizing protests of China’s entry into the WTO. So, should they hire her?

The advent of websites, blogs, YouTube, MySpace, and a myriad of other platforms have made all forms of personal disclosure, from party pictures and teenage posturing to genuine accomplishments, available for wide public access. It’s like talking in an elevator, as my husband likes to remind me; you never know who will hear what you say. While these things don’t live forever, they hang around a surprisingly long time. This means whatever the company could find on Mimi, the Chinese government could find, too, and likely will. This doesn’t mean that Fred shouldn’t hire Mimi, but it is certainly a cautionary tale for building a web presence. The old email rule now applies to all electronic publishing (i.e. don’t publish anything you don’t want everyone to read, including your mother, future boss, spouse or partner.)

As for Fred, he should call Mimi in and talk to her about what they found, find out her current position, how she thinks her views will affect her handling of the job and how she thinks, with her knowledge of China, that the existing information will affect her ability to perform her job dealing with Chinese officials. There will be many who think it is too risky to put Mimi in a top Chinese spot, as the Chinese government does not suffer opposition kindly. It is also true that the image for herself that Mimi created can be recreated through additional web publishing. It won’t erase what was there, but a concentrated effort to electronically publish (via blogs, etc.) and track her changes in thinking and opinions (if, indeed, it is different) will create a image more supportive of her current professional goals, whether for Fred or someone else. But Fred should also triangulate his knowledge of the Shanghai environment through outside sources to learn what relationships he needs to make it a success. Very likely, in spite of Mimi’s ability to speak Mandarin, they will need a local partner who knows the current local culture, the relationship and trust structure (guanxi) of the people the company will need. That person will be very helpful in determining Mimi’s ability to be effective. In short, Fred does not have adequate information about Mimi to put her in such a pivotal role in a culture about which he personally knows so little. We all use our own form of guanxi to verify everyone from new hires to new friends–we call them references and we all know a recommendation is most useful when it comes from someone we know. In the meantime, we can all take a lesson to be mindful of what we say. We all have a brand to manage.