When Applicants Try Lying Their Way into a Job
Chances are good that the next stack of resumes you look at will contain a stretcher or an outright fabrication. That’s the conclusion of a survey that found job candidates somewhat or very often pad resumes with dishonest information, according to 43 percent of managers poled.
The survey, by staffing firm OfficeTeam, was conducted in 2011, when a tight job market might be expected to stress jobseekers. But a survey of hiring managers by CareerBuilder.com in 2006, when jobs were more plentiful, produced similar results; 57 percent reported candidates lying on applications. The surveys also generally agree on what lies were usually about, namely, education, experience, job duties, and employment dates.
Whether it happens a lot or a little, owners and managers should care. “Essentially it’s an ethical breach,” says Daryl Pigat, a manager in the New York office of OfficeTeam. “And that could speak to how they would perform on the job.”
Where the Lies Are
The most common area for exaggeration is not past job performance, however, but past job duties. That’s what OfficeTeam found when asking workers who had known someone who lied on a resume what the lie was about; 58 percent said job duties were the hot spot.
A lot of times, the problem is vagueness as much as outright lying, Pigat says. “People may be exposed to or involved in a project but not necessarily doing the work,” he says. “Sometimes that translates into a resume that says they were hands-on, when they may not have that practical experience.”
Another set of facts ripe for exaggeration consists of past employment start and stop dates. A candidate who was unemployed for a spell may try to make it appear that he or she has been working steadily. “Some people try to get away with just using years, like 2010 to 2011, which could be up to 24 months,” Pigat says.
Finding the Truth
No matter where exaggerations are, hiring managers can follow a few basic techniques to ferret out facts. A simple face-to-face interview will do a lot, Pigat says. “It’s very easy to put something on a piece of paper or even in a phone interview, but when you’re face to face with someone and asking clarifying questions, then you begin to uncover whether or not what you’re looking at is 100 percent true,” he says.
The key approach is to go for details in the interview. Rather than accepting a general statement that someone’s prior responsibilities included working on a certain project, ask for specifics about what he or she actually did. And if a candidate gives you years, ask for months.
Pay attention to style as well as content. Candidates who have worked in-depth on something should be able to provide details without having to think about it, Pigat says. “If you have their resume and they reach for it or ask for it to reread it, that’s maybe an indication that what is on there may be a little bit of a stretch,” he says.
If you get a good answer, consider asking the question twice, perhaps using different phrasing. Be alert to whether the question is answered the same way. If it isn’t, seek clarification.
Go beyond the candidate’s references. When talking to references, ask for other people who know the candidate. And never check a reference by calling a cell phone. “There should be a policy that you call their office,” Pigat says.
The Burden of Truth
If you catch a liar, you’ll have plenty of company if you immediately send the candidate packing. CareerBuilder’s survey, in fact, found 43 percent of managers would instantly dismiss someone whose application contained misrepresentations.
Pigat advises making sure you are right before taking action. Just because a candidate’s resume conflicts with what’s on LinkedIn or another professional networking site, for instance, doesn’t prove deceit. If inconsistency appears, ask for explanation. It could be the networking site hasn’t been updated.
Other legitimate explanations could include typos or forgetfulness, Pigat says. Some employer handbooks specify zero tolerance for all misstatements, he notes. In those cases, the outcome is decided. For others, the manager may forgive, or, for an otherwise appealing candidate, offer temporary employment to see how things turn out.
“It’s going to vary from position to position,” Pigat says. “But if there’s an inconsistency in those responses, it’s a red flag.”
Mark Henricks writes about business, technology, personal finance, and other topics from Austin, Texas. His work has appeared in The Wall Street Journal, Entrepreneur magazine, The Washington Post, and other leading publications.
