A recent email inquiry about people who lie on their resumes prompted me to think about how prevalent the problem is. According to a recent report, about
30% of job applicants misrepresent themselves on their resume. But maybe a good interviewer can catch someone who is lying on their resume. Don’t get too optimistic; past research shows that most people are notoriously poor at detecting a liar. In a recent, somewhat contrived but interesting, study, researchers reported that interviewers who were not warned about the possibility that the candidates were lying detected lies only 2% of the time. When the interviewers were warned about the possibility that the candidates were lying, they detected the deceptions only about 15% of the time. Even top-level employees lie on their resumes; a recent study indicated that at least 23% of resumes of VP candidates, president, and board of director positions contain some fabrications.
Probably the most frequent “misrepresentation” concerns one’s educational degree. However, people lie about all kinds of matters on the resumes, including job experience, salary, to name a few.
And that is why many organizations do reference checks. How often are these misrepresentations caught? I have no idea! But experts in the field say that people are often wrong about what cues to look for to detect who is lying. Specifically, the best cues, according to one expert are:
Liars take less responsibility for what happened
Liars tend to use more negative terms, like “worthless,” “hate,” etc.
Liars tend to use fewer limited terms such as “except,” “but” or “nor” in distinguishing between what they did and what others did.
Sound difficult? Yes, it is not easy to detect deception.
Sphere: Related ContentIf you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment or subscribing.
Subscribe by RSS
Subscribe by Email
Generally speaking, I believe lying is epidemic in this society. I suppose, in addition to the task of trying to spot the lies during interviews and background checking, it would be wise to give “extra credit” for honesty and integrity to those applicants who are open about some of their flaws.
As an employment attorney, I see it not so much in applicant misrepresentions as in employee statements regarding job performance and conduct. The first reaction of far too many people when confronted with an accusation is denial and deception. This despite the high likelihood that the truth will come out, and when it does will be more damaging than if initially admitted.
I commented on this the other night to an employment attorney who represents employees, and he agreed. If it’s not an outright lie, it’s far from “the whole truth.” Of course, management is not immune from this affliction either.
It is much harder for a factfinder to resolve credibility issues surrounding complex factual situations when it appears that neither party is being entirely truthful. I was in that position as an arbitrator a few months ago, and felt like throwing up my arms and declaring “a pox on both their houses.” Thankfully, we can fall back on devices such as the burden of proof in such situations.
We should all take a moment to reflect on two simplistic childrens’ morality tales about honesty:
The Boy Who Cried Wolf (once you lose your credibility, good luck trying to regain it!)
George Washington and the Cherry Tree (admitting a mistake is a sign of honesty and as such may actually improve others’ impression of your character; certainly so in contrast to lingering suspicions that you not only did wrong but also lied about it)
And one true-life story that is endlessly repeated by public figures, but epitomized by Dick Nixon and Watergate: the coverup is usually worse than the crime.