Recruiting.com

I think it is disingenuous of recruiters and HR people to complain about lies on resumes. People who tell the truth are penalized for being honest; if they don't have an inside connection, they don't get the callbacks or interviews.

Smart people who were in lousy, dead-end jobs are particularly screwed. Their particular dead-end jobs don't have anything buzzworthy to use. No sales numbers, fancy software, or what have you. They are smart, capable people who are good workers who left underperforming jobs in underperforming environments. There may not be a way to glamorize their resumes to the satisfaction of HR people and their resume-reading software.

What does a person do when he's been out of work and honesty is getting him nowhere? What does it say about HR people when he lies and starts to get results?

Lies aren't a sudden problem. It's that the lies are being caught more often. Honest people didn't and don't lie on their resumes. And, all other things being equal, they don't get hired as quickly, either.

Yes, blame the liars. But you have to blame yourselves equally. Most of the lies are easy to find before a job offer is ever made. You yourselves value the sizzle over the steak. Don't be surprised if many people tell you what you want to hear. That's marketing and sales at its "best."

Ess is a lot closer than many people may suspect.

The absolute worst (statistically valid) predictor of future job performance is a resume review. And the second worst is the oral interview. Lets not even talk about reliability. But they're quick and easy. We don't hire the most likely to succeed in a particular job, we hire those who are the best applicants; they look good on paper (which says NOTHING about things such as interpersonal skills, and so forth) they show up on time for the interview well-dressed, good presentation skills, good research and knowledge of the company, and who remind us of ourselves. According to Peter Drucker only one-third of executives hired work out well in the position. But their supervisors aren't willing to admit they aren't working out because then they might have to do what they most dread -- document, discipline, and possibly terminate someone.

"Lying is wrong and there are NO excuses PERIOD. Honesty is the only policy." Well, now, how many people have been assigned a big project and have then called an acquaintance across town who has done that project and asked for guidance -- what worked and what didn't, and so forth. It only saves time, right? Well, how many of us credited that individual when we submitted the completed project to our supervisor? The University of Birmingham released a study some two years or so ago that said, in essence, nice guys do, in fact, finish last in the business world. I do still feel personally that honesty is the best policy, but it is far from the only one and may, indeed, not even be the most productive one.

I've done HR work for over 20 years and to be a success in this field you must provide applicants for the hiring authority to interview who look, think, and act just like them. If they don't work out the hiring authority (if they take action at all, a slight risk) will just claim it as 'a fluke' but they don't blame HR. The applicant was 'a good person who just didn't work out.'

For anyone who wishes to claim otherwise, I just ask one question: When was the last time you conducted a validity study in accordance with the UGESP?

Why do we complain about lies on the resume? Simple -- we need to make sure our jobs are viewed as critical and/or important. If we were truly concerned about hiring the best, we'd simply use more valid predictors of future work performance. But those instruments are more difficult to utilize.

Face it folks, HR people simply provide what the hiring authority wants in the most cost-effective (resource-minimizing) manner.