Jun
15
The implications of lying on your CV
Filed Under Job interviews, Job search
I need to declare right now that I have never watched an episode of any series of the Apprentice. I have a vague notion of what goes on because the written media here covers it religiously. It came to something when a radio news report covered the story that the winner of this series lied on his CV about his education.
I understand he got caught out. Indeed the radio report played a snippet of the conversation when he was and it was painful to listen to.
The point of this post is not to jump on the should he/shouldn’t he bandwagon. I do want to prompt some thoughts though.
I coach people in preparation for interview. That often includes working with them in preparing their CV/resume. I see the CV as the first part - a series of facts with enough by way of elaboration to inform the recruiter and to hook them to wanting more. Hopefully this leads to an invitation to interview where I would expect my client to be able to talk some more about what they said and to be able to answer the interviewer in a way that will give them all the information they need to make a judgement about their suitability.
My strong advice in this whole process is not to include anything that you cannot either back up or explain - which includes anything that might come across as vague or messy as well as downright fabrications. Because a good interviewer will spot a flaw and will dig around to get the whole picture.
Sometimes interviewers ask about situations of which the interviewee has no direct experience. Only the interviewer will know how important that is in the balance of essential and desirable skills. The interviewee needs to answer all questions as best they can. I am all for drawing on a couple of experiences ( still real ones ) woven together to get the answer.
And for goodness sake - if you have an amazing skill/ talent - even if you don’t get asked about it, make sure you find a way to tell the interviewer!
So that’s my tuppence worth in this whole sorry saga. It seems like the guy was chosen despite this mess - maybe being able to talk your way out of a hole is what Sir Alan Sugar values highly.
Jackie,
This could fit together well:
You prep people for interviews;
I interview executive candidates for clients as a third party familiar with the needs and culture of the company.
It is easy to spot a sin of omission or commission in a candidate’s story. Simply don’t lie or even stretch the truth. A good interviewer with a single good follow up question will discover the inconsistency.
Usually, by the time a candidate gets into a real face-to-face discussion, it’s already been determined that they are probably qualified for the job. What the interviewer is looking for is:
1. How qualified?
2. How does this person relate and communicate on a professional level?
3. What does the candidate bring that may add even more value than another candidate?
4. How has the person dealt with challenges, obstacles, and adversity?
5. What are all of the specific experiences that, as a whole, make this person a terrific hire?
6. Even if there is not an exact experience that matches the job description, what similar experiences has (s)he had that reflect the ability to do the job here?
Most importantly, listen to what the interviewer is really asking . I can’t tell you the number of times that I ask a question that is obvious in its intent, only to be answered with something totally unrelated. That shows a lack of emotional intellect and ability to discern what someone else is asking. Not a good sign. If one doesn’t really understand a question, then say so. That gets points because it shows a willingness to seek clarity.
“The Donald” is certainly a celebrity in his own way, but it would be a stretch to say that he is held out as a model for management development.
Keep writing…
Hi Jackie
I think what I look for in my managers is the ability to identify talent and to set up a job so a person is able to do it and learn something at the same time.
I wouldn’t ask for qualifications unless they are necessary to what we were doing (almost certainly indirect discrimination to do so), and if the qualifications were necessary, I would check them myself! My hiring questions would also relate to those central and necessary skills.
Personally, I can’t stand that TV program and many like it - too much blustering. I think if I encountered that in real life I would assume they were playing the fool and burst out laughing. If they really behave like that if would be “off with her head”. Emperors with no clothes don’t like to be reminded. We shouldn’t confuse ruthlessness with competence! We should remember though that some youngsters are actively looking for apprenticeships in ruthlessness.
Are you well. Thanks for recommending my blog to Paul. He is on line now.
Hi Steve - what a team we could make!
Your point about listening to what the interviewer is asking is absolutely right. Just like answering the question in an exam is the only way to go.
Whilst I encourage my clients to ensure that they tell the interviewer about why they would be a great employee I suggest doing that when the interviewer has exhausted all of their own questions -and the interviewee has answered them!
I think that listening should be practiced more generally though. You find out way more that way!
Hi Jo - I am great. And as always thanks for your comment. I really appreciate you taking time to be part of my community.
Paul was great company. I hope he is reading my blog too.
Hi Jackie. I’ve never watched even a moment of The Apprentice, but I understand the premise. Late into this last series I discovered that the guy to whom you are referring used to work for the same company as I do, so I guess that made us colleagues. Well, along with the 29,000 other people also employed by the same company!
What I don’t get is why anyone would want to work with Alan Sugar. The skills he seems to prize are the opposite of what I would consider desirable. Besides, I’m fairly sure that I would consider it a punishment to have to work in that environment anyway. It seems to foster the notion that the accumulation of wealth = success. I have nothing against wealth, but there are more important, fulfilling and rewarding things in life that should be pursued.
Hi Karyn
I was speaking to someone who works with social entrepreneurs. Up til that point I guess I thought of SEs as working in the not-for-profit sector and that low income/profits was the norm. But apparently that does not need to be the case. And in another conversation I was talking about philanthropy - and how people who make their millions then choose to distribute them. In both of those cases- for me anyway - the creation of wealth can be fulfilling. But I agree - the model promoted by The Apprentice does seem to point to wealth = success and - again in my view - that seems to be a very narrow way to measure self worth!
Thanks for your comment. I appreciate it.