Nothing in the job interview alerted Lorna Hegarty to the candidate's lie.
It was only after a routine check with the company where he worked that she learned his term there was closer to 18 months rather than the three years he had claimed. When Ms. Hegarty asked for an explanation, the applicant said part of his working stint had been on contract. But that also turned out to be untrue. Several awkward phone calls later, his credibility fading fast, he withdrew his application.
"He knew he had been caught," said Ms. Hegarty, a human resources director at a global consulting company. "What was the point of doing that? He could have just said he was out of work or doing some freelancing, and it would have been fine."
While recruiters and hiring managers can cite cases where job seekers have out-and-out lied, they do not automatically assume that every candidate's résumé is littered with falsehoods. But there are measures they can take to make sure they don't hire a liar; likewise, they say there are steps honest candidates can take to ensure they don't appear to be fibbing.
Ottawa-based headhunter David Perry, of Perry Martel International Inc., believes 30 per cent of the résumés that have landed on his desk over the past 22 years have included some sort of lie. During that time, he has rescinded just three offers to people who fabricated their educational background.
The most common untruths revolve around level of schooling; job gaps or fudging the amount of time spent working somewhere; taking responsibility for more than they actually did; inflating job titles; and fibbing about the results achieved at previous jobs.
In Mr. Perry's experience, applicants in their 20s tend to be more honest than the baby boom generation. In terms of career sectors, he said the group that exaggerates far more than anyone is not in sales, marketing or finance, but in business development.
One way to detect inconsistencies during an interview is to probe deeper with direct and detailed questions, Mr. Perry said. If someone's résumé said the person ran a $2-million project, interviewers should ask them specifically how they did that, he said. "That is where people will either tell you the story or clam up."
Mr. Perry encourages candidates to put dollar amounts and percentage details into their résumés, saying employers like to see hard numbers. Having detailed facts on hand at the interview, such as how long a project lasted and who you worked with, is also a bonus. "If your résumé said that you grew sales by this much, or increased efficiency, be able to tell the story of how you did it."
In the event that the interviewer has been dazzled by a smooth-talking candidate, Mr. Perry said checking references should separate fact from fiction, although he concedes that hiring executives often find that a tedious chore. "By the time they get to the end of the hiring process, they just want to get it over with."
The candidate's choice of reference is telling, he added. If their last two direct supervisors are dead and the companies have gone out of business, that raises a flag. "If they can't produce a supervisor . . . we might have a problem."
Dave Opton, chief executive officer of U.S. executive recruitment network ExecuNet, sees more emphasis on checking candidates. "Given the recent history of corporate ethics scandals, not to mention things like Sarbanes Oxley here in the U.S., the degree to which people's backgrounds are researched by a search firm or company has risen dramatically."
Executive recruiter Michael Stern, of Michael Stern and Associates, added that Canadian companies are also embracing the reference check.
In his mind, there is a big difference in the severity of the fabrications people make.
"Fudging dates by a month or two is relatively common," he said. "Is it an immediate killer? Probably not." On the other hand, if someone has lied about their degree, it shows a lack of judgment and doesn't reflect well on their character.
Mr. Stern's advice to job applicants is to walk a fine line between selling themselves and sounding believable. "One of the most telling things in a interview is when people talk about what went wrong on a specific project and how they worked that out."
They should refrain from embellishing or stretching the truth and instead be honest about their strengths and weaknesses.
Julie McCarthy, an assistant professor of organizational behaviour at the University of Toronto's Rotman School of Management, said that, while interviewers believe a "gut feeling" can help them spot a liar, it is in fact very difficult to do so.
The problem with relying on physical signs of deception — not looking someone in the eye, constantly shifting in the seat, repeatedly touching their face or hair — is that these are also classic characteristics of anxiety, she said.
"Someone who is anxious during the interview might be a very high-performing employee. So I would caution interviewers against using these as a way to select a candidate."
Instead, Ms. McCarthy said employers should use a structured interview format, asking each candidate the same raft of questions, to determine who is best for the job.
Mr. Perry believes that as the baby boom generation retires, the war for talented workers will intensify. Companies will need to figure out how to hire better people, and become increasingly diligent in how they verify the facts.
And while "everybody expects to be sold, they don't expect to be lied to," he said.
