On Lying in Job Interviews: A Different Scenario and Context

[Debater Slayer]

Yup, this is why I'll tell students to be themselves. Prepare some, yeah, but be yourself. If you are interviewing for a workplace worth having, some of the folks doing the process will be your actual future coworkers. You want to get along with them, and them with you. Problem is a lot of places have really stupid hiring processes bogged down with needless red tape and formality. Like, if you don't put the correct word in your application materials some stupid automated process will kick you out. And it is worse now than it was a decade ago when I was still doing job searches.

What would you tell a student in an environment like that described in the OP?

 

[Debater Slayer]

I agree that there's a certain level of toxicity about the whole process. Although I generally find the "corporate" culture and atmosphere to be rather contrived and artificial in many ways. The application and interview process seems designed along similar lines. Is it really a fair and objective process to find the best candidate possible?

There's a line from a song which goes "Don't ask me any questions, and I won't tell you any lies." Of course, I guess that's not a good thing to say at the start of a job interview. (But then again, the interviewer could be a Lynyrd Skynyrd fan, so they might be amused by that.)

But the process and interview can seem overly complicated. I think what floors me is whenever I hear about someone getting a "second interview." What's up with that kind of stuff? Can't an employer make up their mind after the first interview? Even without the interview, they should be able to figure a few things out just by looking at their written resume. I never could understand the need for all the falderal when they could probably make a quick decision.

I could understand for certain professional, credentialed occupations, like rocket scientist or brain surgeon, but those are people who employers seek out actively and likely wouldn't make them jump through all the hoops that they do with ordinary applicants.

I don't know as much about other fields, but in software, many companies have one technical interview and another for HR/soft skills, and the number can increase for more senior roles. As far as I know, the idea is to cover different required skill sets in more detail than one interview would allow for. I suspect that how this pans out in practice or whether it achieves its intended goals may vary depending on how the interviews are conducted and who conducts them.

 

[Nakosis]

This thread is inspired by the other one from @an anarchist:

Should you lie in a job interview?

Should you lie in a job interview? I had one last week, and I didn't get hired. I have another today though. I'm applying for cooking positions. I was honest with the last managers and told them "I am not the fastest anymore like I was when I was 18-19.". For whatever reason, they didn't hire...

www.religiousforums.com

I wanted to create another one to explore what the answers would be in the case of a completely different context and job market, like my country's. The reason I placed this in Ethics and Morals rather than Jobs and Careers is that I'm interested in others' perspectives on the ethical dimensions of the given scenario.

The abovementioned country has an extremely high level of corruption by global standards, including in the private sector. What this entails is that, aside from the high unemployment rate, the job market has widespread nepotism, politicking, sucking up to superiors (often via flattery), job descriptions that often don't cover what one will actually be asked to do, and "corporate values" and mission statements that are largely or entirely mismatched with the reality of how the companies putting them out actually operate, among other things. Furthermore, due to major loopholes in the labor law and lax enforcement thereof, the default for many fields is to expect to work overtime, on some weekends, etc., without being paid extra for doing so or having it covered in one's contract.

I personally know and have talked to many recruiters and senior engineers (in STEM fields) who have interviewed many job applicants, and one piece of advice I have gotten from all of them without exception is to never lie about what one can do but also to sell one's strengths really strongly (without going beyond what one can actually do). However, they have also all told me that they, along with most other recruiters and interviewers they know, expect to hear "model answers" to certain questions, especially in HR interviews, regardless of the truth of said answers. For example, if they ask an interviewee why the interviewee is applying for the position, they often expect to hear an answer tailored around the "corporate values" or mission statement listed on the given company's website, even if one's reasons for applying are completely different in reality (e.g., wanting to gain work experience, going for a company that offers high salaries, etc.).

Also, another thing they have told me regarding past experience is that the vast majority of companies (at least in their fields, which are all in STEM) don't take a gap year or "personal reasons" as a valid explanation for a period of inactivity on one's résumé, so you should fill it with anything as long as what you're filling it with is something unrelated to the field in which you're applying for a job. That way, you supposedly have a "valid explanation" for the gaps but also avoid claiming that you have relevant experience that you actually don't have.

According both to the people I mentioned above and many others working in the field here whom I have talked to about this, one is almost certain to be rejected in interviews unless or until they modify their interview answers or résumé (whichever is applicable) in accordance with the above.

While I know that this explanation of the backdrop for my question is lengthy, I have provided it in order to properly contextualize the scenario in question. So, with the above in mind, here's the question: What do you believe one should do in such a context and situation, given some of the widespread practices of the given job market and interview environment? Is it ethical, unethical, or ethically neutral to lie in an interview in this scenario? Does the fact that many interviewers know that many interviewees will give largely or entirely false "model answers" to certain questions and even want them to do so change the ethics of the situation or not?

The interviews we gave was given by people who had several years of experience in the technology.
There was no lying. Either you had a thorough understanding of the technology and could answer the technical questions or you couldn't.
I suppose some could have lied about the work experience on paper but only people with actual experience on the job could get through the interview.

 

[Debater Slayer]

The interviews we gave was given by people who had several years of experience in the technology.
There was no lying. Either you had a thorough understanding of the technology and could answer the technical questions or you couldn't.
I suppose some could have lied about the work experience on paper but only people with actual experience on the job could get through the interview.

This is how it tends to work here, too, including the choice of interviewers. As I said in the OP, what all recruiters and senior engineers I have talked to have told me—which is also the view I subscribe to—is that claiming to have a relevant skill without having it would never be a good idea, whether or not one were to set aside the various ethical problems inherent in doing that.

The scenario I'm asking about is different from that one, as detailed in the OP.

 

[Yerda]

I couldn't care less if people lie to get jobs, just don't tell fibs about stuff that will come back to bite you.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yup, this is why I'll tell students to be themselves. Prepare some, yeah, but be yourself. If you are interviewing for a workplace worth having, some of the folks doing the process will be your actual future coworkers. You want to get along with them, and them with you. Problem is a lot of places have really stupid hiring processes bogged down with needless red tape and formality. Like, if you don't put the correct word in your application materials some stupid automated process will kick you out. And it is worse now than it was a decade ago when I was still doing job searches.

What do you tell the largest part who will just have to get a job amd won't be able to picky or choosy?

 

[Shaul]

Lying just to get hired is stupid. As a practical matter, it doesn't work. Even assuming you got the job offer, why would you want to work somewhere that required lying to get hired? So you could work with other liars or gullible people? Enlightened self-interest is reason enough to not lie to get a job. Also allowing other people to be the basis for your ethical standards is just plain wrong and dumb.

As someone that had a long, and arguably successful, high tech career, I know you don't need to compromise your standards to succeed. There have always been a limited number of positions available. That is not new. But there is no limit to anyone's potential for becoming the best candidate for the open positions. Focusing on gaming the system through lying doesn't beat self improvement in the long run.

But your post does make me feel more thankful for being retired. Thanks for that.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Lying just to get hired is stupid. As a practical matter, it doesn't work. Even assuming you got the job offer, why would you want to work somewhere that required lying to get hired? So you could work with other liars or gullible people? Enlightened self-interest is reason enough to not lie to get a job. Also allowing other people to be the basis for your ethical standards is just plain wrong and dumb.

The OP is not about "allowing other people to be the basis for [one's] ethical standards." It's about a highly common scenario in some countries with high levels of corruption; I was interested to read others' thoughts on the given scenario against the given backdrop. Your post seems to be based on a different context and environment.

Also, the question is not about lying in interviews in general but rather in a certain scenario where the interviewer and employer want to be given "model answers" while knowing or even expecting that said answers could well be inaccurate. Whatever your answer is, I would be interested to read it in the context of the backdrop I elaborated on in the OP, not in the context of an unrelated and completely different set of circumstancss.

As someone that had a long, and arguably successful, high tech career, I know you don't need to compromise your standards to succeed.

Which country are you talking about? I specified in the OP that I was talking about a specific set of circumstances that are not widespread in all countries. While I don't doubt what you have shared about your own experience, it is not going to be applicable to all job markets in different countries or to some of the prevalent circumstances in said countries.

There have always been a limited number of positions available. That is not new. But there is no limit to anyone's potential for becoming the best candidate for the open positions. Focusing on gaming the system through lying doesn't beat self improvement in the long run.

See above. In some countries, many employers expect and even want applicants to give "model answers," hence my detailing the question's backdrop in the OP.

But your post does make me feel more thankful for being retired. Thanks for that.

No problem. I hope you're enjoying the retirement.