On Lying in Job Interviews: A Different Scenario and Context

[Debater Slayer]

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?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I work in STEM (I'm an engineer) but in a country that isn't as you describe.

My first thought about those "model answers" is more about pragmatism than ethics. If your values and the company's values are so misaligned that you'd have to outright lie to get the job, then that job isn't for you. If you spend your entire career in an environment where you're constantly working against what you think is good or important, you'll be miserable.

It might feel like you're facing a wall like this with every company, but I expect that there are better opportunities out there... even if it doesn't feel like this when you're slogging through a job hunt.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I work in STEM (I'm an engineer) but in a country that isn't as you describe.

My first thought about those "model answers" is more about pragmatism than ethics. If your values and the company's values are so misaligned that you'd have to outright lie to get the job, then that job isn't for you. If you spend your entire career in an environment where you're constantly working against what you think is good or important, you'll be miserable.

It might feel like you're facing a wall like this with every company, but I expect that there are better opportunities out there... even if it doesn't feel like this when you're slogging through a job hunt.

Oh, it's not necessarily that the company's values (whether the stated or actual ones) are misaligned with one's own; it's more that you're supposed to tailor the answer to a question like "Why did you choose to apply here?" to what the interviewer wants to hear, whether or not your actual reasons for applying match that. The interviewer knows this, you know this, and their higher-ups know it too; they still want you to play by those rules.

That said, the situation I described involves a widespread set of practices in large segments of a job market rather than a limited or isolated case, so I could see the answer to each situation being different depending on the larger context.

 

[Secret Chief]

My opinion of such a scenario/context couldn't be any lower. I'd want to lead an armed uprising to overthrow the state. If that didn't work I suppose I'd have to play by the rules everyone is aware of, because - weirdly - I need money.

 

[Stevicus]

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?

One thing that I learned over the years, when it comes to job hunting and job interviews, is that success or failure often comes down to the subjective impressions of whoever is conducting the interview and making the hiring decision. I wish someone had told me this when I was younger, back when I was getting all kinds of advice on job interviewing that heavily implied that every single employer was exactly the same and totally uniform in how they evaluate and select job applicants. I eventually realized that that wasn't really the case.

In any case, I don't think lying is good practice. Not just for ethical or moral reasons, but also because there's always a chance of being caught in a lie. Some might argue that it might still turn out okay, even if one has to tell a white lie to get their foot in the door. Once they get hired and show themselves as being a great, hard-working, diligent employee who can learn quickly and shine in their position, the employer might not care if they lied in their interview, even if they find out later.

 

[Koldo]

I work in STEM (I'm an engineer) but in a country that isn't as you describe.

My first thought about those "model answers" is more about pragmatism than ethics. If your values and the company's values are so misaligned that you'd have to outright lie to get the job, then that job isn't for you. If you spend your entire career in an environment where you're constantly working against what you think is good or important, you'll be miserable.

It might feel like you're facing a wall like this with every company, but I expect that there are better opportunities out there... even if it doesn't feel like this when you're slogging through a job hunt.

There are better job opportunities out there, but most people are not able to afford being a picker.

 

[Debater Slayer]

[...] If that didn't work I suppose I'd have to play by the rules everyone is aware of, because - weirdly - I need money.

My preferred scenario and what I see as the most realistic one in many cases: one plays by those rules if they have no other choice, gets the hell out of the place where large parts of the job market have such practices, and eventually doesn't have to play by those rules.

 

[Koldo]

Some might argue that it might still turn out okay, even if one has to tell a white lie to get their foot in the door. Once they get hired and show themselves as being a great, hard-working, diligent employee who can learn quickly and shine in their position, the employer might not care if they lied in their interview, even if they find out later.

That's exactly how it works unless the lie was a big one.

 

[Koldo]

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.

Brazil in a nutshell.

 

[Koldo]

My preferred scenario and what I see as the most realistic one in many cases: one plays by those rules if they have no other choice, gets the hell out of the place where large parts of the job market have such practices, and eventually doesn't have to play by those rules.

Here in Brazil the most realistic scenario is not leaving but rather working by yourself or becoming an uber driver.

 

[Secret Chief]

My preferred scenario and what I see as the most realistic one in many cases: one plays by those rules if they have no other choice, gets the hell out of the place where large parts of the job market have such practices, and eventually doesn't have to play by those rules.

I agree, but you say it's widespread so it seems to require playing by such ridiculous "rules." If I say "2+2=5" and the interviewer is wanting to hear that... where does that leave the concept of a "lie?" It's a less dramatic equivalent of interrogation under torture - you say anything that the torturer wants to hear. 2+2 is not 5, but you'll say it in certain scenarios.

 

[Debater Slayer]

One thing that I learned over the years, when it comes to job hunting and job interviews, is that success or failure often comes down to the subjective impressions of whoever is conducting the interview and making the hiring decision. I wish someone had told me this when I was younger, back when I was getting all kinds of advice on job interviewing that heavily implied that every single employer was exactly the same and totally uniform in how they evaluate and select job applicants. I eventually realized that that wasn't really the case.

In any case, I don't think lying is good practice. Not just for ethical or moral reasons, but also because there's always a chance of being caught in a lie. Some might argue that it might still turn out okay, even if one has to tell a white lie to get their foot in the door. Once they get hired and show themselves as being a great, hard-working, diligent employee who can learn quickly and shine in their position, the employer might not care if they lied in their interview, even if they find out later.

I agree that lying is not a good practice; I see it as a terrible one. I suspect that most people would agree, which I think is a central part of the complexity of the given scenario: what if prevalent expectations or unspoken rules in a given setting are such that someone may have no option but to tell another person what they want to hear even when the latter knows that what they're hearing is not the truth?

What you described in the last paragraph sounds quite similar to how things have played out with many employees that the recruiters I mentioned talked about, based on what they have told me, except that they knew the applicants were lying about certain details—such as age and expected salary—and also expected that. They both performed their respective parts of the "game." I find it to be a toxic and unhealthy climate, but it is what it is.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Brazil in a nutshell.

That doesn't surprise me, unfortunately. I think many citizens of developing and third-world countries with high levels of corruption would easily relate to the given scenario.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Here in Brazil the most realistic scenario is not leaving but rather working by yourself or becoming an uber driver.

Is remote work with a company in another country included in the former? That's something many people in software prefer to do here if they can.

 

[Koldo]

Is remote work with a company in another country included in the former? That's something many people in software prefer to do here if they can.

No. That's also an alternative but only viable to very specific segments of the workforce, so I didn't mention it. But it is indeed another alternative.

 

[Stevicus]

I agree that lying is not a good practice; I see it as a terrible one. I suspect that most people would agree, which I think is a central part of the complexity of the given scenario: what if prevalent expectations or unspoken rules in a given setting are such that someone may have no option but to tell another person what they want to hear even when the latter knows that what they're hearing is not the truth?

What you described in the last paragraph sounds quite similar to how things have played out with many employees that the recruiters I mentioned talked about, based on what they have told me, except that they knew the applicants were lying about certain details—such as age and expected salary—and also expected that. They both performed their respective parts of the "game." I find it to be a toxic and unhealthy climate, but it is what it is.

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.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Job interviews are an interesting topic, however it can not be divorced from the application process, which is the failure point for a majority of applicants.
As a line manager I was part of the pool of potential selectors and interviewers at my last job before I retired. Andi was a full panel member of literally hundreds of interviews during my final ten years of service.
However whatever ones previous experience they insisted that all members attend a two week training course on selecting and interviewing, before you were let loose on your first victims.

The first thing you learnt was how to write a job specification as part of advertising the position. This included the essentials and any additional preferred abilities needed.
The next major topic was selecting for interview. This insisted that all candidates had the relevant essentials qualifications and experience.
The final part was the interview and offering stage. The major part of this was the formulation of appropriate open ended questions. Direct questions were frowned upon. Questions about family matters and such a child care problems were banned, unless they were brought up by the candidate. We rarely asked why they wanted the job unless the position seemed inappropriate considering their previous post.
Job offers at what ever level were always made on the day.

My own interview was conducted by the director of administration the personnel director two departmental managers and the manager from the local university who held the equivalent position as the one on offer.
All candidates were given the opportunity to visit the department prior to interview.
I was by far the oldest candidate.
I was the third interviewee with two to follow.
I was aware that the position had been on offer thee months before and had a failed recruitment.
I was asked about my visit to the department and noted that one of the staff had a work or attitude problem, which turned out to be very true.
I was told to come back later in the afternoon to find out the result. Which was successful even though they had to wait out my three months notice I had to give.

During my working life I was only unsuccessful in one job application, with the reason given that I was over experienced. Which is a stupid reason, for although it was a backwards step, it was a far better longer term opportunity.

I found that the important thing in applying for positions, was to fully research and understand the organisation and what they really wanted from the candidate. Then tailor the application to the job even though it might play down some experience and skills that you have gained previously.
Make sure that you can cover the essentials with solid evidence...
You should always take job applications very seriously. At the initial sorting stage they are looking for any reason to whittle down applicants. In some organisations this is done by HR purely as a tick box exercise. With no reference to the actual hiring department.

 

[rocala]

If I am honest, I cannot muster strong feelings about few small lies in a job application. I have sat on both sides of that desk and have seen that for many it is the only chance. I am far more outraged by the people who are paid to check such applications and clearly don't

I once started a new job in a temp capacity and another younger man started around the same time. We both did well and gained permanent positions at other locations.

Twelve years went by and I was now working for another company. One day this man arrived at the office. He had done well for himself, he was my bosses boss. In addition to promotion, he had gained not just a military career as a commissioned officer, but was ex-special forces. On top of that, he now claimed a university degree in business administration. Every time he opened his mouth he tripped up. Half of us were ex-military and some of us had attended a university.

Our HR department actually had a vetting officer, heaven knows what they did all day. So I must ask, how can we have any expectations of honesty when people like that are running the show.

 

[Quintessence]

One thing that I learned over the years, when it comes to job hunting and job interviews, is that success or failure often comes down to the subjective impressions of whoever is conducting the interview and making the hiring decision. I wish someone had told me this when I was younger, back when I was getting all kinds of advice on job interviewing that heavily implied that every single employer was exactly the same and totally uniform in how they evaluate and select job applicants. I eventually realized that that wasn't really the case.

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.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

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 was on the panels of some very high level jobs( miles above my pay grade)
One was a three day multi part interviews and was extremely detailed, involving long presentations and checking qualifications,(the only part that I was not invited to was the evening dinner when they were Vetted socially) however my vote was counted along with the others. Although I was a line manager the next lowest ranking above me was the HR manager, the rest of the panel were all directors or board members. I was given the role of staff representative to speak up on behalf of the candidates, during the discussions. (This was a role given to someone at all our interview panels.)