Okay, but how many job ads lie? I figure we're probably about even.
this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2023
69 points (100.0% liked)
Humanities & Cultures
2532 readers
15 users here now
Human society and cultural news, studies, and other things of that nature. From linguistics to philosophy to religion to anthropology, if it's an academic discipline you can most likely put it here.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I would say way more than 70% of job ads lie.
Obviously we need to up our game then
It's pretty much a given if you want to even get through the automatic HR software many companies use. They don't care about your experience or how it could translate to a new situation, all they want is a match on a list of keywords.
Our team consists of a few internal employees like myself and a larger group of individual contractors hired for a year or two at a time. Due to procurement laws, we have to start a new tender when one of the contracts end, we can't extend a contract indefinitely. Which sucks because the contractors really are part of our team and have built up a wealth of domain knowledge. So we formulate the tender to make sure our current contractor is a perfect match and gets a chance at an interview (our work is specialized enough that it would require a miracle if a second candidate is just as knowledgeable and available).
Anyway, we had a situation wherein our own contractor did not get through the HR selection process for a resume that was specifically written for him. Turns out he used a slightly different description than what HR was looking for and got denied even though he was a literal perfect match.
HR and similar organizations don't look beyond the limited list of keywords they know. If being less than perfectly honest on your resume gets you through the first round of selections, then I'd say go for it. There's always more nuance to a resume than just the list of skills you can tick off.
edit
Oh and before I forget, recruitment agencies do this all the time but for exactly the wrong reasons. The amount of lousy resumes I've seen come by where they try to squeeze in an applicant who's clearly unsuitable for the position but who happens to have the right keywords is depressing. I hate having to tell a hopeful applicant that they're not suitable, my time is hugely wasted going through all these resumes and a possibly suitable applicant is ignored because they don't play the game as well.
Sorry, I had to add this little rant. The hiring process is one of those moments I really dread and I wish it could go smoother.
What a nightmare process. Where I'm at they can have someone lined up for a position but still have to post it, screen applicants, then pick the person they already wanted for the role, a big waste of time. But what you're describing, good grief, that's horrible for everyone, even the people outside of the hiring process.
Oh yes, that's how I got my current job. I used to be an external contractor myself, said I was interested at working full-time for my employer (it's a very stable and fun job) and had to go through an entire circus. It was guaranteed I would get the job but I still had to:
- Write a resume (with cover letter!?)
- Wait for the job to open up on their recruitment website (only for 15 minutes so I would be the only one who could apply)
- Have several interviews
- etc.
All because their HR software requires certain steps to be followed or it'll refuse to process the application.
For our last contractor recruitment (new position, not a rehire) we got rid of our external selection agency (responsible for the first stage of resume scanning) and decided to do it ourselves, specifically for the reason in my last little rant. We didn't trust them to select the right candidates because they had no experience with our line of work and just blindly searched for keywords.
It was nice to get to see all incoming resumes but I had to pick through 40+ of them manually. And because of procurement laws, I had to grade all of them on a 20 point list of criteria we got to decide. On top of that, an applicant (or their recruitment agency) can challenge the fairness of the process if they feel we rated them unfairly on a specific criteria. So it was important to have a proper substantiation for every single judged criteria. That was over 800 times I had to check for proof if what a applicant claimed lined up with what their resume said.
And again, it was the recruitment agencies that really ruined my days (yes, plural). You could see that the recruiter altered resumes, wrote nonsense cover letters and did whatever they could to get past the criteria. At least half of the people who applied were clearly not suitable, but I still had to explicitly say why they weren't suitable for every single criteria.
Sorry, this is really something I can go on and on about.
It's definitely a nightmare, but that's what you get when you work in the public sector I guess.
This is the bureaucracy hoops people should be pissed off about. Ugh.
You're absolutely right. The idea to "have to go through HR process" when a favourite successor was already named is so annoying for both the group trying to retain the person and outside candidates. It would be better if they could at least be up-front about having a favourite candidate already.
The other annoying thing is requisition postings staying up after the position was already filled. I had to find out through someone I knew at the company that that was the case in one instance.
Once or twice, in a paragraph where I changed the formatting to get as many lines as I wanted to overlap on a single line and white text, I decided to put "If put in the role of [role] I am hopeful to learn to..." Then I paraphrased every job duty and qualification into that single line. That got me a screening call for a position I was still 3 to 5 years from being qualified for.
Hahahaha. Incoming rant.
Lying is one thing, but if the whole "prettying up resumes, cover letters and conduct at interviews" is lying, then it's the employers who are choosing the liars and make this process this way.
Not to mention the posted job description and duties often either are very different, or the description doesn't tell the full story, or is so generic and lacks substance.
These things I did to get hired... are they lying?
- Describe something I contributed as part of a team as my own success.
- Change a job title of something to the effect of "Co-op Student" to something that more accurately described what I was doing.
- Playing the "Tell me about a time when" scenario game, trying to recall something I did 4 years ago on the spot. Not every detail is perfect in my memory, and the interviewer expects a comprehensive demonstration of your skills in a tough situation, so I make sure the story fits in an easily digestible arc, and miss or fill in details to achieve that. Not like "everyone clapped and my boss hugged me" but stuff that my former boss would say "seems legit" if the company were to go as far as fact-check me on it.
Candidates "lie" because truth filters you out of these stupid human resources systems. Rant over.
It's the same for every place you need to apply or pitch an idea where the places are limited. Criterias just get absurd, and even acing the criterias might not be enough. People who rise are simply the better bullshiters.
Years ago my friend received a call for a job, within minutes the HR person asked if he had a good experience with a certain language and he flat out said no, even though he had some very basic knowledge. The interview ended right there. I just couldn't believe that he wouldn't lie, he was perfect for the job, but HR does not care. He's been in the same role for 10 years and unwilling to "lie" to get a promotion or a new role, so that is where we are. This 30% of honest employees is probably not getting the best jobs.
He's been in the same role for 10 years and unwilling to "lie" to get a promotion or a new role, so that is where we are. This 30% of honest employees is probably not getting the best jobs.
Exactly, and when you hear stuff like some HR people 'not accepting career gaps for any reason', it's cause for some people to make up some BS about it to get around that. I'm not very good at lying, but what recruiters want are stories, and thus I can justify "white lies", omissions, minor embellishments to give them what they want and play their game. Don't lose your integrity, but honesty is not the best policy in the job hunt until you have a contract. It took a year for me to figure that out.
Over that time though recruiters at different companies were all over the place in terms of quality, when they did reach out. Some company's processes are well-defined, transparent and their recruiters actively keep you up to date. Despite not ultimately being hired there, one company I was really impressed by their process, more than any other. Some HR teams you have to keep following up, they never give clear answers and drag you along for over more than a month without really telling you where things are at. That was more frustrating to me than no response or any rejection.
This is my stance as well. I have a decade of experience and I have been a workaholic, so at this point I wouldn't want to work somewhere with that bs anyway. I also have experienced one great HR team.
That being said, I know how the game is played. A decade ago, I listed a dozen things on my resume I would have had trouble to demonstrate, but nowadays I can just build a nice story that is 100% truthful from cherry-picked facts. Sad truth is that if you're too candid you might come off as too disengaged nowadays. I've seen it happen in interviews. Best to pretend that your life led to this moment, and that you're that kind of person to find exciting whatever kind of work it is. If you lack experience for entry-level roles, just fill the gaps with lies.
Yeah its funny theyre putting it so critically when the questions and system pretty much demand that you lie. In fact some interviewers may argue that the truthfulness of the answer isnt what they want as much as they want an employee's ability to think on the fly and quickly BS their way through.
Which honestly I think is not a great trait to look for in most roles.
But seriously these questions can be frustrating.
"What are your weaknesses"
Well I have allergies , I cant reach really high places, I often have trouble going to bed on time, I dont like waking up early, Im a socially awkward weirdo, I suspect I have adhd. Oh related to the job? Sure let me tell you all the(if any) weaknesses I have pertaining to the job youre screening for.
"Name a time that you failed and how you handled it" is more "tell us a story where something difficult happened at work and how were you able to fix it" but if you want I can use this truthful interview as a free therapy session and unload on you.
"Tell me about a time when..." If I had the time, I would go to interviews just to shut this shit down. I don't need the job, I just want to beat it into hiring managers' heads that this is BS and needs to stop. If those questions aren't given to the interviewee ahead of time to prepare, it's off the table.
I'm with you 100% on this rant.
I lied on mine until the day I no longer had to. Because I hadn't lied I wouldn't have gotten the jobs that I was qualified for.
Now if I want a different job I call up one of the head hunters that's been trying to get me to come work for their client. And that's the ONLY reason I don't lie on it anymore. I'll lie to a damn company in a heartbeat.
“what gets you out of bed in the morning?”
something tells me they never want the real answer (my bowels). 💩
90% of Employers lied on Job Posting, basically all evidence shows
I was on an interview call, and I was responding to his queries about a specific tool because that is what was mentioned in the job post.
After 2-3 questions, he says talk about some other tool which is okay, but then he starts asking questions outside of the technical requirements which I only knew surface level information about.
Upon pointing it out to him, he says there may be anything written on the job post, you should know how to read between the lines. I was a little confused, and realised it was not worth it to argue with someone who seemed disinterested in the interview itself.
Edit: wording changes.
you should know how to read between the lines
In other words, you should have read his mind!
Precisely that's what he wanted to say; look at a display and read what the thought was before they wrote the description ! How naive of me...
lol if you get hired and he ever complains of anything you should tell him that you already informed him all of the relevant details he just wasn't reading between the lines 🙄
That one anyway I lost interest after talking to the interviewer. It was clear to me that he didn't want me, and he didn't even join the call for about 30 minutes.
Had to call the recruiter about 3 times in 10 minute intervals before they connected and said the interviewer will be joining.
Got done with 2 rounds of interviews at 2 other companies, but it's been over a month after that so I assume it's not proceeding further ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I continue my search...
for every job I have gotten that said In their description "x years of experience in SQL" not once has anyone on my team ever used it even once in their job, why are u putting it on the description?!?!?
No no, I embellish. They do it too, fuck 'em.