Recent times have seen some distinguished
CEOs and leaders biting the dust literally when some untruths were discovered
in their resumes, a clear case of unnecessary padding. A few did not possess
the qualifications they professed, some had not been to colleges they put in
there. These are not run of the mill average Joe kind of people, they are in
high offices and have shaped the future of many. It created news for a short
while, and then everyone moved on relegating the tainted ones to oblivion.
To expand the team I recently started
hiring fresh and experienced talent and was flooded with resumes. It was a task
to navigate through pages of hundreds of eager professionals looking through spell
check errors, acronyms that I have no clue what they mean, grammatical goof
ups, and multiple formats that challenged me to find information in a maze
game. These were not freshers, unexposed to corporate culture; they included
experienced professionals with decade plus behind them.
I did not challenge the veracity of the
information presented even in cases that stretched conventional wisdom, though
annotating to explore further in the interview. I discovered that IT folks are
largely truthful and sometimes too much; if they have been on a project that
involved a leading edge technology, they will ensure it catches your attention.
Only on digging deeper you realize that their role could have been just testing
or documentation; or maybe peripheral and not technical or functional.
The conscientious mentioned every project,
every assignment, and every new company even if they spent only a few months in
each; though the interesting ones were the gaps which during the interview were
explained in shy and embarrassing tones. They believed that if you join a
company and realize that it was a mistake, don’t mention it; skip the
experience that does not reflect well on your resume. No mal intent here, just
that not always in interest of keeping an abridged and concise representation;
just to put the best foot forward.
So how to get the real person out of a few
pages of history including education, experience, achievements, personality,
potential, technical skills, and what have you. There are umpteen reference websites
that offer to teach the art of interviewing and getting the best out of the
person sitting across the table, the potential candidate. The intent though not
adversarial is to assess everything possible about the person in the typical
less than an hour spent, lateral thinking and what not.
I am not sure if this would make sense, but
it is not just the responses to the questions that help us in the selection
process, there is a lot more. The first few minutes have already decided the
way the interview goes; subconscious mind or body language, you already know if
you will like the person. The resume and the detailed planning are then thus
pointers to the discussion. I have rarely seen a situation where the candidate
was able to swing it around though many did not live up to initial
expectations.
Coming back to the moot point, why do
people manipulate resumes ? Is it just to look better than who they are or a
desperate urge to get something that is not rightfully theirs ? Is it misplaced
self-esteem or belief of personal value ? I don’t know, everyone probably has
different motivations; do they realize that in the end they are really
undermining their integrity and the way people see them ? Or has the value
system changed in a way that we are comfortable with little lies if they go
unnoticed ?