Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.
'Curriculum vitae' typed using an old typewriter
istock_south_agency_aw

Are CVs worth the paper they are written on?

by
3rd Apr 2018
Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.

I found it hard to believe a short news piece over the weekend that claimed most CVs are packed with falsehoods. Even worse, it suggested that 90% of CVs submitted by the middle-aged are not wholly truthful.

There are two different sides to this revelation. First, there is the position of the prospective employee. It has never occurred to me to make any false statement on a CV. This is due to a number of different factors, all pointing in the same direction.

First, I have been trained as an accountant and had ethical considerations drummed into me from an early age. Secondly, my natural tendency is to avoid trouble so, since I would expect to be found out, especially in the accounting profession where most of those doing the interviewing are naturally suspicious individuals with audit and other investigative backgrounds, taking a big chance makes no sense. Thirdly, the consequences of being caught out in such behaviour do not bear thinking about. Anyone who does this will inevitably lose the job that they strove so hard to obtain and, at the same time, might possibly sacrifice the benefit of a highly valued qualification that took several years of torment to acquire. Going even further, in an extreme situation, a miscreant might conceivably end up subject to criminal prosecution with the prospect of a heavy fine or imprisonment, apparently for up to 10 years.

However, my focus today is far more on the other end of the equation. Over the years, I have generally managed to avoid interviewing or assessing job candidates. However, whenever I have seen a CV it did not occur to me that the individual may not have got the degree that they were claiming, worked for some of the firms that they are boasting about or even obtained some of the qualifications that were littered across the page.

More to the point, as far as I’m aware, very few employers actually go to the trouble of validating the details on a CV. I can fully understand that if you are dealing with dozens of CVs, it is probably not worth debugging them before going into the interview process, although that would make good sense, potentially preventing a lot of wasted time talking to somebody who will eventually be outed as a scoundrel. The bit that makes no sense to me is that, even after they have decided to offer the job to a high-powered candidate, HR departments do not do the basics.

My guess is that the percentage of firms that actively check CVs, even for senior level roles, is probably well below 50% and quite possibly doesn’t even hit 10%. Clearly, given the news that large numbers of applicants, even in the professions, are tempted to put forward information that is at best questionable and at worst completely invented, I would suggest that perhaps it is time for a change of policy.

The good news is that now that I know that lying is de rigueur and nobody bothers to check CVs, I may well be able to land a juicy Big Four job with a ludicrous salary on the strength of my double first from Cambridge, doctorate at Oxford and 20 years running PwC in the Lebanon. It’s got to be worth a go.

Replies (3)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

By SteveHa
03rd Apr 2018 09:36

How did the news piece quantify that 90%, and what did it consider lying? For example, you write your CV to present you in the best possible light, and so there will inevitably be a certain spin to it.

For example, you could include that you have advanced IT skills having assisted in facilitating a move of a 500 terminal IT system from several building into one (something I did actually do), and fail to mention that it took other experts two months to fix what you broke in the process (that bit didn't happen).

Would that be a lie by omission, misrepresentation, or simply a CV doing what a CV should do?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Vaughan Blake1
03rd Apr 2018 13:10

Don't forget this is a two way street and firms have been known to shamelessly over egg their own puddings at times!

Thanks (1)
Nefertiti
By Nefertiti
06th Apr 2018 12:26

If candidates sometimes "bend" the truth on their CV's, it is because they are forced to. The job market has now become a ruthless one and it is not just the middle-aged who do it, millennials lie on their CV's as a matter of routine. However I have yet to come across any CVs that contain false degrees or qualifications and contain significant "lies" that would result in heavy fines or even imprisonment - no need for such dramatics in the description.

But let us focus on what causes such behavior. Firstly the vile, totally crooked agencies who "sell" employees as slabs of meat. Totally disinterested in what a candidate has to offer they are too lazy to even read through a CV relying on software to pick up key phrases. They like candidates to modify each CV so that the client's requirements are clearly identified (because they don't want to summarize it themselves) and after all that, in most cases the candidate never hears from them again because they have offered the job to their favorite - not the best qualified or experienced. A common trick they use nowadays is to advertise the role at say £60k pa and then when they find candidates this is quickly changed to £55k "if the candidate wants the best chance of getting interviewed by the employer". Needless to say, these employment agencies suffer from the highest turnover of staff and it will be a rare event if you find the person who contacted you - still working there after a couple of months. The government desperately needs to regulate the employment agency as some of them are very shady characters (with incompetent staff members) to say the least.

Next come the accountants who supplement their income by finding employees for their clients. These vultures again lack the skill to find proper candidates, insisting on people who are very technically up to date but may lack the necessary people skills or experience. They want to hire someone who will present them the accounts in a totally complete state so that they can make more profits on their audits. It is surprising that ethics don't rule out accountants finding employees for their clients because such behavior can impact independence and fairness.

Finally come the employers. It is no secret that most businesses suffer from politics in the office and in my own survey from the past, 75% of the employers are not worth working for (and this includes accountants offices too) as they have unrealistic expectations and want their employees to habitually work extra hours for free. Bosses like to bury their heads in the sand and rarely have the guts to confront bullies or aggressive staff members who are making life hell for others around them. They end up recruiting incompetent people in most cases (which explains the high staff turnover in most businesses now) and are not bothered about creating a happy environment for their workers. They want to pay as less as possible and yet expect the maximum from their employees. Many crooked employers don't project a true image of their company at the initial interviews, some expect 3 or 4 interviews for a crappy job and some even resort to posting a false job title in order to save on salaries (e.g. calling the role a Book Keeper one when in fact the duties are that of an accountant). You only have to ask any doctor and he will confirm that the biggest cause of medical problems in the UK is stress arising from the work place because most of them are slowly becoming hell holes. That is why nobody stays in the same job for years like they used to.

I think The Imprudent Accountant should stop pointing fingers at candidates but focus on the above points because lets face it, this article is nothing short of "the pot calling the kettle black".

Thanks (0)