Why do job seekers lie?

Rubric “PSYCHOLOGY OF EMOTIONS” by Diego Ingrassia – “Why do jobseekers lie? ”
for CONTEMPORARY PSYCHOLOGY – Emotions – no. 262, July-August 2017 – GIUNTI EDITORE

Try typing the words: ‘how to deal with a selection interview’. Under the search engine string I read: 134 000 results in 0.59 seconds.
Statistics say that most of us don’t go beyond the first four or five pages, in any case we already have dozens and dozens of information and tips.
If we then do a quick analysis of the nature of the tips, we obviously find everything: how to write a CV, how to acquire information about the company, how to go into the job description.
Then we come to personal preparation, ranging from content to communication style, verbal and non-verbal, and then again the management of emotions and stress, not forgetting clothing.
Some even refer to breath and fragrances.
Between pages there is also some advice for the opposite side: ‘what are the best questions to ask a candidate during a selection interview’; ‘what is the primary mission of a good recruiter’; ‘what is the ideal place to have a good interview’.

Putting it all together, it is no exaggeration to imagine a war scenario, or, if you prefer, a kind of chess game.
But unlike war and chess, in this case there is no one winning and no one losing.
Or at any rate, we believe that thinking in this sense is very limiting.
In wars, in fact, there is cheating: the game of concealment is often more valuable than bombs.
The practice of building cardboard, or more recently fibreglass, silhouettes in place of real planes or tanks to fool the enemy’s aerial photographs and appear bigger and stronger is well known. Let us then imagine for a moment that we are looking from above at that table where two people, clearly with different roles, are facing each other.
From above, it is easier to analyse that scene according to a systemic logic, and in this case it would be wise to think that the best possible meeting between the needs and interests of the two parties should result from that conversation. In reality this does not happen, or it still happens too rarely, because even at the selection tables people lie.

Research carried out by EIA (Emotional Intelligence Academy) in the UK highlights these findings. A quarter of all job interviewees lie when writing their CV. The most common distortions and omissions are those concerning:

• the previous salary received (23%);

.

• the level of previous experience (14%);
• the actual educational qualification (13%);
• dates and duration of previous job duties (10%);
• the recognised professional title (9%);

.

The figures relating to these small or large lies are on the rise, a fact that is not surprising in a market that, accomplice to the crisis, requires candidates to distinguish themselves and stand out in an increasingly competitive and selective scenario.
In some cases, concealment is limited to mere exaggeration, often compensated for by the worker quickly adapting to the new job.
In many other situations, however, we are faced with truly false and incorrect statements and behaviour.
In these cases, the new recruit may be genuinely unsuitable for the job, and his or her incompetence may result in considerable damage to the company in terms of wasted time invested and money lavished, as well as affecting the lives of other potential candidates, unfairly discarded during the initial selection process, even though they may be objectively more competent.

For several years now, the notion of competence has extended the field of investigation from specialised training linked to studies or previous work experience, to the so-called ‘transversal competences’ that seek to identify and understand, within a broader vision, the candidate’s motivations, values and behavioural orientations.
Lying on these aspects is more difficult if those conducting the selection are prepared to grasp aspects of an emotional-behavioural nature.

In more general terms, it should be reiterated that the selection interview should never be experienced as a challenge, and this applies to both sides of the table.
The asymmetric game to prove who is better, who wins and who loses, does not pay and exposes to the risk well summarised by the statement that ‘companies hire for skills and fire for behaviour’.
The time is ripe to start thinking that the knowledge we have can help us change the culture that accompanies selection activities.
The tendency for candidates to provide untrue data, which was mentioned earlier, is basically nothing more than a response, certainly not a correct one, to a widespread perceptual distortion that leads to a misinterpretation of the meaning of this activity.
Countering this tendency is possible starting with a commitment to improving the skills of those responsible for managing selection activities.
The observation capacity and sensitivity of those working in the sector must improve, in order to extend the investigation to the sphere of emotions and motivations.
In managing the interview, therefore, enhance those aspects related to emotional intelligence that play a decisive role in the balance of the assessment process.
Therefore, it would be good to start looking at the selection interview with a different mindset, and this, once again, is a wish that should concern all the actors involved.
Lowering barriers and resistance and accepting to get involved within a path of exploration aimed at a common knowledge, is the best premise to assess the presence or absence of the necessary prerequisites for a meeting capable of generating development prospects and reciprocal opportunities.