Frauds- Liar, Liar, Resume on Fire
Over the past few months I have had to review a lot of resumes, and go to a lot interviews where the candidate blatantly lies on their resume about their technical skills. Out of the last 10 I reviewed only 1 of them was honest about their skill set. These are not lies of omission. For example, they didn't get a along with their teammates or bosses. They are also not exaggerating by putting skills on the resume they know a little bit about. They are adding skills that they simply have never done, and a lot of times don't know anything about, except for the buzz word.
I really don't know if it is the market, and they are getting away with it at other companies, or if it is just the new thing to do.
We are hoping for some of the following skills:
C# 2.0 experience
Enterprise Library experience 3.0
Windows Form Development experience
Smart Client knowledge/experience
SQL Server (DB creation, Stored Procs) experience
.NET 2.0 & 2005 tools (SQL Server, Visual Studio) knowledge
UML experience/knowledge
ASP.NET Web Service experience
ASP.NET Experience
SQL Reporting Services experience
CAB (Composite UI) knowledge/experience
FxCop experience
WSE experience
WCSF
Odds are, if they had not lied about having experience, some of them may have been considered as a candidate that can learn and would been given a position. Their dishonesty blew any hope of that.
We are finding C#, RUP, UML, Process, Leadership, Enterprise Library, Smart Client, and experience with Design/Analysis/Architecture to be the main things people are lying about on their resumes.
I have had 2 or 3 paragraphs about using the RUP, doing Design and Analysis, with a list of all the UML diagrams listed which they said they had created. One resume had them in two consecutive jobs. When questioned, the candidate had not done any of it. At the end of the drilling session, the only thing the candidate did was read use cases created by a different team. The project did not use the RUP, but the candidate thought that reading use cases was the RUP, what?!?!?!?! Another candidate with the same type of listing was just as clueless.
I have had Smart Client and Winforms list on one job. When asked to tell me about the experience around those topics, they just said we didn't do that there. When asked why it was on the resume, they said because they had done it 3 years prior on a different project. So when asked about that project and the Smart Client and Winforms experience they went into some long story about the project. Which was a very nice story, but they never mentioned anything about Smart Client or Winforms.
I had one person list C# experience at 2.5 years on an N-tier application in which they worked at all levels. After questioning was done, they had written a console application and had less that 3 months time using C#.
I had a supposed architect level person come in that had 14 years of experience. They could not tell us what an n-tier architecture was, what a common 3 tier architecture was, what a data layer was, what patterns where used for, or anything at all related to a normal software development process.
One person had Enterprise Library listed as used extensively. When ask about it, they said they used the exception block. Ok, so the use was not extensive, that is ok. When asked to tell me about the use of the exception block, they said they used try catch. I said ok, how did you use the Exception Block with the try catch code blocks. He replied with, that is what we did, try catch. I asked if they logged with it, you know how did you handle the exceptions. The response, with try catch. After another 5 minutes we realized he thought try catch was the EL Exception Block, and because he used it so much he had extensive Enterprise Library experience.
I could go on and on, but I think I have made my point about the level of attempted deception.
It does not seem to be a culture thing. It may be consulting firms thinking they are doing the interviewer a favor by getting them in front of a potential employer at all cost. It has been happening over the past several months at an increasing rate.
One thing that is bad about the consulting firms is that their prescreening is poor. That is if they are not the ones to blame for adding the bogus information in the first place. In the past, the use of consulting firms was to help you prescreen. That does not seem to be true anymore. They have become used car sales people. Lying as much as the candidates, in hope of slipping one through.
Our company is at fault as well because they are not demanding quality prescreening. They are desperate to get the positions filled. The sooner they are filled the sooner they can bill.
The bad thing about wanting the positions filled so badly is they are in danger of repeating one of the biggest messes I have ever seen. More here on that mess. To fill the positions with unqualified people is unfair to our clients who are paying top dollar for senior people.
I have been told by people that this lying is normal behavior, that it is something we should expect, and that calling them a liar or fraud is too harsh. I have been raising this issue as a problem for a while now. I have refused to even talk to the individuals that I have spotted as frauds simply by looking at their resumes. One theory passed on to me is that no one is listening because I am to harsh and that I should just go with the flow. I am not going to change for the worse to fit into environment where emotionally charged words like liar, fraud, and phony close the ears of the people responsible for allowing it to continue. Besides, it is not the message they are even hearing. What they are hearing from me is, "We need to lose money by not filling these positions until qualified candidates are available". When in reality, my suggestion will end up making happier clients in the long run, which will also equate to more money in the long run.
If you are looking for a new job, do not put anything on your resume you cannot go into detail about. If it is not production level experience, mark it that way. Experience is important, but none of it counts if you are caught lying about your experience. It labels the rest of the experience you listed as possibly being bogus too. Most companies are always open to trainable people, just not dishonest ones.
I am most certainly not going to cave in and go with the flow. Hearing a suggestion like that just makes me push harder. If the people around me don't like it, I don't care. What is their argument going to be, "Please start working with us to hire liars, frauds, and phonies. Our clients need them on their projects, and we need them on our teams."?
I really don't know if it is the market, and they are getting away with it at other companies, or if it is just the new thing to do.
We are hoping for some of the following skills:
C# 2.0 experience
Enterprise Library experience 3.0
Windows Form Development experience
Smart Client knowledge/experience
SQL Server (DB creation, Stored Procs) experience
.NET 2.0 & 2005 tools (SQL Server, Visual Studio) knowledge
UML experience/knowledge
ASP.NET Web Service experience
ASP.NET Experience
SQL Reporting Services experience
CAB (Composite UI) knowledge/experience
FxCop experience
WSE experience
WCSF
Odds are, if they had not lied about having experience, some of them may have been considered as a candidate that can learn and would been given a position. Their dishonesty blew any hope of that.
We are finding C#, RUP, UML, Process, Leadership, Enterprise Library, Smart Client, and experience with Design/Analysis/Architecture to be the main things people are lying about on their resumes.
I have had 2 or 3 paragraphs about using the RUP, doing Design and Analysis, with a list of all the UML diagrams listed which they said they had created. One resume had them in two consecutive jobs. When questioned, the candidate had not done any of it. At the end of the drilling session, the only thing the candidate did was read use cases created by a different team. The project did not use the RUP, but the candidate thought that reading use cases was the RUP, what?!?!?!?! Another candidate with the same type of listing was just as clueless.
I have had Smart Client and Winforms list on one job. When asked to tell me about the experience around those topics, they just said we didn't do that there. When asked why it was on the resume, they said because they had done it 3 years prior on a different project. So when asked about that project and the Smart Client and Winforms experience they went into some long story about the project. Which was a very nice story, but they never mentioned anything about Smart Client or Winforms.
I had one person list C# experience at 2.5 years on an N-tier application in which they worked at all levels. After questioning was done, they had written a console application and had less that 3 months time using C#.
I had a supposed architect level person come in that had 14 years of experience. They could not tell us what an n-tier architecture was, what a common 3 tier architecture was, what a data layer was, what patterns where used for, or anything at all related to a normal software development process.
One person had Enterprise Library listed as used extensively. When ask about it, they said they used the exception block. Ok, so the use was not extensive, that is ok. When asked to tell me about the use of the exception block, they said they used try catch. I said ok, how did you use the Exception Block with the try catch code blocks. He replied with, that is what we did, try catch. I asked if they logged with it, you know how did you handle the exceptions. The response, with try catch. After another 5 minutes we realized he thought try catch was the EL Exception Block, and because he used it so much he had extensive Enterprise Library experience.
I could go on and on, but I think I have made my point about the level of attempted deception.
It does not seem to be a culture thing. It may be consulting firms thinking they are doing the interviewer a favor by getting them in front of a potential employer at all cost. It has been happening over the past several months at an increasing rate.
One thing that is bad about the consulting firms is that their prescreening is poor. That is if they are not the ones to blame for adding the bogus information in the first place. In the past, the use of consulting firms was to help you prescreen. That does not seem to be true anymore. They have become used car sales people. Lying as much as the candidates, in hope of slipping one through.
Our company is at fault as well because they are not demanding quality prescreening. They are desperate to get the positions filled. The sooner they are filled the sooner they can bill.
The bad thing about wanting the positions filled so badly is they are in danger of repeating one of the biggest messes I have ever seen. More here on that mess. To fill the positions with unqualified people is unfair to our clients who are paying top dollar for senior people.
I have been told by people that this lying is normal behavior, that it is something we should expect, and that calling them a liar or fraud is too harsh. I have been raising this issue as a problem for a while now. I have refused to even talk to the individuals that I have spotted as frauds simply by looking at their resumes. One theory passed on to me is that no one is listening because I am to harsh and that I should just go with the flow. I am not going to change for the worse to fit into environment where emotionally charged words like liar, fraud, and phony close the ears of the people responsible for allowing it to continue. Besides, it is not the message they are even hearing. What they are hearing from me is, "We need to lose money by not filling these positions until qualified candidates are available". When in reality, my suggestion will end up making happier clients in the long run, which will also equate to more money in the long run.
If you are looking for a new job, do not put anything on your resume you cannot go into detail about. If it is not production level experience, mark it that way. Experience is important, but none of it counts if you are caught lying about your experience. It labels the rest of the experience you listed as possibly being bogus too. Most companies are always open to trainable people, just not dishonest ones.
I am most certainly not going to cave in and go with the flow. Hearing a suggestion like that just makes me push harder. If the people around me don't like it, I don't care. What is their argument going to be, "Please start working with us to hire liars, frauds, and phonies. Our clients need them on their projects, and we need them on our teams."?
posted by tadanderson at 7:39 AM
4 Comments:
My shortest interview was yesterday. It took 4 minutes. We asked about 5 things on the resume and the candidate had done none of them. The answers were: "That was a mistake and I shouldn't have had it on there", "They did all of that before I got there, so I didn't really do it", when asked what tool they did there Sequence diagrams in they said VSTS2005, and on and on and on….
Tad - Good post and, as a placement professional, I agree with your assessment. It is unfortunate that my industry is involved in such deception. The thought amongst some of these candiates that "if I can only get into the interview process, maybe I can get by" is deceptive and harmful.
I highly suggest that you take the time to interview the consulting and placement firms that you work with. Ask them what their procedures are, how they qualify candidates and hold them to it. I would also recommend that you work with niche firms that specialize in locating the specific talent you require. My firm happens to specialize in EA/SOA talent and take great pride in being able to qualify candidates prior to client submittal. No one is ever perfect, but these steps will certainly help.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dude, I hear you. I think that sometimes, people who show up aren't even the people we interviewed. They had someone else do the phone interview!
Post a Comment
<< Home