That's a question I have when I go to a car show and there are dozens of cars showing off their "original patina."

Where I worked, most tried to lie where, if caught, they could spin to claim that they were saying something different (since they could be fined or serve jail time for lying). If you were wary, you could always identify these folks (and there were many). HR and a lot of managers could not. If they liked you or you filled a quota (were a veteran, woman or minority...you were in automatically). I could eliminate at least 75% of the applicants (and often 100%) just from the obvious misrepresentation in their application packages (which were their resume and college transcripts).

Here is an example...the resume says: "Led a team that increased sales by 200%". Many would think this meant the supervisor of the team...but the person that had the most sales on the team or the biggest dollar value of sale could list this. So could the person that felt that they were the informal "leader" who was really the catalyst for the sales (even if not necessarily acknowledged as such by the formal leadership. Of course, You can leave a lot out. For example, if it is only the second year of the company's existence and sales were only a dollar the year before...then a 200% increase is not much. Maybe a merger or addition of a new product line is what doubled sales, not anything done by the sales staff. Perhaps the personnel in the sales staff were increased by 400% gleaning the 200% increase in sales.

What I saw most often was a deputy or relatively low-level person acting in an administrative (almost secretarial) role taking credit for what their superior was responsible for. I often saw this with folks coming from the military where an NCO essentially reproduced their commander's resume. Since I had a lot of military experience, I could tell quickly by looking at their rank or the schools they attended that they were greatly exaggerating. Most others in my organization (without similar experience) fell for it every time.

The other thing I saw often was a person trying to pass themselves off as an engineer at their previous position when they did not have the required degree/education. They simply added "engineer" to their resume job title and threw in a lot of related terms in their resume (when they were simply some sort of low-level manager). Engineer opportunities were much better and paid more. This almost always worked if they had a degree with the word "engineer" in it. Lots of schools have engineering management degrees that really have no engineering in them whatsoever. When you looked at the transcripts of these folks, they had never taken any engineering courses and few in math and science. Not even Calculus.

The other thing is where they used the term "professional engineer"...which most would assume they were certified as a Professional Engineer (and passed the PE). But when cornered, they told you that they were professional (earned money) doing engineering work. Usually, they were a low-level manager or technician that worked for an engineer or administrative.

What ever happened to "Give him a chance to fake it, till you make it".
I was a rookie HV Electrician @ one time, you learn quick with 12Kv in play or go find a safe sandbox job.
Leadership through opportunities given and mentoring has been diminished to risk mitigation these days. Industry is suffering accordingly with finding people instead of developing from within.

....true, but don't kid yourself, for higher profile hires everyone checks their network to find out the True Hollywood story on a guy.

I had it once where I called a former colleague of mine about a person who we had some concerns about, even though the resume and interview went fine. I asked him about management skills and whether people liked working for him.

Colleague was quiet for a minute and said, " I will give you a complete list of his management strengths and then hang up".
That was followed by 15 seconds of silence and "click".

'nuff said.

D.

I don't think there's any law imposing such a restriction. Companies choose to do what you describe - most likely due to fear of litigatin.

Right out of the gate you lie and claim this thread isn't about him.

Everyone can see your embellishment.

Everyone knows you are lying.

Nobody cares.

In fact some go along with the ruse and call out others for making this ParFy.

This is just like a resume.

And, for sales or political positions, the ability to lie like that is seen as an asset.

Reason being, a lot of people exist in a social-construct 'reality.'

Of course those planted more firmly in the physical world cringe at that stuff.

^^^^ Seahawk can send this to PARF if he wants to, but this thread is about the private sector .... as I don't think we have any politicians on here, and was curious about what others' experienced. You see what you want to see and believe what you want to believe.... makes no difference to me.

We all know where to go to discuss lying politicians of both parties ... this isn't the place.

uh huh.

First sentence: Please don't send this to PARF, it's not about him ;)

Which is to say, it's about that lying politician, but let's go forward kind of pretending it's not. so it stays in OT

Which is fine with me. I think it is an excellent example of how many lie on resumes. From there, it is all about matter of degree. Sales, politicians... the skill is to 'spin' (lie) just enough to persuade.

The problem for the guy who this thread is "not" about is that he came clean. A good liar would double-down ... "that school has no record of me? That sounds like a vast scholastic-wing conspiracy!" - something like that. Or, "Cherokee nation has no records and DNA says not Indian... Can't be, I have high cheek-bones."

Oh wait.. one more double-down lying example.

Imagine a guy gets called out for making an obviously latent political thread in OT...

The double-down: You see what you want to see and believe what you want to believe. These are not the political droids you are looking for.

Skillz you have.

:)

The CNBC article I read was somewhat about "him", then went on to discuss resumes for regular folks .... non-political types. That's why I opened that way ... I don't give a crap about "him" fwiw.... there's probably a thread or two already in PARF .... at least ;).

I've gotten the responses I was seeking from others in the private sector..... and the usual stuff too :D.

Send it on over Paul .... if ya want to ... I'll get over it ... or not ;).

Lying, at any time, is out of bounds. It tells us about your character. Or lack thereof. I have written resumes in a way that sounds impressive but I have never lied or even stretched a truth. And it's not because I feared consequences. It's because I have to look at myself in the morning while I shave.

In psychology, this is called "projecting." We appear to have read the OP differently. To me, the OP was crystal clear. A very specific topic, suitable for discussion in OT, that specifically excluded "him."

In engineering we often gain insight into relations by looking at boundary conditions.

When it comes to lying on resumes it helps to know, or at least consider those boundary conditions. - what are the extremes of the bell-curve of lying....

This will range from Boy-scouts turned physicist/or chemist/engineer... to the politician that is skilled enough to tell you to go to hell and have you looking forward to the trip.

But you don't want to talk about politicians WINK WINK ...that is not what this is about WINK WINK

I get a sudden George Castanza vibe out of ya there.

https://media1.giphy.com/media/j0a8K...giphy.gif&ct=g

See, you lied right there. A small lie, but for you to dismiss the purposeful ambiguity with "crystal clear" is spin - a lie.

from page 2

Read: I am not the only one seeing the political dig, yet you feel the need to over-sell/spin/lie and claim he was "crystal clear" when demonstrably not. :)

Enough about politics. Jesus.

The thread stays...your posts may not.

Resumes are neon signs....any company personnel that hire based on a resume and little else will need to update their resume.

Because the law requires Federal employees appointed to engineering positions be qualified (engineering degree or equiv., PE...sometimes both).

You don't learn Physics and Calculus on the job.

This ^ is part of the understanding.

People grounded in the physical world need to be true to the inflexible physical world.

Whereas People grounded in the social-construct world have more... flexibility.

For example; The woman selling you that new car, telling you how great you look behind the wheel (or whatever) need to be skilled at constructing an imagined reality.

This is why resumes will differ in amount of acceptable BS. - An engineer who claims he figured out how 2+2=5 will be seen as a joker. Someone in sales/marketing.. saying the same will get positive attention.

What about EEs .... they were literally a dime-a-dozen in my career .... and those courses and a degree did NOT mean squat. While at IBM, all the youngins had degrees, but many of the EEs that were older did not. Some of the best in fact. The were tested for apptitude and then had OJT within IBM back in the 70s. I was always leading/bleeding edge in computers and communications tech .... you simply don't even get exposed to that while getting a degree... only in theory. Certainly not at NC State .... and those grads were damn good .... IBM got the cream of the crop from everywhere too.... but the older geezers ruled also.... real world EE. The corps I worked for generally had degree requirements, but proven track records were hired too ... if they wanted you, they found a way to circumvent HR.

But lying on a resume was always verboten... and cause for immediate termination.

In a Big Bang episode we watched last night, Penny's newest boyfriend-du-jour looked at the science nerds and said "You guys all know that in science, there is no one right answer." I laughed out loud.