Hiring Managers - Which lie would you prefer?

[cotocatmom]

B. It would be understandable and at least they would (I'm assuming) be good at their job. A didn't really have the knowledge and would be found out pretty quickly when they had no idea what was going on. Both would likely come out during the hiring process either way.

[Hemlock140]

It's not worth the risk to ignore our written policy, which is termination for anyone being caught in a lie on the application, resume, or interview. Exaggeration is normal, especially on something subjective. For example, if someone rates their ability on something like Sharepoint 9 of 10, and they turn out to be 4-5, it could affect their performance review and their ability to pass probation. flat-out lie will mean immediate termination. So to answer the question, it makes no difference, both are fatal to their employment

[Wry_Martini]

I wouldn't be happy about either, but if I had a gun-to-my-head and had to hire either A or B, I'd go with B. While both are unethical, at least B is going to be competent.

Originally Posted by Mighty_Pelican

I find the bias against over qualification stupid. Who would not want an overqualified airline pilot, surgeon, lawyer, or babysitter over a barely competent one?

It's great, until that overqualified new employee finds a "real" job - i.e., one that pays better, is actually in their field, and is appropriate for their level of experience and knowledge. And you're forced to recruit and hire all over again.

[SweepTheLeg]

B.

With B, they can do the job successfully and they will be a grateful employee.

A wasted my time, is useless, and is costing the company time and money.

B didn't lie, B marketed themselves to the audience. A outright lied.

[Utopian Slums]

Originally Posted by convextech

I can't imagine either scenario.

A is an outright lie, and I'd fire you, and B would never happen, because you'd have already submitted a resume with holes in it.

I see you have not had a lot of experience being rejected for being over qualified through no fault of your own. Congratulations.

[Utopian Slums]

I think most people can relate to B more because it is not a blatant excuse to "get ahead." It's someone merely trying to survive.

[JXBC]

I'd prefer B if someone had a gun to my head.

However, as a hiring manager, I'd go with a candidate that didn't lie to begin with.

[convextech]

Originally Posted by Mighty_Pelican

I find the bias against over qualification stupid. Who would not want an overqualified airline pilot, surgeon, lawyer, or babysitter over a barely competent one?

Because they know the candidate is going to jump ship as soon as a better offer comes along.

[ackmondual]

B is "lying by omission" which in some circles, doesn't count if the "rate yourself scale" is interpreted as "if you have a certain minimum level"?

I'd be more comfy with B. For those HM that want to catch these, you do need to outright ask them on the app or interview stuff like "what's your highest level of education" if you're concerned a new hire will quit sooner than later for new, better job.

Originally Posted by Mighty_Pelican

I find the bias against over qualification stupid. Who would not want an overqualified airline pilot, surgeon, lawyer, or babysitter over a barely competent one?

Several reasons....

1) You typically have to pay for the experience level and skills you're getting.
If you get a senior level person to do a junior level's job, your budget may only be $40K per year, but the senior person may want an $80K salary.

2) that senior person gets bored, or is concerned there's no career development and jumps ship.