Are CEOs Too Big to Lie on Resumes?

After word came out that former Yahoo CEO Scott Thompson  embellished his resume with a fake degree in computer science, companies should have stepped up their verification protocols for CEOs.

Unfortunately, it seems that the industry hasn’t learned its lesson in this regard, as recent research from HireRight.com shows that incoming CEOSs are given a fairly easy ride in the background-screening process, compared to the rest of the workforce.

I can’t say that I am totally surprised by the situation: it’s generally much more complicated to check a CEO’s background than it is to check the background of a junior member of staff. For starters, it may be hard to find a credible witness in terms of performance and ability, as the CEO is often at the top of the tree (and even on the board), meaning there are few — if any — available managers ready for comment. Even if an HR department has identified a credible manager/witness, there may be a huge status gap between the person asking for references (perhaps a HR principal) and a board member, which could make the referee reluctant to engage in meaningful conversation. We probably shouldn’t understimate the fear factor, as it might be seen as crass, impolite or career limiting to question your future CEO’s integrity

However, we can’t leave the situation as is: according to the HireRight study, 25 percent of employers have hired people they wouldn’t have, had there been proper screening. In other words: the current lack of CEO screening is a serious failure. Since the evidence suggests that HR is not doing sufficient due diligence when hiring CEOs, HR could find itself the scapegoate if the CEO it signed off on is exposed as a liar on their resume.

It’s clear that CEOs are not too big to lie on resumes, but they may be too big to be scrutinized. So, what should HR do? I think that HR should put in a status-proof process for screening CEOs — in particular, a standardized, board-approved CEO screening process which includes thorough reference checking, which could involve the use of a third-party interviewer. That way, there are no embarrassments, awkward conversations, or untouchable CEOs. Instead, there is a well-publicized, transparent, non-negotiable CEO screening process that is independent of status and applicable to all. I think this will remove the main barriers to the proper scrutiny of incoming CEOs.