Can you Determine if a Candidate is Telling you the Truth?
Within that same survey they polled just over 300 employers and found that 49 percent had discovered an applicant stretching the truth on his/her resume. This research is backed up by a UK article from the Guardian that suggests that as many as one quarter of applicants “deviate from the truth on their CV.”
Uncomfortable a thought as it may be, many of the candidates that we face may not be telling us the truth, and it is our duty of care as responsible recruiters to do the best we can to verify the candidate’s claims. Short of using a lie detector, I have outlined several techniques and insights that can help us recruiters to establish the authenticity of what a candidate is telling us.
1. Know where to look for lies
Research from HireRight tells us that around a third of applications include some kind of discrepancy on dates of employment. It seems that candidates often stretch the truth to hide gaps in their work history.
Another common lie is the falsification of a key qualification or credential, such as a degree. There are enough high profile cases in the news today to let us know that not only does this type of falsification still go on, but that some employers are still failing to check.
Inflation of a salary or title is another very common form of falsification by candidates.
2. Spotting Lies
Establishing whether or not someone is telling the truth at interview is more an art than science; even Polygraphs are thought to be 80-90 percent accurate, which is far from perfect.
So, as interviewers we are not expecting to know with certainty if an interviewee is telling the truth, we are simply here to look for indicators and to establish how credible the candidate’s explanation is of his or her contribution or involvement in a task.
Below, I have set out several indicators that suggest that a candidate may notbe telling the truth.
- Avoids saying “I”
According to Greg McCrary, a retired FBI field operative in Virginia, people tend to use “I” and “me” less often than people who are being truthful. They may speak about themselves in the third person or truncate their speech – anything that provides them with psychological distance from the lie. If a candidate is talking about an achievement but uses ‘we’ and ‘us’, ensure to press them with questions such as “What did you do?”, and “What wasyour involvement?”
- Push for detail
Lyndsay Moran, a former CIA officer, suggests that “liars’ stories often lack detail”. If a candidate’s response is sufficient but a little shallow, ensure you probe deeply and push the candidate for details. The more impromptu detail (as opposed to pre-rehearsed detail) that is provided, the more credible the response.
- Failure to make eye contact
According to NYPD Officer Parker and Former Agent Moran (above), people who are in the processing of deceiving fail to make eye contact. So ensure to observe your interview subject’s eyes throughout the interview to see if they can maintain eye contact.
- Dilated pupils and higher tones
Dilated pupils and speaking in a higher vocal pitch are stress indicators often found by people who are lying, according to a University of Virginia study by De-Paulo and Morris. If theses signs are displayed in your interviewee, it could be a sign they are not telling the truth.
- Fewer hand movements
DePaulo and Morris also found that people who are not telling the truth make fewer hand movements to illustrate their actions. So, watch your interviewee carefully to see how animated they are when talking.
- Repetition
Liars are more likely to repeat words and phrases, so watch closely for this kind of repetition in your interviewees. If you see it, it may be a sign that they are not telling the truth.
- Fewer exclusionary words
“What does that mean”, I hear you ask? It means that people who are not telling the truth will use words like except, but or nor, much less often. These words help the person using them to distinguish what they did from what they did not do. A failure to use exclusionary words at all can indicate that there is some fudging together of activity going on, e.g. possibly taking credit for the work of others.
As I have said, lie detection is more an art than science and research suggests that only a small minority of us have the skills to accurately distinguish deceptiveness from truthfulness. So, while I don’t think one could rely on these indicators absolutely to establish truth or deception, it can, along with the content of the candidate’s speech, contribute to an overall picture of credibility around the candidate. If you are concerned about a candidate’s credibility in a certain area, then you can think about introducing some kind of in-tray exercise, practical and or theoretical test, or role play scenario that can help to verify their claims to competency.