Catfishing in hiring: Who is to blame?

Consider a job seeker arriving for their first day at a coveted new position, only to discover the role bears scant resemblance to what was advertised. Or an employer who onboards a seemingly perfect candidate, only to find their impressive CV was largely fictional. Such scenarios exemplify the modern recruitment paradox—a realm where misrepresentation has become commonplace on both sides of the hiring desk.

‘Catfishing’—creating deceptive online personas—has expanded beyond dating apps into professional spheres. In today’s corporate landscape, embellished credentials and illusory job descriptions have become standard features rather than exceptions. What drives this mutual deception, and who bears responsibility for it?

Members of Generation Z, shaped by social media culture and economic precarity, approach job hunting with calculated pragmatism. Confronted with rampant inflation, mounting student debt and entry-level positions demanding years of experience, many feel compelled to exaggerate their qualifications. The gig economy’s instability and constant pressure to demonstrate new skills further incentivise CV enhancement.

“Markets change, situations change, and businesses face unexpected challenges. As a result, job roles evolve, sometimes in ways that surprise employees.”

Ravi Kumar, chief people officer, Page Industries

However, employers are equally culpable. Many craft unrealistic job descriptions seeking ‘unicorn’ candidates—individuals possessing an improbable combination of expertise, experience and cultural alignment, often at modest salaries. Companies frequently misrepresent positions, promising flexibility, advancement opportunities and meaningful work that seldom materialise.

This phenomenon reflects the fluid nature of contemporary work. “Markets change, situations change, and businesses face unexpected challenges. As a result, job roles evolve, sometimes in ways that surprise employees,” explains Ravi Kumar, chief people officer, Page Industries. A marketing associate hired to manage digital campaigns might suddenly find themselves orchestrating influencer partnerships following a strategic pivot. While adaptable employees thrive amid such shifts, others feel misled.

“In my view, it is always a demand and supply issue that influences these decisions or trends. If there are fewer vacancies, competition increases, leading more people to try to win over or sell their CVs/candidature.”

R Venkattesh, former president, DCB Bank

R Venkattesh, former president, DCB Bank, frames the issue in economic terms: “In my view, it is always a demand and supply issue that influences these decisions or trends. If there are fewer vacancies, competition increases, leading more people to try to win over or sell their CVs/candidature.”

To mitigate such disconnects, organisations must adopt forward-looking recruitment strategies. Beyond assessing immediate requirements, they should anticipate how positions might transform. “When hiring, they should ask: What will this role look like two years down the line? Will new technology disrupt it? Will external forces reshape it?” suggests Kumar. Such foresight not only yields superior hiring outcomes but reduces friction during integration.

“Why do CVs often seem incongruous with the actual candidate? I don’t blame Gen Z for this entirely. Social media glorifies early success, creating immense pressure to embellish achievements.”

Pankaj Lochan, chief human resources officer, Navin Fluorine

Candidates, meanwhile, increasingly craft narratives designed to captivate. Social media and professional networking platforms encourage job seekers to present polished, occasionally embellished versions of themselves—a practice known as “resume inflation” or “candidate catfishing”.

Pankaj Lochan, chief human resources officer, Navin Fluorine, identifies the underlying pressures: “Why do CVs often seem incongruous with the actual candidate? I don’t blame Gen Z for this entirely. Social media glorifies early success, creating immense pressure to embellish achievements.”

Unlike previous generations who followed methodical career progressions, younger workers feel compelled to demonstrate rapid advancement. “Earlier, employment was like marriage—long term and deeply evaluated. Now, it’s more like speed dating. Hiring is often based on CVs rather than thorough interviews,” Lochan adds.

The diminishing rigour of interview processes exacerbates this misalignment. “Today, the focus is often on how well a CV is written rather than thoroughly assessing a candidate’s problem-solving abilities,” observes Lochan. He emphasises the importance of comprehensive evaluation: “Despite being an advocate of AI and automation, I personally conduct two-hour interviews. I dig deep to understand a candidate’s true potential rather than relying solely on a polished CV.”

Technological advances have simultaneously streamlined and depersonalised recruitment. Consequently, applicants—particularly from Generation Z—have adapted by optimising their applications with industry buzzwords to navigate automated screening systems. These algorithmic processes, however, struggle to evaluate essential human qualities such as adaptability, emotional intelligence and genuine enthusiasm.

Venkattesh highlights another dimension: “Unless we create proper on-the-job training and a supportive environment, freshers won’t gain the required experience. Remember, to acquire five years of experience, a fresher needs to be given five years. Some investments are necessary.” He adds, “Also, JDs involve creative writing as they capture aspirational requirements which may not be realistic.”

The consequences of recruitment misrepresentation are substantial for all parties. Employers deceived by exaggerated credentials may hire unsuitable candidates, resulting in productivity losses and cultural dissonance. Conversely, job seekers who secure positions through misrepresentation often experience impostor syndrome and premature termination when unable to meet expectations.

Moreover, this cycle erodes institutional trust. As Venkattesh notes, “company processes have numerous checks and balances. Checks at the time of joining and background checks can result in termination of employment and negatively impact the company’s brand. Similarly, it dents candidates’ credibility and employability.”

Rather than assigning blame, the solution involves reimagining recruitment practices to foster transparency. Employers should craft realistic job descriptions rather than aspirational wish lists. By prioritising potential and adaptability over rigid credentials, organisations can create environments that encourage authenticity.

Similarly, job seekers must recognise the importance of presenting genuine capabilities rather than pursuing unattainable positions through fabrication. Companies adopting skills-based hiring over credential-focused approaches create more inclusive and realistic recruitment ecosystems.

Humanising the process through conversational interviews, practical assessments and mentorship initiatives enables both parties to develop mutual understanding. When recruiters engage with candidates personally rather than algorithmically, they identify suitable talent without succumbing to deceptive self-promotion.

The responsibility is shared. Generation Z engages in CV enhancement not from dishonesty but in response to unrealistic expectations and algorithmic screening barriers. Concurrently, employers have created conditions where candidates feel pressured to overstate capabilities merely to secure consideration.

As Venkattesh aptly concludes, “An individual is responsible for displaying the right values and ethics from their side. At the same time, companies should be realistic and not make the entry barrier impossible.”

The future of recruitment demands mutual commitment to authenticity over perfection—a system valuing potential above performative credentials.