In job interviews, truth often wears makeup. A candidate for a mid-level marketing role recently claimed to have “led digital transformation initiatives.” Upon questioning, it emerged he had merely attended meetings where such projects were discussed. His leadership role? Pure fiction.
Such embellishment has become endemic. Statistics suggest up to 70 per cent of job seekers lie on their résumés, turning what should be factual documents into creative writing exercises. From fresh graduates inflating internship responsibilities to executives fabricating entire job titles, deception spans all levels and industries.
The digital age has made lying both easier and seemingly more necessary. Artificial intelligence now scans profiles before human eyes see them, creating an arms race of keyword stuffing. Some candidates have discovered particularly cunning tactics: embedding invisible keywords in white font against white backgrounds. Whilst AI systems detect these hidden terms and rank the résumé higher, human reviewers remain oblivious.
“One of my team members discovered how candidates game the system by hiding phrases like ‘data science’ or ‘SAP expert’ in invisible text,” explains Rishav Dev, head – talent acquisition, Century Plywoods. “The algorithm picks it up, but we don’t see it.”
Such technological trickery represents just one facet of a broader crisis. More traditional deceptions remain prevalent: omitting short employment stints, inflating job durations, or transforming clerical roles into managerial positions. A common red flag, according to Dev, involves listing only years of employment rather than specific months, masking awkward gaps.
The enablers
Why has dishonesty become so normalised? Nihar Ghosh, a senior HR leader, identifies a crucial factor: “People lie because they’ve seen others get away with it. And employers don’t always take action when they catch it.”
“People lie because they’ve seen others get away with it. And employers don’t always take action when they catch it.”Nihar Ghosh, senior HR leader
Companies often turn a blind eye, desperate to fill positions quickly. Even when red flags emerge, organisations may proceed anyway, fearing hiring delays or the absence of better candidates. This passive approach effectively rewards deception whilst punishing honesty.
The consequences extend beyond individual cases. When lies go unchallenged, they create a vicious cycle where honest candidates feel compelled to embellish their own credentials to remain competitive. The result is a job market where truth becomes a luxury few can afford.
Fighting back
Some organisations are pushing back with sophisticated verification methods. At Aditya Birla Money, chief human resources officer Anju Jumde has implemented rigorous questioning techniques that go beyond surface-level claims.
“A person who hasn’t really worked in the domain can’t answer detailed questions. It’s less about catching lies and more about verifying depth of experience.”Anju Jumde, CHRO, Aditya Birla Money
The team may gently probe into how clients were acquired—exploring details like the city, region, and nature of the clientele. “A person who hasn’t really worked in the domain can’t answer those questions. It’s less about catching lies and more about verifying depth of experience,” she explains.
The company’s approach extends to encouraging honesty about career gaps. “If there are career breaks, we ask directly. If the person comes clean, we’re open to discussion,” Jumde notes. However, any discrepancy discovered during background verification without prior disclosure results in immediate dismissal, even after joining.
This dual approach—encouraging transparency whilst maintaining strict consequences for deception—represents a more nuanced strategy than blanket suspicion or naive trust.
The limits of AI
Some of the deception isn’t even visible to the human eye—literally. Dev recounts a startling incident: “One of my team members told me how candidates embed hidden keywords in their résumés by using white font on a white background. While AI picks it up, human reviewers don’t even see it.”
“You need human eyes and judgment. I’ve seen fudging even at senior levels—people altering job durations, omitting short stints, or rebranding clerical roles into managerial ones.”Rishav Dev, head-talent acquisition, Century Plywoods
Such tactics are designed to game AI-driven Applicant Tracking Systems (ATS), which scan résumés for relevant keywords. A candidate may use phrases such as ’data science’, ’product design’, or ’SAP expert‘ in invisible text so that their résumé gets ranked higher by the algorithm—even if they have no real expertise.
Dev warns that while AI is helpful for screening, it can be tricked. “You need human eyes and judgment. I’ve seen fudging even at senior levels—people altering job durations, omitting short stints, or rebranding clerical roles into managerial ones.”
A common red flag he notes is missing employment months. “People list years, not months, to mask gaps. When you ask them precisely when they joined or left, they stumble.” His solution? Curiosity and attention to detail. “Interviewers must ask and probe. Common sense is the best detection tool we have.”
Systemic solutions
Individual company policies, however well-intentioned, cannot solve an industry-wide problem. Ghosh advocates for collective action, suggesting companies should actively penalise dishonesty even when candidates aren’t hired.
“Even if you don’t select the candidate, write back and say you’re being blacklisted for dishonesty,” he insists. He proposes alerting professional bodies when deception is detected, creating industry-wide consequences for fraudulent behaviour.
The technical arms race between candidates and AI screening systems also requires attention. Whilst artificial intelligence helps process vast numbers of applications, it remains vulnerable to manipulation. Dev emphasises the continued importance of human judgment: “You need human eyes and verification. Common sense remains our best detection tool.”
The deeper question
At its core, résumé fraud reflects a systemic problem rather than individual moral failing. When people feel they must lie to succeed, organisations must examine whether their expectations remain realistic and whether they accommodate normal human experiences such as career gaps, job changes, or personal setbacks.
The solution requires cultural change from both sides. Companies must create environments where honesty feels safe, clearly communicating that perfection isn’t the only path to employability. Simultaneously, they must implement and enforce serious consequences for deception.
This isn’t merely about catching liars; it’s about building a job market where truth has value. When dishonesty becomes normalised, everyone loses: employers hire unsuitable candidates, honest job seekers face unfair competition, and workplace trust erodes.
The current system measures potential through embellished bullet points rather than genuine capability. Until organisations address this fundamental misalignment, the résumé lie epidemic will continue—and truth will remain an increasingly rare commodity in the job market.
As Jumde puts it: “We tell candidates clearly—’Come clean now. Don’t make us discover the truth later.’” Perhaps it’s time the entire industry adopted this approach.