Previous Article Next Article Comments are closed. HR HartleyOn 27 Jul 2004 in Personnel Today Thetruth may be out there, but not on most CVsRecently,we had to sack yet another fibber from the company. He was a sales rep whoseclaims about his past were even more outrageous than his claims about ourproducts. It turned out that he hadn’t left a previous employer in 1999 becausehe’d been laid off. He’d been sacked for gross misconduct.Andhis claim that he’d been enjoying a gap year in 1997 was a little wide of themark. In fact, he’d spent time at Her Majesty’s pleasure. I accept that this isprobably more character-building than back-packing around Chechnya in Gapbaggies, but he still told a porkie.Thetruth emerged when an employee recognised him and grassed him up. It certainlywasn’t due to our rigorous vetting procedures, which only spot the obvious liessuch as age and why the appointee left their previous job.ButI draw comfort from the fact that we are not alone – it seems the whole land islying. And I’ve set up a body to devise ways of tightening our vettingprocedures.Accordingto recent figures from the Risk Advisory Group, 65 per cent of CVs submitted byjob applicants in 2003 contained lies – a rise of 16 per cent over the 2002figure. Put simply, that’s two out of three applicants telling lies. Lying isendemic – just look at the Government. But what can be done about a problemthat will worsen?MostHR professionals would argue for improved vetting procedures that check out anapplicant’s claims. But I’d go further than that. Organisations beyond acertain size should ensure that all vetting is done by one or two dedicatedpersonnel who are trained to spot, for example, inconsistencies in CVs. Don’tleave vetting to line managers. They won’t spot the fibbers. Related posts:No related photos.