Is Your Company
Hiring Charlatans?
A study of ethical standards in the hiring process
According to recent surveys conducted by Checkster, more job applicants may be engaging
in unethical behavior than you think. Checkster conducted two surveys: one with 400 hiring
managers, recruiters, and HR employees and another with 400 individuals who had applied for
or received job oers in the past six months. We asked about their opinions on a variety of ways
to misrepresent themselves in the hiring process. These behaviors ranged from claiming a degree
from a university they didn’t aend to inang their role on a project. The recruiters and hiring
managers then reported their likelihood to hire an individual who had made one of these inated
claims, while the parcipants in the applicant survey reported whether they had or would consider
making these claims in their own job search.
1
Schmidt, F. L., Oh, I., and Shaer, J. A. (2016) The Validity and Ulity of Selecon Methods in Personnel Psychology: Praccal and Theorecal Implicaons of 100 Years of Research Findings.
Available at hp://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.18843.26400.
2
See the “Methodology” secon at the end for more informaon.
When thinking about the qualies of an ideal employee or pung together a list of
characteriscs needed for a job posion, do you include integrity? Our new research
shows that integrity is one of the most important qualies in an employee. A meta-
analysis comparing a variety of pre-employment measures
1
revealed that integrity
tests not only predicted counterproducve work behaviors, but also signicantly
predicted job performance. In addion, of all the pre-employment measures, integrity
tests added the most validity to general mental intelligence, the measure with the
most predicve validity. This means that in addion to having a smart employee
who can get the job done, it’s also extremely important to have an ethical employee
who can do the job right. But how do you ensure your company is hiring ethical
employees?
www.checkster.com | 2
Candidates Lie More Than You Think
Amount of
Applicant Misrepresentaon
Graph 1. N = 400
Extreme
3.3%
None
16.1%
Almost None
6.3%
Moderate
45.7%
A lot
28.6%
www.checkster.com | 3
The applicant survey revealed alarming widespread willingness to misrepresent informaon during
the hiring process. Across a list of inated claims in the job applicaon process, 40% of individuals
reported that they would or had engaged in each behavior on average. Applicants were most likely
to report claiming mastery in skills they had no knowledge of (60% claimed they had or would do
this at least once) and working at some jobs longer than they had in order to omit an employer
(over 50%)—that’s a majority of respondents reporng willingness to misrepresent in these ways.
336 respondents reported they would make at least one inated claim at least once, meaning
only 64 out of the 400 respondents reported that they would never make any inated claims (see
Graph 1
3
). This means only 1 in 6 employees reported not misrepresenng themselves whatsoever
in the applicaon process. In addion, by types of quesons, respondents reported that they were
most likely to lie about declaraons that related to their skills (60% claimed they had or would do
this at least once), then their references (44%), past job experiences (43% average), their degree
(42% average), their achievements (29% average), and were least likely to lie about their criminal
background (27%).
3
These numbers are based on the average, with indicang they would “never” do the behavior scored as a 1, “only once” as a 2, “somemes” as a 3, “most of the me” as a 4,
“always” as a 5, and NA excluded. The scores across the inated claims were averaged. Individuals who put “never” for each queson (average = 1) were labeled as “none.” and
individuals who put “never” for almost every queson except “only once” for one behavior (average = 1.059) were labeled as “almost none.” “Moderate” misrepresentaon were
individuals who had an average score between 1.059 and 2 inclusive, “a lot” were between 2 and 4, and “extreme” had an average 4 or above.
INFLATED CLAIMS
Percent have done
or would do
Your resume claims…
Mastery in skills you barely use (e.g., Excel, language)
60.00%
You had worked at some of your jobs longer than you did in order to omit
an employer
50.25%
GPA is higher by more than half a point
49.25%
A director tle when the actual tle was a manager tle, or equivalent
41.25%
A degree from a presgious university when you were actually a few
credits short
39.50%
A degree from a presgious university instead of your own
39.25%
A degree from a presgious university when you had only taken one class
online, or equivalent
39.25%
Achievements that aren't mine
32.50%
Your interview claims...
Signicantly inated role on a key project
49.50%
False reason for leaving (e.g., le versus being red)
45.75%
Made-up relevant experiences
42.25%
Salary inaon by more than 25%
39.50%
Current residence locaon is dierent than it actually is
34.50%
Inated job outcomes (e.g., increased sales 150% versus 50%)
34.50%
Other claims...
False references (friend vs. real, I pretend to be a reference...)
43.75%
No criminal record when I have one
26.50%
An achievement I did not really get (e.g., award, press coverage)
26.00%
N = 400
www.checkster.com | 4
We’ve all heard jokes about crooked lawyers and corrupt policians, but is there truth in these
stereotypes? Are there really job sectors with more misrepresentaon than others? And if so,
which jobs? The second concern that Checkster’s survey results discovered was that, in addion
to overall alarmingly high levels of misrepresenng behavior, these behaviors varied by job sector.
Certain industries showed even higher rates of this behavior.
4
Parcipants in the applicant survey listed the career sector they worked in, revealing that the
job sector with the most misrepresentaon was construcon.
5
Informaon and soware, retail,
and manufacturing also showed above-average numbers. On the other hand, the sector with the
least inated claims was hotel and food services, followed by healthcare and social assistance,
educaon, and government. Possibly due to small sample sizes, our analyses only revealed
signicant dierences between informaon and soware and healthcare (p = 0.04, CI [0.005,
1.01]) and between informaon and soware and hotel and food services (p = 0.03, CI [0.02, 1.1]).
These numbers may be discouraging to people trying to nd good workers for their company. If
such a high proporon of applicants lie, then who can your company possibly hire? First of all,
an individual who said they had exaggerated their Excel skills once is dierent from an employee
who is consistently willing to lie on major issues like criminal background. And while there may
be certain jobs, like a judge or a caretaker of children, where absolute ethical purity is paramount,
your company needs to decide what ethical standards are necessary. Secondly, there are important
steps that your hiring team can take to guard against unethical behavior.
4
These numbers are the percent of survey respondents who indicated that they would make an inated claim at least once (“only once,” “somemes,” “most of the me,” or “always”)
averaged across the full list of inated claims listed in the survey. A higher number indicates reporng higher willingness to misrepresent in the hiring process.
5
Of the most frequently listed job sectors: 59 in healthcare and social assistance, 43 in informaon and soware (combining “soware,” “informaon services and data,” and
“informaon other”), 42 in hotel and food services, 32 in educaon, 27 in retail, 24 in manufacturing (combining “manufacturing computer and electronics” and “manufacturing
other”), 19 in construcon, and 15 in government and public administraon. Score is the average score (1 = “never,” etc.) across inated claims.
Misrepresentaon Varies by Job Sector
Who Can I Hire?
www.checkster.com | 5
Permissive Standards Amongst Those Hiring
Aer all, these high levels of applicant dishonesty
are shocking, but surely most companies must
weed out fraudulent applicaons during the
hiring process? And if not most companies,
at least yours? However, Checkster’s survey
of hiring managers, HR representaves, and
recruiters suggests the answer might not be so
opmisc.
On average, respondents to the survey of hiring
managers, HR, and recruiters reported being
willing to hire someone despite inated claims
66% of the me. For the behavior they were
most lenient about, inang GPA by more than
half a point, a whopping 92% reported that they
would sll consider hiring the person. In addion,
only 6 individuals stated that they would “never
hire” for every behavior listed, suggesng that
99% of those hiring would hire someone who engaged in at least one misrepresenng behavior (See
Graph 2)
6
. This suggests that there are most likely people in your organizaon who would knowingly
hire someone who misrepresented themselves in the hiring process. Keep reading, or skip to the
secon tled “What Can You Do? You Need Ethical Alignment” to see what you can do about it.
6
These percentages of individuals indicang they would “never hire,” “hire if there’s a good explanaon,” “hire if can’t nd another candidate,” “hire if the hiring manager accepts,” and
“always hire” averaged across the inated claims.
Hiring Leniency
Graph 2. N = 400
Always hire
3.3%
Never hire
34.4%
Hire if there is a good
explanaon
29.4%
Hire if hiring
manager accepts
14.5%
Hire if I can’t nd any
other candidates
13.6%
www.checkster.com | 6
We asked hiring managers about inated claims applicants might make in their resume, interview, or
about general background informaon (such as reporng criminal behavior and reference checks).
We found that while leniency across resume and interview claims was similar (Graphs 3 and 4), hiring
managers were much less lenient with background informaon (Graph 5).
In addion, these ethical standards may become even more lax if the person hiring becomes
desperate. The results showed that on top of the individuals who would always hire, hire if there was
a good excuse, or hire if the hiring manager accepts, on average 14% of the me individuals would
hire someone despite inated claims if they couldn’t nd any other good candidates. This means that
these individuals most likely recognize the behavior isn’t ideal, but are willing to sacrice their moral
standards when in a pinch to hire someone.
Hiring Leniency: Resume Misrepresentaon
Hiring Leniency: Interview Misrepresentaon
Hiring Leniency: References and Background Misrepresentaon
Graph 3. N = 400
Graph 4. N = 400
Graph 5. N = 400
Always hire
20.4%
Always hire
6.7%
Always hire
4.6%
Never hire
26.8%
Never hire
34.7%
Never hire
54.3%
Hire if there is a good
explanaon
31.3%
Hire if there is a good
explanaon
30.0%
Hire if there is a good
explanaon
22.8%
Hire if hiring manager accepts
17.5%
Hire if hiring manager accepts
13.8%
Hire if hiring manager accepts
7.8%
Hire if I can’t nd any
other candidates
14.0%
Hire if I can’t nd any
other candidates
14.7%
Hire if I can’t nd any
other candidates
10.6%
Hiring Standards by Age
When asked if they would hire someone who claimed a degree from a presgious university when
they were actually a few credits short, Susan, a 60-year old hiring manager, said that she would never
hire. But Jeremy, a 22-year old recruiter, didn’t have a problem with this and said that he would
always hire in this case.
7
What might cause this dierence in their reacons? Checkster’s survey found
signicant dierences by age in strictness towards misrepresenng behaviors, such that young people
were less strict in their hiring decisions. When asked if they would hire someone who had made an
inated claim during the hiring process, on average 60% of hiring managers 45 and older reported
that they would hire them at least some of the me.On the other hand, 69% of hiring managers under
35 said they would hire an employee who made inated claims. These dierences were stascally
signicant (p = 0.03, CI [-0.46, -0.01]), showing that younger individuals were more likely than
their older counterparts to hire candidates who made inated claims. There were also signicant
dierences in applicant willingness to misrepresent by age. Candidates below 35 were more likely
likely than individuals above 45 to misrepresent (p = 0.03, CI [-0.56, -0.02]), further suggesng that
these dierences may come from dierent internal ethical standards.
www.checkster.com | 7
7
Responses from real parcipants, with names changed to maintain anonymity.
Hiring Standards by Age
n 45 and older n 35 and younger
Percent
40
30
20
10
0
Never hire Hire if there
is a good
explanaon
Hire if I can’t
nd any
other
candidates
Hire if
hiring
manager
accepts
Always hire
N = 400
www.checkster.com | 8
What to Do When You Need Ethical Alignment
As this survey reveals, while you may think that your team is already on the same page when it comes
to ethical standards, chances are they aren’t. Your hiring team likely includes people who are okay
with some level of misrepresentaon in the hiring process, especially if your team includes younger
workers entering the workforce who may not be aligned with their older coworkers and supervisors
in terms of what is and isn’t okay. But rather than wring o these workers as unprincipled, we at
Checkster suggest taking this opportunity to iniate conversaons to generate ethical alignment.
Ethical alignment is what occurs when the individuals in your company have a clear idea of what is
and isn’t okay behavior. There is no room for subjecve interpretaon; the standards are clear, and
you’re all on the same page. This is important because while some behavior is dened by law as
illegal (like discriminang against someone in the hiring process based on their gender or hiring a
doctor without proper credenals), most behaviors are in what we call an ethical gray area. These are
behaviors that might sll be morally wrong but aren’t labeled as such by the law. This means that your
company has to set these standards and explicitly communicate them to the rest of your team.
In order to get your company to a place of ethical alignment, you rst need to know where your team
members’ ethical standards are. Checkster suggests having your team take our quesonnaire, which
will ask your employees how they would act in a variety of situaons. This will generate a report that
will inform you about areas where employees dier from the company’s ethical standards and allow
you to ensure everyone knows what is and isn’t okay in the hiring process moving forward.
Ethical Gray Area
• Hiring someone who inated their
skills or role on a project.
• Hiring someone who reported
that they quit their last job
when they were actually red.
• Hiring someone who claimed
achievements that weren’t really theirs.
Illegal
• Hiring discriminaon based on color,
religion, gender, sexual orientaon,
naonal origin, age, disability, etc.
• Hiring a doctor without proper licensing.
Do your hiring managers
know where your company
draws the line?
Okay to hire
Not okay
to hire
www.checkster.com | 9
What Other Tools Can I Use to Deter
Fraudulent Applicants?
Once your team establishes its ethical standards, then your company should make sure that you are
using the appropriate tools to check if these standards are being met. Your hiring managers now know
not to hire someone who lies on their resume, but how do you know if someone is lying?
Background check
One way of checking ethical behavior is to conduct a background check. If the candidate has lied
about their criminal history or credenals, a background check will reveal this, and can also check
educaonal, employment, and other records.
Reference checks
Reference checking is another way to do your due diligence. You can verify the candidate’s claims
about his or her past job experience by running them by previous co-workers, who may also report
valuable informaon about the applicant’s past behavior, achievements, demeanor, and work ethic.
Another tool: reference check fraud detecon
According to hiring managers, faking references is the worst thing a job applicant could do in the
hiring process. The hiring survey showed that the behavior that was found to be the least acceptable
was faking references, with 64% of individuals surveyed saying they would never hire someone who
gave false references. This was nearly twice the 34% average across inated claims. However, 44% of
applicants reported they had or would fake references.
Almost half of individuals reporng they had or would fake references is concerning, parcularly in an
age where reference falsicaon is made easy by online services that oer to provide fake references
to applicants for a fee. Make sure you are taking the necessary steps in order to protect your
company from fake references, such as Checkster’s 12-point fraud detecon algorithmic system. By
cross-referencing the responses from the candidate and the “former employer,” Checkster can protect
you from this unethical behavior.
Arcial intelligence
AI tools have been criqued lately due to a failure to eliminate bias from the hiring process.
8
While
they may be able to help your company’s hiring process, in order to ulize any automated tool,
you sll need to make sure your company has clear ethical standards. These standards inform the
programming and the interpretaon of AI tools, as these tools are only as good as the people who
create and use them. Therefore, intenonal conversaons about ethical standards are even more
important to consider in an age of increasing AI automaon.
8
Harwell, D. (2019, November 6). A face-scanning algorithm increasingly decides whether you deserve the job.
Retrieved from hps://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/10/22/ai-hiring-face-scanning-algorithm-increasingly-decides-whether-you-deserve-job/
www.checkster.com | 10
The Soluon for Misrepresentaon in the
Hiring Process
In conclusion, these surveys by Checkster showed evidence of widespread misrepresentaon in
the hiring process by applicants, with ve in six applicants reporng inang in some way during
their job search and only one out of six reporng complete honesty. The surveys also revealed
inconsistency among hiring managers, HR employees, and recruiters who were willing to permit
dierent forms of misrepresentaon, with even more discrepancy between individuals of dierent
ages. Our recommendaon at Checkster is for any organizaon to understand their ethical standards
and check that these are being complied within the hiring process. We advise every team leader to
invite their colleagues to benchmark what is deemed ethical and what is not with this quesonnaire
which generates a report to make sure you have an unambiguous discussion about what is acceptable
and what is not. Then, we recommend ulizing tools such as background checks, reference checks,
reference checking fraud soware, and reviewing your AI to ensure that your ethical standards are
being complied with. Taking these steps, even in light of a sizable number of inated claims, will
encourage a culture based on your principles and protect your company’s reputaon.
Methodology
We used a reputable survey company to gather parcipants using Random Device Engagement,
delivering our survey randomly to individuals on popular mobile apps, with response quality ensured
through non-monetary incenves and survey fraud prevenon. We collected data from individuals
who were at least 18 years old, lived in the US, and were currently employed for wages at the me
of the survey. From this, we launched two surveys on December 13, 2019: one was with individuals
who had received or searched for a job in the past six months, and the other was with individuals who
worked as a manager responsible for hiring people, part of HR involved in recruing, or as a recruiter.
The applicant survey was 60% female and 40% male. Our sample was 63.5% white, 14.25% black,
10.75% Hispanic/Lano, 6.25% Asian, 2.25% mulracial, and 2.5% other. Age ranged from 18 to 77,
with an average age of 32.
The survey of hiring managers was 56% female and 44% male. Our sample was 63.75% white, 12.5%
black, 11.5% Hispanic, 6.75% Asian, 1.5% mulracial, and 1.75% other. Age ranged from 18 to 71,
with an average age of 37. The analyses were computed in RStudio.
Parcipants in the applicant survey read a list of 17 inated claims they could make in their resume,
interview, or general job-applicaon process and answered whether they had or would make these
claims, with answers ranging from “never did it,” “only once,” “somemes,” “most of the me,” “always,”
or NA. Parcipants in the hiring survey read the same list and answered whether they would hire
someone who made this claim, with answers ranging from “never hire,” “hire if there is a good
explanaon,” “hire if can’t nd any other candidate,” “hire if hiring manager accepts,” and “always hire.”
For the applicant side, answers of “always,” “most of the me,” “somemes,” and “only once” were
combined to create percentages of individuals who would be willing to make a parcular inated
claim. We used pairwise t-tests to compare means across the 17 items. For job sector analyses,
the most common career sectors were compared (creang composite variables for informaon and
soware and manufacturing). Then we used a one-way ANOVA to compare unethical behavior
(summed across the 17 items) by job sector.
For the hiring side, answers of “hire if there is a good explanaon,” “hire if can’t nd any other
candidate,” “hire if hiring manager accepts,” and “always hire” were combined to create percentages of
individuals who would be willing to hire despite an inated claim. For age analysis, we used a one-
way ANOVA to compare unethical behavior by age group and found a signicant dierence between
18-24-year-olds and above 54-year-olds (p = 0.047, CI [0.004, 0.98]. However, since there were only
42 individuals aged 18-24 and 38 individuals above 54, we created an addional variable to group
individuals into below 35, between 35 and 44, and above 44 to see if these generalized across larger
groups.
www.checkster.com | 11
Authors: Yves Lermusi & Annika From
www.checkster.com info@checkster.com 1-866-800 0709
ABOUT CHECKSTER
Beer people decisions drive beer
business outcomes.
Using collecve human intelligence, Checkster empowers
talent and team leaders to make smarter, faster and more
condent talent decisions and build high performing teams
that compete to win. More than 500 organizaons around
the world use Checkster to power their people decisions and
improve quality of hire.
