Nothing but the truth

Greg Wyatt • October 3, 2024

I came across a post about lying in recruitment today, and most of the respondents indicated it’s a dealbreaker and a sign of human awfulness.

Which reminded me of this article, written last year, as a counterpoint to my sister’s then recently published book.

She really liked my suggestion of ‘Nothing but the truth’ as its name, but told me her agent vetoed it on the grounds that negative titles don’t sell. Sounds true, yet maybe she was just protecting my feelings.

Truth is an interesting concept. Can you tell a lie, by only telling truths?

Does having an ideal require that you lie to uphold it?

Is lying morally permissible if it only benefits others, and not yourself?

Anyway, reading it back, it’s quite good, and you might enjoy it too:


At the end of her speech, my sister made a simple request:

“Put your hand in the air if you’ve lied today.”

Only one person didn’t put their hand up – me.

Lying’s not in my nature, except in a couple of specific situations where no harm is caused.

You can believe that or not, up to you.

The earlier part of the speech touched on all those little moments in our lives where we tell a little lie, either to ourselves or someone else.

Sometimes it’s to protect feelings. Sometimes to protect ourselves.

Sometimes it’s to keep up the narrative of how we are perceived because we don’t want to share our secret selves.

It was a great launch for a book on how society doesn’t just put up with lies to function, it may even rely on them.

She interviewed a wide range of experts on lying including spies and toddler scientists, showed how the face can lie, and talked about her amnesia and what it was like to be in the closet.

She didn’t interview me about recruitment, so I’m putting that right today.


Lies are rampant everywhere you look in recruitment.

In a survey last year, 51% of respondents admitted to lying on their CVs.

I expect the true number to be higher, considering some won’t even admit a lie to themselves.

It’s common to extrapolate behaviour from what we experience. One lie may lead to more, and that may be the only reason you need to reject a candidate.


Not all lies are born equal.

Broadly I differentiate them between lies of impact, lies to protect, and lies of inconsequence.


A lie of impact is one which leads to a decision based on that lie.

Here an example would be John Andrewes , who lied about his experience and qualifications to land a top NHS job.

He was jailed for 2 years and required to pay £100k, the remainder of his assets.

Fraud.

Or lying about reasons for departure – they say redundancy, they meant gross misconduct.

Misrepresenting capability and qualifications.

Mispresenting a role to make it more appealing.

£Competitive salary, when you meant lowball to get a deal.

The lies we should find and cull at the earliest opportunity.


A lie to protect can be many things.

I remember an HR candidate early in my career who changed her name twice. It was highly suspicious to me at the time.

“Apunanwu Oluwayo” became “Apunanwu Roberts” became “Judith Roberts”.

This first change suggested a marriage or divorce. The second I couldn’t fathom.

What a liar, 2005 Greg thought.

Of course, now I know better.

It’s likely she changed her name to a British one because she suffered from namism – one report indicates candidates are 60% less likely to receive a callback with a foreign-sounding name.

Despite my ignorance, I gave Judith the benefit of the doubt and invited her to interview.

You can see why blind CVs are a fair measure to prevent this happen, although I wonder if it’s better to treat the illness rather than rely on palliative measures.

How about not disclosing identifiable education for the same reasons?

What about disability and neurodivergence?

If a condition requires an accommodation to fulfil a role, is non-disclosure a lie by omission?

Another could be lying about reasons for departure – they said ‘left to focus on a job search’, they meant they couldn’t put up with a harmful environment any longer.

A lie of protection, which isn’t one of impact, should be clarified but, in my opinion, not penalised without investigation.

The lie above is one of protection – I changed the names to protect the individual, one of the situations in which I will lie deliberately, with good reason.


How about a lie of inconsequence?

By this I mean a lie that doesn’t impact employability, reflect capability or have any bearing on what that person is like to work with.

Examples here might be fudging employment dates to prevent the question “Why were you unemployed for 2 days in 2012?”

Or perhaps they might say People Business Partner on their CV, which they fulfilled functionally, yet had a misrepresentative job title of Operations Manager.

Sometimes what seem to be lies of impact, might be lies of inconsequence:

I once had a candidate withdraw from an interview.

Aladdin said his father had passed away, and he had decided to suspend his job search.

I spoke to the hiring manager, Jaffar, and said “This smacks of lying” principally because of a change in behaviour that didn’t seem related to grief, and the very high mortality rate candidates sometimes experience throughout recruitment.

It was a tough vacancy to fill, so we made a plan. Jaffar would contact him directly a couple of weeks after, to check in and see if he fancied a pint.

We put our suspicion aside, while also considering how he might have perceived his relationship with me.

Long story short Aladdin took the job and was there for eight years. He gave me a lovely recommendation too.

I’m pleased to say his father made a full recovery.

While this appears to be a lie of impact, it’s actually one of inconsequence.

He lied because he didn’t feel safe telling me he was having second thoughts. That’s on me, because it is my job to create a safe space for candidates so that they trust me and tell me inconvenient truths.

It’s not dissimilar to the hilariously high rate of car breakdowns in recruitment.

Have we considered our part in that lie?


These three types of lies are a gross simplification to paint the picture.

Our perception of lying is highly subjective, and there is no one right answer.

I think it’s understandable to feel a lie is a dealbreaker.

For lies of impact, this should be the case.

For other lies though, perhaps a judgment call is better than an assumption. Why did that person lie? Could it even be something we did?

Does that lie really matter?

And if it does matter – how many times have you lied in the same way today?

The next eminently-an-epistole is on technical debt in recruitment, and why we should consider the long-term impact of a short-term compromise.

Regards,

Greg

P.s. if you’re interested in Kathleen’s book, you can read about it here:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Social-Superpower-Truth-About-Little-ebook/dp/B09MDWNL44

By Greg Wyatt February 26, 2026
So here were are, the start of a new series. This series may be around 10 editions, looking at the things other industries do that we can implement into recruitment. These were written 3 years ago, right at the start of the AI zazzle, and in some ways have dated quite a bit. In others, the way in which they haven't dated at all, because the principles of how we live our business lives can be universal. So, I'm not sure yet, how much editing I'll do, whether there will be any inclusions, or whether I'll leave articles intact, as a moment in time. I've learnt all of these notions from candidates and clients, as I came to understand the function of their vacancies. Hearing about the daily practice from people doing jobs, I couldn't help but notice the same relevance in recruitment. So while these articles are hardly comprehensive, perhaps they'll make you look at your candidates differently, in what we can learn from them, and how that might improve our recruitment. Why five? December 2022 Ask anyone involved in active recruitment what their key problems are, and they’ll likely talk about skills shortages and candidate behaviour. On the face of it, problems which are out of our control, worthy of complaint with little opportunity to find improvement. But what if these were issues that weren’t entirely out of our control? What if we could apply a replicable process to understand what’s really going on, and how we can make a difference? Fortunately, we needn’t invent the wheel, as other industries have already done this for us. One such is 5Y, or Five Whys, a problem-solving technique that was developed by Toyota in the 1930s. It's part of the Toyota Management System that has inspired much of my work. Five is the general number of “Why?”s needed to get to the root of a problem. Often you can get to the heart of the issue sooner, sometimes later. Often there are multiple root causes. More than just solving problems, it’s about establishing practical countermeasures to prevent these problems from coming up in future. 5Y is an example of Toyota’s philosophy of “go and see”: working on the shop floor to find out how things work in practice to find ways for iterative improvement. This isn’t a theoretical idea to try out on a whim – it’s based on grounded reality and almost always works. There are two costs – time and accountability. Here’s a practical example, then a recruitment one. (Names have been removed to protect my identity) Problem 1 : The children were late for school. Why? Traffic held us up. Why? We left the house late. Why? The children weren’t ready on time. Why? Their school uniforms weren’t prepared. Why? We hadn’t set them out the night before. Here the countermeasure is to get everything ready the night before, rather than blame traffic for being late. Perhaps we might have gotten to school on time without heavy traffic, but that is an element out of our control. Of course, here there is another root cause – very naughty children – but better to focus on the simple changes. And sometimes traffic is the root cause after all, once you’ve ruled out other elements in your control. (2026 note: my eldest now often drives my youngest to school. A time laden solution I hadn't considered three years ago. Now I don't care if they're late 😆) Problem 2: Candidates keep ghosting us. Why? They weren’t committed to responding. Why? They didn’t accept my requirement for a response. Why? They saw no value in my requirement. Why? I didn’t create an environment where this requirement has value ( root cause 1 ). Or because they are very naughty candidates, with a bad attitude. Why have we allowed someone with a bad attitude in our recruitment process? Because we didn’t prequalify them well enough ( root cause 2 ) The first root cause is something we can work on by giving candidates what they need, building trust, and working to mutual obligations. There are many ways to do this – I’ve already talked about examples in previous newsletters. It comes down to good candidate experience and reciprocity. The second root cause requires us to work harder at understanding candidate needs, aspirations, behaviours and attitudes at the outset of a recruitment process. There’s a reason for their behaviour. We can be accountable for finding it. That’s no mean skill to develop, yet an essential one for anyone whose core responsibility is recruitment. And it’s hard to do in a transactional volume process, so the question then becomes, does your process help more than it hinders? You can apply 5Y to any issue you come across, as long as you are prepared to be accountable. At worst you may find that the things that were out of your control are at fault. In this case, you are at least armed with good information to report to your stakeholders, by ruling out other possibilities. What’s the point of doing all this? For me it’s continually improving how I recruit, with the consequence, in the example above, that I am rarely ghosted at all. And you can 5Y any issue you come across. Are poor agency CV submissions their fault, or in part down to your briefing and process? Are skills genuinely scarce, or is your requirement unrealistic? Is it true that your agency hasn’t listened to you, or do you engage the right partners in the right way? 5Y has the answers. Regards, Greg
By Greg Wyatt February 23, 2026
What follows is Chapter 21 in A Career Breakdown Kit (2026) . It's a good example of how a job search is an inverted recruitment exercise, but also how the same principles from recruitment can be applied in a job search. Market mapping is one of the first steps of a search process in what is often called headhunting. Here though, instead of an exercise that helps find a person for a job, you help find a job for you. This can be in one chunk, at the outset, and iteratively, as you learn more information. It's a great example of how LinkedIn can be used as a data repository, given the vast majority of professionals are present here. And if they are present here, the insight that is their careers is too, allowing you to identify potential viable employers, who works there, and therefore where else they may have worked, with further potential hiring managers. The snake that eats its own tail. Try doing the iterative work above, every time you come across someone new, whether in an application or in networking . You can use this to build out your network, identify companies to contact proactively. Simon Ward and I will talk more on this in our LinkedIn Live on Tuesday February 24th at 1pm GMT. You can join us, and view the full recording afterwards, here: Is The Nature Of Networking Changing for Job Hunters? If you happen to read this as a hiring authority, market mapping is one of the invisible processes in a structured search. It can often take me 80 to 100 hours to fully map a role for potential viable candidates, given I try to find non-traditional candidates as well as those that are easier to find through sourcing. 21 - Map the market Market mapping is a common activity in executive search. Why wouldn’t you adopt the same approach in your inverse of a recruitment exercise? The idea is to fully understand your market, so that you are better able to navigate it. This is a summary chapter because market mapping is both a strategic and a tactical exercise. I’ll cover some of the How of mapping in Part Three. There are three ways in which to map the market. The vacancies you are qualified for This is about determining which vacancies you should focus your attention on. In which domains does your capability directly apply? This could be context related, if your expertise is in start-ups, growth, downsizing or other contexts. It could be industry related - your process manufacturing expertise might directly apply in food, plastics or pharmaceuticals. It could be job related, with the right applicable skills. Establish where there is a market for you, and if what you offer is needed by that market. Advice on the transferable skills trap (p55) and whether you are qualified (p178) to apply will help. The geography of your job search Where are all the employers and vacancies that you can sustainably commute to? A geographical map can help you target opportunities by region. What resources are available to help you with this map? Searching online for local business parks, even driving around them, can give a list of viable companies to contact. Directories and membership hubs. Local newspapers, social media stories. If you see a company you like the look of, say from an advert, search on their local post code. Who else might be there? The chapter on doorknocking (p241) has more ideas. The people of your network Every time you come across someone you might build a relationship with, connect with them on LinkedIn. Then check out their career history. Who else have they worked with? Where else have they worked? This works for peers, hiring managers, and recruiters - a headhunter in one company may well have worked in a similar domain in a previous one. Is there anyone at these previous companies you should introduce yourself to? What about their listed vacancies? Building out a map of relevant recruiters to develop relationships with (if they answer the phone) can lead to vacancies. Treat it as an iterative exercise. Check out the chapter on networking (p236). This map isn’t just about potential opportunity. It’s also about information that might be helpful now and in future. This might be for job leads. It might be industry insight you can share through content. It may even be topics for conversation in interviews or with peers. Make sure you track it in the right way, whether through Notion, Excel or other resources you have available. With any information, check it is accurate, then prune appropriately. Prioritise on degrees of separation (closest first) and context fit (where what you need is most closely aligned with what you offer).