In today’s job market, deception is no longer a rare exception. It has become the default setting. From inflated job titles to vague promises of “growth opportunities,” hiring managers routinely shape narratives that bear little resemblance to the day-to-day reality of the roles they’re filling. At the same time, job seekers regularly engage in their own truth-stretching, whether by tailoring their achievements to fit a role’s demands or by outright fabricating credentials. According to recent data, 40% of hiring managers admit to lying in interviews, while as many as 80% of candidates admit to some form of dishonesty in the application process.
This is not a case of a few unethical individuals undermining the system. Rather, the system itself encourages manipulation. Both sides are responding rationally to a set of incentives that reward appearance over substance. Lying in job interviews has become a form of professional survival, not deviance.
What’s particularly troubling is the asymmetry. While candidates face scrutiny and background checks, hiring managers often face no repercussions for misleading statements about compensation, culture, or career development. If this mutual dishonesty is what it takes to function in the hiring process, then it raises a serious question: are we building relationships based on trust, or just transactions dressed as partnerships?
"If the hiring process only works when everyone is pretending, we have to ask whether it’s a system worth preserving."
When Employers Become Salespeople: The Commodification of Roles
The hiring process today increasingly mirrors a marketing campaign. Job descriptions are not simple outlines of responsibilities; they are promotional materials crafted to sell a role, often shaped by vague or inflated language. Phrases like “strategic ownership,” “fast-paced innovation,” and “room for growth” are used liberally, regardless of whether they reflect the actual nature of the job. This approach turns roles into commodities, presented to the market with the same spin used to sell products or services.
In many cases, this performative framing escalates into lying in job interviews. Hiring managers may obscure operational chaos, unrealistic workloads, weak leadership, or lack of budget. Sometimes the deception is subtle, such as overpromising advancement opportunities. Other times, it is direct and intentional. But even when it is not malicious, lying in an interview can stem from internal pressure. Managers are often caught between the demands of filling roles quickly and the need to make unattractive positions look appealing.
The long-term consequences are significant. Misrepresentation leads to misalignment. New hires walk into roles expecting one reality and are met with another. Disillusionment follows. Engagement falters. Attrition rises. What begins as a white lie during the hiring stage often ends in employee turnover within months.
At the heart of this issue is misaligned incentive design. Hiring success is typically measured by metrics like time-to-fill, not long-term retention or satisfaction. There is little accountability for whether the role was presented truthfully. Without checks that prioritize honesty, lying in job interviews becomes not just tolerated but structurally encouraged. When companies treat hiring like sales, they risk damaging the very relationships they’re trying to build. The cost of filling roles faster is too often paid in trust, engagement, and long-term performance.
Candidates Aren’t Saints, But Their Lies Are Often Symptomatic
Criticism of candidates who exaggerate experience, stretch dates, or inflate past responsibilities is common—and sometimes deserved. These actions can lead to poor fit, performance issues, or immediate reputational damage. But such behavior does not exist in a vacuum. To understand why lying in an interview has become so widespread among job seekers, we must look critically at the hiring system they are navigating.
Modern hiring processes often devalue authenticity. Applicant Tracking Systems (ATS) are designed to reward keyword optimization, not depth of experience or contextual relevance. Interviews are structured less around real assessment and more around performance. Candidates quickly learn that telling a compelling story, rather than offering a complete truth, is what gets them through the next stage. In this environment, lying in job interviews becomes a rational, if ethically murky, adaptation.
Many candidates, especially those who have previously accepted roles based on misleading promises from employers, feel justified in presenting an enhanced version of themselves. This can mean overstating achievements, omitting failures, or claiming proficiency they hope to develop later. While not always defensible, these actions reflect a system that rewards narrative polish more than integrity.
Paradoxically, it is often the most experienced candidates who are the most adept at this type of deception. High earners and those with advanced degrees tend to be highly skilled in navigating interviews. They understand what signals employers want and how to mirror them convincingly, even if that involves stretching the truth.
It’s also worth emphasizing the imbalance of consequences. When a candidate lies, the impact is often short-lived and correctable. But when a company misleads about salary structures, advancement opportunities, or internal culture, the consequences can be far more damaging. In this context, lying in an interview becomes both a symptom of systemic dysfunction and a reflection of unequal power.
A System Designed for Simulation, Not Truth
Perhaps the most telling feature of today’s hiring landscape is that lying in interviews has become normalized. It is no longer an outlier or red flag. It is embedded in the structure itself. The hiring process has evolved into a performance, where both employers and candidates engage in a carefully managed display of selective truths. This is not a coincidence. It is a direct result of a system that prizes appearance over authenticity.
Résumés are no longer straightforward summaries of experience. They are marketing assets, optimized for algorithmic screening and human persuasion. Job interviews are no longer exploratory conversations. They have become polished presentations, where candidates and hiring managers alike repeat well-rehearsed talking points. Job descriptions resemble product advertisements more than operational briefs. In this environment, everyone is aware that full transparency carries risk, so most choose to perform instead.
The paradox is clear. Truthfulness is not rewarded. In fact, it is penalized. A candidate who openly discusses a skills gap or admits to past failures is seen as a risk. A hiring manager who acknowledges dysfunction or organizational strain may jeopardize their ability to recruit. As a result, honesty is replaced by curation. Lying in an interview becomes less about deception and more about fitting the script.
This culture does not end once the hire is made. Within organizations, employees quickly learn that upward progression is often linked to perception management, not problem-solving ability. Those who tell the most palatable story tend to advance, while those who raise uncomfortable truths risk marginalization. In such a system, recruitment is not a point of entry for talent—it is a filtering mechanism for those who can navigate the simulation.
Over time, the system begins to replicate itself. What was once strategic becomes habitual. What began as performance becomes policy.
Trust Erosion and the Long-Term Cost of Deception
Over time, the normalization of lying in interviews chips away at one of the most essential elements of any organization: trust. What begins as a strategic half-truth during recruitment gradually becomes a broader pattern of erosion across professional relationships. When both employers and candidates expect some level of dishonesty from each other, genuine trust never has a chance to form.
This lack of trust comes with a measurable cost. When a new hire realizes the role is not what was promised, disengagement often sets in from day one. Mismatched expectations lead to poor performance, early attrition, and costly re-hiring efforts. At the organizational level, high turnover damages team cohesion, slows progress, and puts pressure on those who stay. What may seem like a small lie during a job interview can quickly snowball into a systemic drain on productivity and morale.
The cultural consequences are equally significant. When it becomes accepted that lying in job interviews is standard practice, a kind of professional cynicism takes hold. Employees become skeptical of leadership. Leaders begin to focus on controlling perception rather than addressing real issues. Human Resources, rather than fostering culture and development, can end up functioning primarily as a mechanism to minimize reputational and legal risk.
Eventually, the credibility of the organization suffers. Candidates share their disillusionment online. Employer branding weakens. Internal alignment frays. The hiring process, intended to match people with purpose, instead becomes a revolving door of mistrust.
A hiring culture built on illusion is not simply flawed. It is unsustainable. As deception scales, alignment breaks down. The more routine dishonesty becomes, the harder it is to build anything lasting. Without trust at the foundation, even the most ambitious organizations will struggle to grow with integrity or resilience.
The hiring process today resembles a carefully maintained illusion, where lying in interviews is treated less as misconduct and more as a standard strategy. Both employers and candidates participate, each trying to present the most polished version of reality without tipping into outright falsehood. The result is a system built on partial truths, selective omissions, and shared complicity.
What makes this dynamic particularly troubling is that many feel trapped by it. Candidates lie because honesty can lead to rejection. Employers lie because transparency may repel top talent. In such a climate, lying in an interview begins to feel not like a choice, but a necessity. This normalisation doesn’t just damage individual outcomes. It compromises the integrity of entire organizations and, ultimately, the labour market itself.
If the only way the system functions is through mutual deception, we should question whether the system deserves to endure. Change starts with shifting what we value. Companies must prioritise long-term alignment over short-term optics. Candidates should be encouraged to bring substance over performance. And the hiring process must evolve into something more than a transaction.
It is possible to rebuild on firmer ground. But it requires all participants to stop playing the game, and start changing it.
In today’s fast-evolving work environment, the capacity to reflect and self-direct is increasingly vital. Sometimes, the most strategic move is not to keep going, but to stop with intention. And that kind of decision deserves respect, not suspicion.