Who doesn’t, even the most modest and unassuming, once in a while enjoy a small moment of self-congratulatory gloating. So, here’s our five minutes in the sun, followed by a curly question for which we need your Point of View.
Twice in the last three years we’ve reviewed the CV of a senior executive and worked out within the day that his purported credentials weren’t bona fide. Using two different names and profiles he lodged an expression of interest to advertised roles in two quite different sectors. On both occasions, our two senior consultants, each with deep and longstanding sector experience, raised questions regarding the veracity of his CV, and within two phone calls had the imposter marked as just that.
Indeed weeks before Myer’s troubles of last week, Sandra Brown, one of our principal search consultants used that exact experience as a case study in her blog The Truth is Out There – Google It.
So now that we’ve had our five minutes in the sun, what’s the question and what’s the answer?
Under Privacy laws, we are forbidden to make any personal comments about candidates’ information stored on our database. Well, truth be told, we could, but there’d be a mighty price to pay in time and legal costs if a disheartened jobseeker ever wanted to make a case. So we don’t. Where comments can be made they are kept as ‘the facts’, not impressions.
Wouldn’t it be useful then if there were a national centralised repository where employers, HR practitioners or recruiters could send the details of these rare but crafty impostors, by name and pseudonyms? New candidate data could be washed through and double checked.
It would save a lot of time and embarrassment.
NB. Per chance the very same week as a certain very public exposure into a sham made the media, we received a letter requesting we delete all traces of a certain candidate from our system. We have… unfortunately we know he goes by a number of pseudonyms, so could he send us further instructions?
Ah yes, never a dull day in our world @work.