When Everyone’s Polishing the Truth in Recruitment
Recently, I interviewed someone whose work history had more holes than a colander in an Italian kitchen. Every time I asked a question, I found another gap. Dates didn’t line up. Titles changed mid-sentence. And there was a suspiciously long “career break” that mysteriously got filled with “freelance consulting” halfway through the chat.
I didn’t need a lie detector — just a half-decent sense of curiosity and the ability to follow up with, “Oh, tell me more about that…”
And here’s the thing: it’s not just candidates doing the creative storytelling. Recruiters do it too.
Candidates: The Art of the Gentle Stretch
I get it. The job market is brutal. AI filters half your CVs into oblivion, and you’re competing with people who’ve decided to “rebrand” their three-month internship as “strategic leadership experience.”
So a little… embellishment feels harmless. You stretch the dates to hide that awkward gap. You inflate “helped with a project” into “led cross-functional delivery of a multi-million-pound transformation.” You give yourself a title promotion your boss never approved.
And honestly? I don’t think most candidates do this because they’re shady. They do it because they think they have to. They’re told to “sell themselves,” and somewhere along the way, that gets translated into “rewrite your CV like a Marvel origin story.”
The problem? Eventually, you have to be the superhero you invented. And if you can’t, the cape comes off — fast.
Recruiters: The Polished Pitch
Now, before recruiters puff up their chests and start tutting about candidate dishonesty, let’s be honest with ourselves. Recruiters oversell too.
That job with “lots of autonomy” might actually mean “sink or swim with no support.” That “fast-paced environment” might be code for “constantly putting out fires.” That “salary range” might be more of a polite fiction than an actual number you can negotiate.
It’s not always malicious — sometimes it’s about wanting to fill the role, hit a deadline, please a client. But when you paint too rosy a picture, you’re doing the same thing candidates do: editing reality to get a “yes.”
Why We All Do It
For candidates, the motivation is survival. For recruiters, it’s delivery. And the industry is set up to reward speed and volume, not accuracy.
If a recruiter’s being measured on how many CVs they send out, they’re incentivised to push people forward who might be right, without digging too deep. That’s how hiring managers end up with a pile of CVs that look great on paper but collapse like cheap garden furniture in the interview.
And if a candidate’s convinced the only way past the gatekeepers is to “upgrade” themselves on paper, they’ll do it — even if it means they’re walking into a role they’re not ready for.
The Cost of All This Pretending
Here’s the part no one likes to talk about: both sides lose.
For candidates, getting a job you can’t actually do is hell. You’re stressed, scrambling to keep up, and your imposter syndrome has just gone from “mild background noise” to “screaming banshee in your head.”
For recruiters and hiring managers, overpromising means higher turnover, wasted onboarding costs, and a hit to your credibility. Because the moment a candidate turns out to be a bad fit, the hiring manager remembers who sent them.
The Interview Is the Truth Test
I’ve always said: if you really want to know if a recruiter’s worth their salt, look at how they interview their candidates.
Do they just skim the CV, tick a couple of boxes, and send it over? Or do they dig? Do they ask follow-up questions? Do they probe those “career breaks” and those “strategic projects” until they know the truth?
A good recruiter doesn’t just spot the holes — they work out whether they’re potholes you can fix or giant sinkholes you should run from.
Bad recruiters? They just print the CV, slap “looks great” on it, and drop it on your desk like it’s a gift.
Quality vs Quantity Recruitment
It’s the difference between quantitative recruitment — “Let’s see how many CVs we can fling at you before one sticks” — and quality recruitment — “Let’s do the work to send you three people, all of whom you’d happily hire.”
The first is a numbers game. The second is a craft.
And if you’re a hiring manager, you can tell which kind of recruiter you’ve got in about two weeks flat. The quantitative one fills your calendar with interviews you regret taking. The quality one fills your team with people who actually perform.
What Honesty Looks Like
For candidates, it’s saying:
“I’ve never led a project of that scale, but I’m confident I can learn.”
“That gap was because I took time out for family reasons.”
“I’ve done some of this, but not all — yet.”
For recruiters, it’s saying:
“The manager’s brilliant but demanding — if you need a lot of hand-holding, this isn’t the role for you.”
“The salary is firm at £X — if that’s a dealbreaker, let’s save you the time.”
“This team is high pressure, but high reward. You’ll work hard — and you’ll get promoted if you perform.”
It’s not about underselling — it’s about not setting someone up for disappointment.
Why Honesty Wins in the Long Run
Yes, you might lose a candidate who realises the job isn’t right for them. Yes, you might lose a role because the client didn’t like hearing the downsides.
But the alternative? You place someone who walks out in three months, and both sides remember exactly who smoothed over the truth to make it happen.
Good recruiters — the ones who stick around — play the long game. They build trust. They protect their client’s time. They protect their candidate’s career.
If you’re a candidate, don’t invent a version of yourself you can’t live up to. If you’re a recruiter, don’t sell a job that doesn’t exist.
We can all smell fake eventually. The truth might not get you every “yes” — but the “yes” you get will actually mean something.
And if you’re working with recruiters who just spam you with CVs without asking the right questions? Swap them for the ones who find the colander-holes before they reach you.
