Mortal Sin Number One: Embellishing Education, Degrees, Job Roles, Titles or Compensation
Without exception, the worst disasters all tended to fall in this category. These were people who buffed up their resume with things that were just not true. And the saddest fact, in almost all cases, was that the unembellished resume would have been more than adequate, given the person's record of accomplishments.
It is not that the reasons aren't understandable. In one case, a female candidate for the presidency of a division had all the right skills and experiences. As the reference checking began, it was discovered she had listed both bachelors and master's degrees, yet had neither. The actual story was that, married right out of college, she had dropped out just short of her degree. Several years later, when the marriage dissolved and she needed work, she "completed" her degree and added a fictitious MBA to get her foot in the door. All her subsequent accomplishments were consistent with someone who had these degrees. In this case the good news was that the hiring managers made an exception and understood the circumstances. But in most cases, the discovery of an untruth, regardless of how good or how minor the reasons, becomes a disqualifying event. In a similar case with two candidates, the preferred choice continued to duck providing her Social Security number. It became clear that she understood that her Social Security number was required to conduct degree verification. Earlier in her career, to earn more and crack into a more professional job, she had fabricated her degree. The company felt since she wasn't able to own up to them, she couldn't be trusted and lost the opportunity.
In another case, a senior attorney considered for a chief administrative job backed himself into a corner by lying about his salary. As the process progressed, the person's compensation level was not a particular issue. But by then, the candidate was so far into denial about the fact that he had misrepresented his earnings record that, when he presented a W2 form to confirm his compensation history, he claimed the government's records were inaccurate. Another case involved a candidate who claimed on his resume that, early in his career, he had worked in a well-known company's program that targeted high-performing people who then spent a year as the chairman's special executive assistant. All of his subsequent assignments and accomplishments were consistent with the caliber of people who had done it. In fact, he was never part of the program. That one falsehood threw him out of contention not only for that job but for other future possibilities.
Omitting a Job or "Papering Over" a Resume Gap
The reasons are understandable. A candidate makes a mistake, is downsized, out placed, and hides or camouflages the fact in the resume chronology. In a presidential search that one of the partners handled, a candidate was made a verbal offer contingent on reference checking. As it turns out, someone in the company helping with the reference checking remembered him working for a company not listed on the resume. When they called that company, it was verified that he was there for a short period. The candidate replied, "Well, it was just five or six months. I got there; it was a disaster. They had misrepresented what the job was and so I just pulled out and started over. I didn't think it was worth making a big statement about in the grand sweep of things." The company pulled the offer.
Resume gaps are more common and more complex today. The stigma of having been fired or out placed by mergers no longer exists. But search firms and their client companies expect candor when these points are examined in detail. That is not to say that you need to spell out that for four months you were looking for a job or on an outplacement program. But most of the partners said the smart thing to do is construct your resume so that it shows the main accomplishments, and then in the discussion with the search partners handle the transition points with accuracy and full disclosure. There should never be any subsequent embarrassing information that comes to light later.
Getting Ahead of the Process
Earlier we talked about how candidates must not rush the process. The third category of disaster our partners talked about was those cases where the candidate didn't follow that rule. One partner described a case where a CEO candidate was being interviewed by the non executive chairman of the board. In the very first interview, the candidate asked the chairman how long he was going to be in that position and if he could secure guarantees that he, the candidate, would succeed to that chair in a timely fashion. That was a topic only to be discussed as and when the company determined its first choice. The candidate's impatience with the question and focus on that issue ended the possibility of what might otherwise have been a good fit.
In a similar case, a search was on for a division president. They wanted someone who was expected to grow the business from $300 or $400 million to about $1 billion. In the eyes of the search firm partners, they had the perfect candidate. He had impressed everyone he met, all the way up the line. In his first interview with the chairman, the candidate's opening statement was that he wouldn't consider moving for that particular job. It was interpreted as a direct confrontation with the company's president, who had the next job in the hierarchy. The candidate said that he liked to drop bombshells to see how people react. Over time, the division presidency was certainly a step-ping-stone job to the number two position in the company. But the company viewed it as their prerogative to open that line of discussion. He was dropped from consideration.
The search firm's partners mentioned other disasters of "the wrong thing at the wrong time" type; these included people who couldn't wait to focus on retirement or bonus plan details. Or candidates who wanted assurances that this would involve at least an X percent increase before they would have any more conversations. Again, the sophisticated candidate understands that the search firm and the client do not expect any candidate to make a change that isn't in his or her best interest. It is insulting to assume that they need to be grilled on whether they have done their homework on that subject.
When the True Colors Show Through
Some candidates, either though fatigue or lack of understanding, blew off certain interviews with junior people. They treated their discussions or interactions with lower-level people as irrelevant and emitted an attitude of, "Why do I need to visit with you?" or "Why have they bothered to take up my time with somebody like you?" Other candidates were disqualified when it became clear that visions of grandeur appeared as they became more confident about being the prime candidate. In one case, when the candidate was told that the company would be making him a formal offer shortly, he asked to see the best offices in the company's headquarters regardless of whether they were currently occupied. That turned off so many people that the offer was never made.
In other cases, it takes longer for that kind of thing to show up. One of the search firm's partners described a case where the client felt very good about one candidate, even though the partner had reservations and told the client that he didn't think the person was pursuing the job for the right reasons. As it turned out, the candidate took the job, but was fired 30 days later when he directed that $30,000 worth of the client company's products be installed at his home.
If You Can't Say Something Nice, Don't Say Anything
A number of disasters related to denigrating the candidate's current company or individuals within it, betraying confidences or telling stories out of school. One of our partners said it may be true that your boss is a moron, that the other inside candidate you are competing with for the CEO's job is a liar and a cheat, or that your current company is headed to hell in a hand basket. But none of those perspectives ought to be shared.
Minor Disasters Are Reversible
A number of clients stressed that minor disasters, if handled with grace and good humor, don't interfere with the process and can sometimes enhance it. It is only if the candidate is so nervous and uptight that he turns a minor disaster into a major issue that causes the big problem. One partner cited the case of a candidate who was about to be offered the job and was flying to three different cities to visit the company's key directors. Unfortunately, his wife had taken the wrong suit jacket to the cleaners so that when he grabbed what he assumed was a fresh suit from the cleaner's bag, it mismatched his trousers. Given the choice of blowing off the trip, trying to rent a suit, or saying the luggage was lost, or telling the truth, everyone was impressed that the candidate took it calmly. He called the directors on his schedule and told them what had happened and asked whether they would mind if he arrived carrying his suit jacket over his arm for their visit. Everyone was impressed with his style and self-confidence and it only enhanced their enthusiasm for him as a candidate.
People understand and respond to honesty and circumstances. It is the sense that they are being manipulated or treated without respect, rather than the actual omission or mistake that gets people into trouble.
Disasters are avoidable because they all come from things under the candidates' control. If you tell the truth, be yourself, follow the golden rule and look at things through other peoples' eyes, you will have nothing to worry about.
