Is your next hire really who they say they are?

Hiring has always involved a level of trust. Employers trust that the person in front of them has the skills, experience and qualifications they claim to have. Candidates trust that the process will give them a fair chance to show their value. But in a tighter, more competitive employment market, that trust can become strained.

Careerfishing, the practice of exaggerating or fabricating details across CVs, applications and interviews, is gaining attention as more employers face higher application volumes and more pressure to identify genuine capability quickly. For candidates, it can be tempting to stretch the truth in order to stand out. For employers, it creates a challenge: how do you protect your business without becoming overly cynical or overlooking strong people who may not tick every box on paper?

The issue is not only about deception. It also reflects the pressure many job seekers feel when roles are competitive, hiring processes are demanding and applicants are trying to get noticed. The risk is that small exaggerations can quickly become bigger credibility problems, especially once a person is hired and expected to perform.

“Most Kiwis undersell themselves because they don’t know their value.”

On a recent NZ Market Update, Host Shannon Barlow, NZ Managing Director was joined by Guest Tom O'Neil, Best-Selling International Author and Speaker, and Managing Director of CV.CO.NZ, to explore why careerfishing is becoming more visible, where candidates are most likely to exaggerate, and how employers can identify red flags without dismissing genuine potential.

Tom noted that while the term may be new, the behaviour itself is not. Candidates have always been tempted to present themselves in the best possible light. What has changed is the level of competition and the tools available to make exaggeration easier. In a market where some roles attract hundreds, or even thousands, of applications, some job seekers may feel they need to embellish just to be considered.

The most common areas for exaggeration often include qualifications, employment dates, technical skills, project involvement and role responsibilities. Tom explained that qualifications can be particularly easy to inflate because many employers do not routinely check every degree, certification or partial study claim. Technical skills can also be stretched, especially when candidates describe themselves as highly capable in tools or systems they have only used at a basic level.

However, the more constructive solution is not to exaggerate, but to communicate achievements more clearly. Many candidates have valuable experience but fail to explain it well. A receptionist applying for an office manager role, for example, may have taken on HR tasks, accounts duties or leadership responsibilities without ever holding the title. By highlighting those responsibilities honestly and backing them up through referees or evidence, they can demonstrate suitability without crossing an ethical line.

Tom also encouraged candidates to use learning as an alternative to embellishment. With so many accessible online courses now available, applicants can build knowledge in areas such as AI, project management, software tools or leadership, then speak about that learning with authenticity. Saying “I have recently completed a course in this area” is far stronger than claiming a certification or experience that does not exist.

For employers, the answer is not to treat every candidate as dishonest. Instead, businesses need stronger, smarter hiring processes. Behavioural interview questions are one of the most useful tools. Asking a candidate to describe a specific time they led a project, solved a problem or used a technical skill makes it much harder to rely on vague claims. A simple question such as “Are you good at Excel?” may invite a yes or no answer, while “Talk me through the functions you use and what you have built in Excel” gives far more insight.

Reference checks remain critical. A former manager can often confirm whether a candidate genuinely held certain responsibilities, delivered key projects or performed at the level described. Where qualifications or certifications are essential to the role, employers should also verify them directly rather than assuming they are accurate.

This matters because even seemingly small exaggerations can carry risk. A candidate who overstates their technical capability could damage systems, delay work or create extra pressure for the team. A candidate who hides relevant history may expose the organisation to compliance, safety or reputational issues. Once trust is broken, it can be difficult to rebuild.

Careerfishing is likely to remain part of the hiring landscape because competitive markets create shortcuts. But employers do not need to respond with suspicion. They need clarity, structure and consistency. By asking better questions, verifying key claims and partnering with recruitment professionals who understand the market, businesses can reduce risk while still recognising candidates with genuine potential.

For job seekers, the message is equally important. The strongest applications are built on truth, not inflation. Understanding your achievements, quantifying your impact and showing proactive learning can help you stand out for the right reasons. In a market where trust matters, authenticity may be the most valuable career strategy of all.



What can employers do to reduce careerfishing risk?

• Ask behavioural questions that require real examples, not generic claims.
• Check qualifications and certifications when they are essential to the role.
• Use reference checks to verify responsibilities, achievements and performance.
• Train interviewers to ask follow-up questions about tools, projects and results.
• Look for transferable skills and genuine potential, rather than only exact title matches.
• Encourage candidates to show evidence of learning, achievements and measurable impact.