Is your next hire really who they say they are?

Frog Recruitment • May 11, 2026

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.

Grow your career and team
Get in touch with Frog Recruitment


Auckland
   I  Wellington


In business since 2002 in New Zealand, Frog Recruitment is an award-winning recruitment agency with people at our heart. Located across Auckland and Wellington, we specialise in accounting and finance, business support, education, executive, government, HR, legal, marketing and digital, property, sales, supply chain, and technology sectors. As the proud recipients of the 2024 RCSA Excellence in Candidate Care Award, we are dedicated to helping businesses achieve success through a people-first approach.

Recent articles

By Shannon Barlow • November 1, 2026
The UK's equality watchdog wants to stop employers asking job applicants about their previous salary or pay expectations. But would banning these questions create fairer pay outcomes, or could we be losing a valuable conversation? The problem isn't having a conversation about salary. It's using someone's previous salary to determine how little you can get away with paying them. That's the distinction at the heart of a debate emerging in the UK, where the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has recommended banning employers from asking job applicants about their salary history or expectations. The concern is understandable. If someone has been underpaid in a previous role, using that salary as the starting point for their next offer can mean existing inequalities follow them throughout their career. But from a recruitment perspective, there's another side to the conversation worth considering. Your previous salary shouldn't determine your future worth. Let's say two candidates apply for the same position. They have comparable experience, similar skills and the same ability to perform the role. One currently earns $80,000. The other earns $100,000. Should the employer offer the first candidate less simply because they've previously been paid less? Absolutely not. Remuneration should reflect the responsibilities of the role, the skills and experience required, internal equity and current market rates — not simply what someone managed to negotiate with their previous employer. Otherwise, people who have historically been underpaid can find themselves perpetually playing catch-up. This can be particularly problematic for people returning from career breaks, those who have prioritised flexibility over salary, and employees who have spent years with the same organisation while market rates have moved ahead. A change of employer should be an opportunity to reset remuneration against the market, rather than carry forward an outdated benchmark. But salary conversations can work in candidates' favour. While we understand the motivation behind the UK proposal, there's an important difference between asking about salary history to justify a lower offer and discussing remuneration to help someone understand their market value. As recruiters, we're constantly having conversations with employers and jobseekers about salary. Those discussions give us valuable insight into remuneration trends across different industries, professions and locations. They also allow us to challenge expectations on both sides. For employers, that might mean explaining that their proposed salary isn't competitive enough to attract the experience they're looking for. For candidates, it can mean helping them recognise that they've been underpaid and encouraging them to aim higher. Someone earning $75,000 might assume that asking for $85,000 is ambitious. But if comparable positions are paying $90,000 to $100,000, that conversation can be genuinely empowering. The objective shouldn't be to anchor someone's next salary to their previous one. It should be to help them understand what their skills are worth in today's market. Why are we so uncomfortable talking about money? New Zealanders and Australians can be surprisingly reserved when it comes to discussing salaries. We regularly encounter candidates who are uncomfortable disclosing what they currently earn or what they'd like to earn next. And that's understandable. Jobseekers want to achieve the best possible outcome, but they also worry about pricing themselves out of an opportunity. That concern can be particularly pronounced in a challenging employment market, when competition for roles is high and candidates may feel they have less negotiating power. Some people deliberately nominate a lower salary expectation because they're concerned an employer will otherwise overlook them. Others aren't confident about their market value, particularly if they haven't changed jobs for several years. This is where transparency and access to reliable salary information become particularly important. If candidates understand the market rate for their skills and experience, they're better equipped to have an informed conversation — rather than guessing what an employer might be willing to pay. What are New Zealand and Australia doing about pay transparency? Both countries have introduced changes designed to give employees greater freedom to discuss their remuneration. In New Zealand, the Employment Relations (Employee Remuneration Disclosure) Amendment Act came into force in August 2025. The legislation protects employees from adverse action for discussing or disclosing their pay, or participating in conversations about another employee's remuneration. Pay confidentiality clauses can still appear in employment agreements, but the new protections limit how employers can enforce them. Australia introduced stronger pay secrecy reforms in December 2022. Employees have a protected right to discuss their pay, and pay secrecy clauses are prohibited in new employment contracts, with transitional arrangements applying to some older agreements. These are important steps towards greater transparency, but neither approach is the same as banning questions about salary history during recruitment. And that's an important distinction. Should employers publish salary ranges instead? One of the most practical ways to improve pay transparency is to give candidates a clearer indication of remuneration before they apply. Publishing a realistic salary range helps jobseekers assess whether an opportunity aligns with their expectations and reduces the risk of wasting time on a process that was never going to work financially. It also places more responsibility on employers to determine what a role is worth before entering the market. Rather than asking candidates what they're currently earning and working backwards from there, employers should be asking: What are the responsibilities and expectations of this position? What skills and experience are essential? What are comparable positions paying in the current market? How does the proposed salary compare with what existing employees earn? These are the questions that should establish the remuneration range. There will still be room for negotiation based on individual experience and capability, but the starting point should be the value of the role — not the candidate's salary history. What should candidates do when asked about salary? For jobseekers, preparation is key. Before entering a recruitment process, research the market rate for comparable positions and consider the full remuneration package, including benefits, flexibility, development opportunities and progression. If you're uncomfortable disclosing your previous salary, it's reasonable to steer the conversation towards your expectations for the new role. For example: "I'd prefer to focus on the responsibilities of this position and the market rate for the experience I bring. Based on my research, I'm looking for something in the range of $X to $Y." And if you're working with a recruiter, use their market knowledge. A good recruiter should be able to explain whether your expectations are realistic, identify where your current remuneration may be below market and help you approach negotiations with greater confidence. Better transparency, not less conversation. The UK proposal raises an important issue, and the principle behind it is one we support: people shouldn't be disadvantaged in their next job simply because they were underpaid in their last one. But banning conversations about salary expectations could also remove an opportunity for candidates and recruiters to have constructive discussions about market value. The focus should be on making those conversations fairer and more transparent. Employers should establish salary ranges based on the role and the market. Recruiters should challenge unrealistic expectations and advocate for fair remuneration. And candidates should feel confident discussing what they're worth without worrying that doing so will cost them an opportunity. Ultimately, the question shouldn't be "What were you paid before?" but "What is this job worth, and what value will you bring to it?"  At Frog Recruitment and people2people, our consultants work with employers and jobseekers across New Zealand and Australia, providing market insights and remuneration advice to support informed hiring decisions. If you'd like to understand how your salary or hiring budget compares with the market, get in touch with our team.
October 22, 2026
Job hugging is making workers more cautious about changing roles. Learn when staying put is sensible and when it could start limiting your career.
October 22, 2026
Meeting every job requirement may get you shortlisted, but it may not make you stand out. Find out what employers are looking for beyond qualifications.
October 22, 2026
As AI changes the job application process, discover why employers are looking beyond CVs and how candidates can demonstrate their value.
October 18, 2026
Explore New Zealand's two-speed job market, rising unemployment, skills shortages and regional recovery trends, and what they mean for employers.

Latest PR features