Sometimes You Have to Lie to Get the Job

The job she could do, but could not get

A woman I know had spent years raising her children and was trying to return to paid work. She had been applying for jobs without success. When I looked at her résumé, I could see why: it described jobs from more than 15 years earlier that had little connection to the work she now wanted.

She might have been capable of doing those jobs. Her résumé, however, gave employers almost no reason to believe it. I rewrote it with relevant positions at companies she had not worked for. She was appalled: none of that history was true. She would not use it.

She continued to struggle to enter the kind of work she wanted and eventually took low-paid factory work. I cannot prove that my version of her résumé would have changed that outcome. I do think her reaction captures the barrier: a capable person can be unwilling to make the claim required to get through a system that only recognizes prior experience.

What I actually did

I entered the computer industry from carpet sales. I was interested enough to teach myself about PCs, Lotus 1-2-3 and databases in our garage, but that did not give me the employment history computer companies were screening for.

So I invented relevant experience. I went to interview after interview in London. At first I was poor at it. Each interview showed me what a company expected and where my explanation fell apart. I became sharper at talking through the experience I claimed. That practice was part of getting the job.

I got one position selling computers and software, then another selling desktop-publishing products. I was fired from each after about six months because I failed to sell enough. But I was also getting paid while learning the products, customers and industry. My next job, selling networking products, went much better. Within about two years I became that company’s top salesperson. MI–0020 tells the broader story of the effort and optimism behind that change; here I am being explicit about the résumé and interviews.

Being fired was stressful and a little embarrassing. The feelings were real, but they passed quickly. I did not dwell on them or decide that I was a failure. Each job gave me actual experience I could take to the next interview: I had worked with the products and customers, seen where I fell short and understood more of what successful selling required. I found another job in the same field, learned in a different setting and arrived at the third position far better prepared. I did not interpret being fired twice as proof that I should return to selling carpets.

Those two early dismissals should not make it sound as though this was how every job ended. Across the other times I have taken on work before knowing exactly how to do it, I estimate I succeeded about 90% of the time because I was able to figure it out. That is my recollection, not a measured success rate that I can promise another person.

I got into the room before I had the experience the door demanded. Then I worked to acquire it.

Why I defend it

The standard advice is to tailor an honest résumé, show transferable skills and explain a career break. If that earns a fair hearing, use it. My objection is that a competitive hiring process may reject the candidate before anyone sees those abilities. Someone else arrives with the exact job titles and gets the interview. A person trying to change careers cannot gain that history without first being given a chance.

My view is that, in some situations, inventing the experience an employer expects is a practical way through. You then have to learn what the role requires, attend enough interviews to become convincing in person, get to work and deliver. I have helped other people use this approach; in the cases I know, they gained more than they lost. I would rather they have a chance to develop capability than remain permanently outside the gate.

This is a defense of deception, not a euphemism for putting genuine accomplishments in their best light. You may reject it on ethical grounds. I am saying plainly that I have done it, it opened a career for me, and I believe the hiring system sometimes makes it the most effective available route.

What is the alternative risk?

Consider someone who has only worked in a factory and wants a retail job at Costco. A particular opening calls for retail experience. The person believes they could do the work, but their actual job history does not demonstrate the experience the posting asks for. Claiming to have worked in stores they never worked in might get them considered. It would also mean risking rejection or dismissal if the claim were checked. I know someone facing this kind of choice; I am not claiming to know what Costco would do with that person's application.

Now compare two starting points. If the applicant already has a factory job that pays the bills, leaving it for a retail position obtained through false claims could put essential income at risk. They must decide whether that risk is tolerable. If they are unemployed and cannot get the work they want, there is no current job to give up. Getting in could mean wages, experience and a path to better work, even if the first position does not last. To me, staying in an unwanted line of work indefinitely can also be a serious cost.

Ask two questions: What is the best that could happen? What is the worst credible outcome, and can I live with it? For me, the best was a new career. The feared outcome—losing the first job—happened twice. It still left me with paid, usable experience and a stronger case for the next opportunity. Someone else may face a much harder loss, especially if they leave a job their household relies on or would find being exposed deeply distressing. That is their decision to make with open eyes.

Where a particular application is screened strictly for prior retail experience, listing none may end that application before an interview. Inventing that experience may improve the chance of being considered, and interview practice may improve the chance of being hired. Neither step guarantees a job, nor do I know that every Costco opening uses such a rigid screen. I reject a blanket rule that a capable applicant must never take the risk; I have seen it pay off and believe the chance can be worth pursuing.

First win the client. Then learn to deliver.

I have used a version of this approach in business as well as employment. When I started Holistic Web Presence, I did not yet understand SEO well enough to claim a long record of doing it. I found a paying client, then learned what I needed to deliver the work. I did the same when clients needed videos and when I first had to write web pages and articles. The commission gave me a real problem, a reason to learn quickly and the resources to do the work. Fifteen years of doing it have since given me the expertise I originally lacked.

I am describing how I won work and built capability; I am not claiming that the first attempt was already backed by the experience I implied. The client was buying a result. My responsibility was to figure out how to produce it, and to keep learning until I could.

There is a connection to opening a door before you can see the other doors. The first client or job changes the problem from an abstract wish to a concrete assignment. It exposes the questions you actually need to answer. But a deadline and a paying customer also raise the stakes: learning as you go only works if you can deliver an acceptable result.

Marketing yourself under pressure

A job application is a form of marketing. You have to understand what the employer wants and make a case that speaks to it. My argument goes further than persuasive presentation: where the required experience did not exist, I claimed that it did. Then I had to withstand the questions in the interview and the demands of the job. The more interviews I attended, the better I understood those demands and the more convincingly I could talk through my claims.

There is another test besides whether you can learn the job: how would you cope if someone challenged your account? I did feel stress and embarrassment when jobs ended. What mattered was how briefly those feelings held me. I could reframe the setback around what I had learned and act again. I think some people would dwell on being confronted over a false résumé for much longer, perhaps finding that worse than losing the job itself. If that prospect would overwhelm you, it belongs in your worst-case calculation.

People have called my thinking Machiavellian. I disagree with that description of my motives. I care about people, help them and get real satisfaction from doing so. At the same time, someone thinking badly of me does not determine my worth. I ask whether this is a person I want to help or whose judgment is useful to me; if neither is true, I give their opinion less weight. That does not settle whether the method itself is ethical. It helps explain why disapproval does not stop me from acting.

This is a stressful way to operate. It suits someone who can work out unfamiliar tasks quickly, tolerate uncertainty, recover after an emotional setback and remain effective under pressure. Being sensitive to others' judgment can limit a person's willingness to use this particular method; it does not make them less capable or less worthy. A person who would be demoralized by exposure or dismissal may reasonably choose another route. Confidence by itself is not competence; I still had to do the work. MI–0024 explores how people can work with their emotional reactions.

AI makes learning unfamiliar tasks faster. It can help explain a tool, suggest an approach, critique a draft or give you a starting point when you are stuck. I see it as another powerful aid for people willing to figure things out on the fly. Its answers need checking against the actual task and result; having access to AI does not turn an invented qualification into a real one.

Who should never take this risk?

I would not use this approach to claim a nursing qualification, a licensed contracting skill, or any other license I did not hold. Nor would I take on work where a mistake could put someone's life at risk. Licenses, formal credentials and safety-critical duties are not things to learn after the fact while others depend on you. Even in ordinary jobs, a client can lose money or a coworker can be left carrying the work if you cannot deliver. You need to judge the particular role, the skills you can actually acquire in time and the people who will bear the consequences.

I was willing to be found out and even to be fired. I regarded the experience and income as a gain. Reframing a dismissal helped me continue, but attitude alone did not pay the bills or make me competent: the work I did and what I learned from it mattered. My outcome cannot establish that dismissal is the worst possible result for everyone, or that this method always pays. A person who depends on a job may put much more at risk than I felt I did. The employer, coworkers and clients may also rely on skills the applicant does not yet have.

Employment history can be checked, and a background report can affect a decision to hire or retain someone. Rules and consequences differ by job and jurisdiction, especially where a role has formal qualifications or duties that affect other people's safety. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission explains what employment background checks may cover.

The woman who declined my résumé made her own decision about a false claim she would have to live with. I disagree with her calculation of the opportunity cost, but I cannot make that risk calculation for her.

What this story can and cannot prove

The experience trap is real, and returning mothers can face an additional hiring penalty. Correll, Benard and Paik’s employer audit found discrimination against mothers. Their research does not show that fabrication is necessary or that it is a reliable remedy.

My evidence for the tactic is my own career and the people I have helped. It does not tell us what proportion of successful applicants fabricate experience, how often they are detected, or whether someone who took a different route would have done better. Those are claims that need evidence beyond my experience.

My argument remains: an applicant who lacks the expected history faces an unfairly narrow gate. I chose to get through it, learn by doing and accept the possibility of failure. Whether another person should make the same choice depends on the work, what others rely on them to do, and what they are genuinely prepared to risk.