Lying applicants

To the astonishment of (just a few) school principals, it seems that not every applicant for a teaching position is always honest when they submit their application for employment.

Research conducted for the employment agency SEEK found that 36% of applicants confess that they have not been completely honest in their applications.  It seems that the untruths fall into four broad areas: (i) the applicant’s experience in one or more aspects of the job, (ii) the applicant’s formal qualifications, (iii) the salary they have been earning in their current or previous positions, and (iv) their reasons for leaving previous positions or wanting to leave their current employment.

Dishonesty is most definitely not an example of type of role modelling that schools expect from their teachers.  In some more extreme cases, lying on a resumé can result in a legal charge of fraud, especially if the lying is supported by counterfeit or forged documents such as degrees or professional credentials, and/or if the false information appears as part of a signed document.  Furthermore, it is clearly illegal for an applicant to deny criminal history, especially in areas such as child abuse and child safety.

So why do so many applicants lie?  

It may be because the applicant is simply desperate to get a job to overcome financial or personal problems.  It may be because the applicant feels inadequate, especially if applying for a position in a desirable or prestigious school.  Related to this motive, it may be because of a real or imagined pressure to meet expectations.  It may be an attempt to get an advantage over other applicants.  

Lying on applications is also a significant factor for school boards when recruiting a new principal, as applicants for principals’ positions have also been known to embellish their applications with false claims about qualifications, experience, or reasons for leaving previous positions.  It is one of the reasons that some schools use external consultants when they are seeking to recruit a new principal.

To state the obvious, dishonesty can have serious consequences not only for the individual but also for the educational institution and students in a school that is deceived by the lies presented in the application.  Whatever the so-called rationale, lying on a job application is never excusable.  

Given the seriousness of getting recruitment right, there are several actions that principals can take when recruiting staff – and which boards can take when recruiting principals – once the initial short-listing has been concluded that can reduce the risks of being seduced by lying applicants.  These actions fall into two groups: (i) during the interview, and (ii) after the interview.

DURING THE INTERVIEW

Unless it is absolutely impossible, try to conduct interviews in-person, face-to-face, rather than remotely on a screen.  Remote interviews almost always obscure important body language and signs of stress which are important in revealing unease due to lying (as well as other factors).  In-person face-to-face interactions make information transfer easier and more natural, enabling everyone involved to make better connections.  Without doubt there is a place for remote work, but top management is not one of those places.

If possible, during the face-to-face interview, get the applicant to demonstrate some of the competencies required for the position rather than simply talk about them.  For example, require a teacher to teach a demonstration lesson to one or two classes of students in the school, ask to see examples of their own lesson plans and teaching registers, and so on.  Similarly, it is entirely appropriate for the board’s selection committee to ask short-listed applicants for Principal to deliver a short speech, to be placed in situations where their interaction with students can be observed, and to address and answer questions from a panel of representative members of the staff. 

For teacher and principals’ interviews, it is often helpful to present real scenarios in the school and then engage in a deep discussion about how the applicant might go about addressing the challenge specified.  The areas that could be explored are as wide as the school’s activities, but whatever the topic, there should be an in-depth discussion that go well beyond platitudes and engages in real-world problem-solving.  In this way, the real (as opposed to imagined or claimed) experience and qualifications of the applicant should emerge.

It is important that style and eloquence are not allowed to obscure untruths or false claims during an interview.  Charm can be a helpful asset in education, but it is never a substitute for honesty, truth, and competence.  An interview panel should never be afraid of pursuing a robust line of questioning, even to the point of discomfort, especially if lying or cover-ups are suspected.  To that end, inserting some less common interview questions such as those outlined in THIS article can be very helpful.

AFTER THE INTERVIEW

No-one – no teacher, no member of the non-teaching staff, and especially no Principal – should ever be employed without first obtaining several (ideally three) confidential reference checks.  These days, written ‘open’ references are generally regarded as useless because of the fear that any negative observations or opinions may be subject to dispute or even legal action by the subject of the reference.  References should be confidential and must always include questions about the applicant’s work performance and history in the area of child safety. It is essential that anyone appointed to work in a school has no convictions relating to child protection or any previous conduct that precludes working with children.  Therefore, reference checking should always include an open question along the lines of “is there any factor I should know about that would preclude employing this person in a school?”.  

It is increasingly common to include a ‘due diligence’ check of social media before offering a position to any teacher or principal.  This can be a worthwhile step, but principals and boards should also be aware that not everything on social media is accurate, it is often opinionated, and may be the work of jealous colleagues or upset students “letting off steam”.  The accuracy of information on social media is likely to deteriorate even further in the years ahead as generative AI becomes more widely available and sophisticated.  Social media checks should be used only with discernment.

Finally, it is important not to rush the appointment of a new teacher or new principal.  As I have often said “it is better to have a good vacancy than a bad appointment”.

- Dr Stephen Codrington