Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Social Networks Businesses Technology

LinkedIn Profiles Contain Fewer Lies Than Resumes 88

RichDiesal writes "New research reveals that personal information provided on LinkedIn may contain fewer deceptions about prior work experience and prior work responsibilities than traditional resumes. However, LinkedIn profiles contain more deceptions about personal interests and hobbies. This researchers believe this may be because participants are equally motivated to deceive employers in both settings, but perceive lies about work experience on LinkedIn as more easily verifiable."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

LinkedIn Profiles Contain Fewer Lies Than Resumes

Comments Filter:
  • Trust, but verify (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 01, 2012 @07:32PM (#39215627)

    Reagan said it best: Trust, but verify.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 01, 2012 @07:39PM (#39215683)

    Even it were true, folks who were checking up on you would find folks linked to you and well to make a long story short, eventually they'd find out the truth.

    Then you'd be known for the bullshitter that you are.

  • by belthize ( 990217 ) on Thursday March 01, 2012 @07:48PM (#39215745)

    A resume is typically viewed by an employer so the incentive is to be honest about hobbies and lie about experience.

    LinkedIn is typically viewed by friends and acquaintances so the incentive is to be honest about work and lie about hobbies.

    Nothing terribly profound.

  • Skill checkbox (Score:3, Insightful)

    by griff199 ( 162798 ) on Thursday March 01, 2012 @07:56PM (#39215815) Journal

    Although not a lie per se, what does checking a box labeled "Troubleshooting" mean in the context of an automation engineer? I've been at this since 2003 and have seen a *wide* range of troubleshooting skills both high and low. LinkedIn encourages everyone to go ahead and check that box. So while it isn't full of lies, I believe is full of exceedingly watered down truths.

  • by ackthpt ( 218170 ) on Thursday March 01, 2012 @08:02PM (#39215857) Homepage Journal

    A resume is typically viewed by an [personnel department screeners who know almost nothing at all about the work which would be done for the] employer so the incentive is to be honest about hobbies and lie about experience.

    LinkedIn is typically viewed by friends and acquaintances so the incentive is to be honest about work and lie about hobbies.

    Nothing terribly profound.

    The goal of a resume is to get a foot in the door. After that, it's backing it up in interviews.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 01, 2012 @08:14PM (#39215951)

    LinkedIn profiles probably contain more accurate info because you're still connected to past employers and co-workers, many who you may look to for endorsements. I believe the guilt of lying or embellishing and having your former peers and bosses see it is enough for most to avoid doing it. I once had a former co-worker request an endorsement from me. After reading through their profile I couldn't do it. Not only did they lie about their experience but much of the experience they claimed to have matched real experience I possess. So I'd be endorsing their fake work experience and building up a potential competitor for future jobs.

  • by Walt Sellers ( 1741378 ) on Thursday March 01, 2012 @08:22PM (#39216017)

    You can say "I worked there" but its harder to get a bunch of other people to say the same, especially people with active profiles.

    I trust a LinkedIn reference more when a person has several links to people who also worked there.

    I heard someone say the looked at candidates' "net tracks". They looked for forum contributions, blog entries, Google results, etc.

  • Nobody really believes the stuff on linkedin will be checked.

    We used to look at our former coworkers profiles and laugh. Sure, they're full of exaggerations, lies, etc. The problem with verifying them is that most employers have a strict policy that they will only verify the start and end dates an employee worked, nothing else. In some places it's the law, in other places they just don't want lawsuits from former employees. And in some cases, they're just hoping that their biggest competitor hires the t*rd and ends up costing them a bundle.

    If someone called, there was no way we would say "that's a lie." We would confirm only the duration of employment, say that they left with no hard feelings, we wish them the best in their new endeavors, thank you very much have a nice day click!

    There's nothing to stop a dozen people creating fake linkedin profiles, as well as a phony website (what - $8 a year?) and giving each other references.

    They want to call head office? A burn phone is $25 a month. Split the cost among the dozen and it's $2 a month each. Or just list your former employer as a recent corporate bankruptcy - there's enough of them around.

    Faxes? "We don't do faxes - what is this, the stone age?" Create the head office in some area far enough away, and all they can do is google earth it.

    "But if the employer finds out, they can fire you!" ... so what - in the meantime, you have a job. And they won't even bother if you list a bankrupt biz no longer in operation as your former employer.

    To paraphrase Tennyson:

    I hold it true, whate'er befall;
    I feel it, when I sorrow most;
    'Tis better* to have had a job and lost
    Than never to have had a job at all.

    *or at least more profitable.

    Now, would I lie? Are you kidding? The truth is awesome* enough :-p

    *disclamer: chocolate required for proper functioning. valid for some very non-standard value(s) of "awesome." ymmv. batteries not included. avoid elevators, operating heavy machinery, and slashdot. seek professional advice if non-professional advice doesn't work. ignore previous sentence as it is non-professional advice. all rights reserved. parking reserved. reservations reserved. Why yes, I do have reservations, serious reservations, but everyone here else seems to think this place is good enough to eat at.

  • by uncqual ( 836337 ) on Thursday March 01, 2012 @08:37PM (#39216139)

    building up a potential competitor for future jobs

    I would hope that this would not be a factor in recommendations or endorsements among technical colleagues. Of course, the inaccuracies would be more than enough to decline giving a reference.

    When giving a reference, I try to imagine that the person I'm talking to hires the person we are talking about (independent of if I give a positive, lukewarm or, even, a negative recommendation) and, two years hence, I'm interviewing with the same company and they remember both the content of my reference and how the person turned out. I'd like to hear:

    Oh yes, I don't recall if you remember giving a reference for Jake a couple years ago. We hired him and it turns out you were spot on with the reference you gave. [ "We are so happy we hired him as you recommended." | "We really wish we had weighed your reference more highly and not hired him." ]

Always draw your curves, then plot your reading.

Working...