A week ago or so, I saw a story reposted from somewhere online and I've been mulling it ever since. It seems like it should be easy for me to make up my mind about it, but no such luck. I'll repost it here so that we are all on the same page.
Read it. Then decide what you think about the author and what he did.
 |
| In case the graphic doesn't show up for you, it's a story about someone who lied on his resume by inventing a fictitious degree, to get a job. Since then he's done well at the job and been promoted twice. |
What's my dilemma? That's easy. I'm torn between two principles, both of which I believe strongly.
On the one hand: Integrity is non-negotiable. I've discussed this topic before under multiple headings, including (just for example) why not to accept bribes, why not to lie to your auditor, and why ethics are too important to put them in a standard.* Briefly, if you can't trust what people tell you, you can't work with them. Lying dissolves all the trust that binds an organization into a whole. If you have to work together, it's poisonous.
On the other hand: One of the consistent themes of this blog is that good work is more important than paper certificates. Of course the paper certificates have their place. In a world of strangers they serve as a common language and as a proxy for reputation, since most likely you will never know a stranger's real reputation. But it's only a proxy. A company can have a quality management system and still fail.**
From the first perspective, I think that this man lying on his resume is a deal-killer. From the second perspective, I think that his good work during the next four years should be all that matters. I wish I could settle on one of these opinions and not hold both.
I've had to deal with this issue only once in real life. I hired a candidate who—just like the fellow above—claimed a degree. Our HR department was relentless about checking qualifications, so a couple of weeks after he started they let me know his degree was fictitious. They also reminded me that the employment application was a legal contract, and that it stated clearly "I understand that I can be dismissed for any false statement on this form."
So I called him in. I told him what I knew and asked why. Again, his story was just like the one above: his resume had gotten no interviews without a degree, so he added one to make himself more attractive. I explained that legally I could fire him for the falsification. But then I went on.
ME: Look, you don't need a degree for this job, but integrity is non-negotiable. So tell me the truth. That school you claimed the degree from—did you ever go there at all?
HIM: Yes, for a couple of years. But I didn't graduate.
ME: OK, here's what I'm going to do. First, new hires routinely have a three-month probationary period; I'm extending yours to six. Second, bring me some kind of proof that you really attended this school so I know your current story is true. I'll put a copy in your file, along with this agreement, and we'll call it good enough.
We documented the agreement. He brought me a copy of his old student body card. And he was a good employee.
But that's just an isolated case. I'd hate to build it into a general rule.
So leave me a comment. What do you think about the story that I started with, up at the top of the post? What about people who lie on their resumes?
__________
* You can find others by clicking the tag "lying" in the right-hand margin of this blog.
** See for example this post and my other posts about Boeing. It is true that Boeing's QMS is not certified; but they still have one, for all that.
We were a small group and worked closely together, so everyone knew everyone else's work pretty well. And I weighed what I saw from daily observation against the overall risk.
ReplyDeleteBut it was a highly individual calculation, and I don't know how it would work for a different employee or in a different department. That's part of why I asked for feedback from others.
I've been thinking about this some more, and I think it's also true that context matters. I tend to be pretty absolutist about issues of integrity (as I explain in the main post), yet I also understand that the spectrum of behaviors is wider than just "willing-to-lie" vs "not-willing-to-lie." Someone who is willing to lie in one context might be totally unwilling to lie in another.
ReplyDeleteSpelling out the exact contours of this terrain in words will require deeper thought than I have given it at the moment. But when I was dealing with my employee in particular, I let myself be guided partly by a kind of moral fingerspitzengefühl. And I think many other people rely on the same nonverbal sense.
If there's enough interest I can try to unpack this in future posts, but it may be too far from the main topic of "pragmatic quality" to attract many readers.