8 ms·

>I’m exaggerating the amount of skill that I have. Everyone is. I use the right buzzwords on my CV. I inflate the scale of my achievements and the depth of my s

>I’m exaggerating the amount of skill that I have. Everyone is. I use the right buzzwords on my CV. I inflate the scale of my achievements and the depth of my skillset. I even add tasks and responsibilities to historical jobs that fit your requirements. You’re never going to check, are you? I don't, I'm honest in my CV and during interviews I'm selling myself 'as-is' e.g despite using git for longer peroid of time, but mostly via GUI, then I'm not going to call myself proficient/experienced git user cuz I'd fail some above basics question

corrral 4y ago
I don't exaggerate or list things I don't have significant experience with, but a relative who's in recruiting keeps telling me I'm doing it wrong. But I think they mostly do recruiting for big companies with bad automatic filters or people who don't understand the job doing the first weed-out pass on the résumé pile, so maybe that's why.
- wikfwikf 4y ago
  The recruiter's interest and yours are not aligned. Recruiters would like everyone to list every skill on their resume. They have nothing to lose from you being interviewed for a position you're not suited for. And they get paid if you get hired into something that isn't right. Both these outcomes are less good, for you, than being interviewed less and only hired into jobs which are right for you.
  - leaflets2 4y ago
    Recruiters get paid per interview? Or directly when someone got hired? I thought it was more common that they'd get paid per person hired and still at the job 3 months later? But I'm a bit clueless
    - wikfwikf 4y ago
      no, they get paid when you are hired. but the more people they send to interview, the more likely they are to get a hire, whether a good one or an indifferent one.
      - leaflets2 4y ago
        Aha, they're happy with mediocre hires, just good enough -- although it could have been (much) better for the company with another person A bit misaligned incentives in the same way as agencies have, I'm thinking
ardit33 4y ago
Same... and I got scolded by an recruiter after she asked me more questions about my experience. She basically told me I am underselling some of the experience, and I should put some of it more, and perk it up a bit. It was very helpful. Engineers have that. You have to take example a bit from real estate agents, on how they describe a place. Always highlight the positives.
doix 4y ago
I put as little as humanly possible on my CV to reduce the chance of getting asked about stuff I have pretty much completely forgotten about. I hate preparing for interviews and don't want to brush on my past. For example, I spent a year writing an LLVM backend for a DSP but I'm pretty sure I couldn't write more than a fizzbuzz in C++ now. Nor do I remember much about LLVM. I don't want to come across an LLVM enthusiast and have him start grilling me on details I have long forgotten. I try to write just enough to get an interview, anymore information makes you more likely to fail your interview in my book. Plus writing less makes you mysterious ;p.
- bilsbie 4y ago
  Would they think you’re inexperienced though?
  - mmcdermott 4y ago
    Most resumes I see have both a skills section and some sort of work history section. You can keep advertised skills focused while still listing past projects and work if you use a format that makes a similar distinction.
    - the_only_law 4y ago
      My problem is the skills section isn't going to match up with the experience section, most of my technical knowledge came from just screwing around and trying to hack/fix stuff. Most of my professional career could be described more as "code-monkey if that". Last job search was depressing. I wanted to actually stick with it, and find me a job I actually wanted (as opposed to the same thing I've been doing for years + some more money). However nearly every job I applied to I got ATS screened out of, meanwhile the recruiters kept coming to me with more money for similar crappy jobs and I folded. Well either that or recruiters that never even read my resume spam me. I've been getting spam for RoR positions, I haven't touched ruby since 1.9 ad have never had professional experience with it.
      - 4y ago
woodruffw 4y ago
And to add the other side of things: as an interviewer, I do check. Inflating your skillset is going to get you into the wrong interviews, and you'll do poorly in them (and consequently will have these kinds of negative experiences). Either accurately represent or slightly undersell yourself; it comes off much better and will save you time and money.
- Clubber 4y ago
  I hate embellishing on resumes. Unfortunately when the game went from humans filtering resumes to automation/keyword filtering, it's and unfortunate requirement. Sanitation Engineer and all that. Required keywords "Agile/Scrum" does not appear on this resume, rejected.
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    That's a fair point. We do very little algorithmic/automated filtering, so I'm biased in my predilection.
    - Clubber 4y ago
      If you use a headhunting firm, they certainly do.
      - woodruffw 4y ago
        We don't, at least to my knowledge.
  - Silhouette 4y ago
    Required keywords "Agile/Scrum" does not appear on this resume, rejected. Is it really that bad now? If I were applying for employee roles today it would probably never have occurred to me that including "Agile" as a buzzword could be important to avoid getting filtered immediately. I can understand filtering someone for having no apparent experience in the main programming language you use if you have many other applicants who do. Filtering for something that basically every employer has claimed to do for about 200 years but no two of them would agree on what it means seems silly though.
lytefm 4y ago
I've also gotten positive feedback for clearly stating what I know and what I don't know. I'm using a „skill meter” to distinguish between „I'm an expert in this language“ and „I've used this a couple of years ago“. I got a job offer from a company whose main language is Go and I didn't even know the basics. A good software engineer can pick up any reasonable language in a reasonable amount of time [1]. I usually ignore recruiters who don't contact me via InMail. If they convey that they actually took a look at my profile, I'll reply. I've had a very good experience with the three EU companies that I've been interviewing with this year. One had a take-home assignment that was reasonably scoped for 2-4h and well thought. The others asked some basics and some architechture / design / business understanding related questions. No leetcode or whiteboard coding. Open communication + quick feedback. Was I just lucky in that regard or are there a lot of companies with a sane interview process out there, but some HN readers prefer to apply at those who don't? [1] https://www.kalzumeus.com/2011/10/28/dont-call-yourself-a-programmer/ https://www.kalzumeus.com/2011/10/28/dont-call-yourself-a-pr...
- Lazare 4y ago
  Most of us probably don't interview at a statistically significant sample of companies, so I guess it's hard to say. For the record, I recently did three tech interviews for tech lead level roles. * Company A: Small startup in a non-profit space. Technical part was an informal chat with a current tech lead, which led to them sending me a list of high level general questions around architecture and design to be discussed on a follow up call, then it moved on to a third non-technical round. Good approach overall, I appreciated being able to prepare in advance instead of being given a pop quiz, and I think it unpacked my skills pretty well. Total time maybe 3 hours? It led to an offer. * Company B: Medium sized ecommerce company. Technical part was a live coding challenge via screen share, with a tech lead and an engineering manager watching. Think "given this list of categories and items, how would you loop over it to find the item with the highest cost? How about all the items in a specific category? How about all green items in any category?"; a very simple problem, used purely as a jumping off place to discuss thought processes, trade offs, approaches, tools, algorithms, etc. I dislike live coding challenges, but this was about as good as could be expected, and led to two more follow up round of high level architecture and design questions. Three total rounds, each 1 hour. Again led to an offer. * Company C: Medium sized developer tooling company. Started with an take-home assignment that was very poorly defined. I was verbally told it should take "an evening" and "don't take it too seriously", but as I later found out they were expecting more like 18+ hours, finished to the standard you'd expect in production, ie, thorough unit tests, good code coverage, carefully chosen variable and method names, completely documented, all edge cases handled, etc. I didn't make it to round two, which would apparently have been a rigorous code review exercise on the code from the first step, which at the point I'm counting as a win. I honestly disliked the coding challenge from company B, and semi-enjoyed the one from company C (or what I thought they were asking for). But I'd have been reluctant to spend the incredible amount of time they expected on an unpaid coding challenge even if they'd managed to convey they wanted that, which they didn't. So based on my experience, about 1/3 of companies out there have terrible interview processes.
PragmaticPulp 4y ago
> I don't, I'm honest in my CV and during interviews When I first started interviewing people I assumed everyone wrote their resumes just like me: Honest, accurate, erring on the side of humble, avoiding exaggeration of my abilities. I learned the hard way that you can’t really trust what people put on their resumes. A lot of people are accurate and honest. Many people are actually too humble or often just bad at selling themselves, so you have to read between the lines and dig for their biggest achievements. But unfortunately, a large number of people will exaggerate their accomplishments far beyond anything that could be considered reasonable. Claiming proficiency in programming languages they couldn’t begin to even talk about. Writing about projects they didn’t actually work on. Making up unrealistic numbers for how effective or profitable their work was. The worst was when I receive a resume for a former coworker who hadn’t performed all that well when we worked together. The resume included some of my achievements, which the person hadn’t been involved with nor was even capable of. It was a shock to my naive system to see someone brazenly claim so much in hopes that they could slip past the interviewer and land a well-paid job where they presumably tried to blend in while dodging responsibility and accountability as much as possible. And that is why we all have to go through onerous tech interviews, despite listing our experience on our resumes.
- dijit 4y ago
  Not to discount this fact much, but there’s a reason that I optimise my interviews for weeding out liars. Tech tests on DS&A are fine, I guess, but usually you can sus a person out if you’re technical enough after 30 minutes of talking about previous projects and their level of involvement. Typically I ask more and more questions about it until they can’t answer, if they try to BS me once they’ve reached their level of incompetence then they're immediately disqualified no matter how good they are in other areas. I’d rather take a weaker person who doesn’t try to masquerade than a strong person who will.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - zarzavat 4y ago
    That’s fair enough, but from a candidate’s perspective most interviewers just want people who can BS effectively. They don’t want to train new hires in their particular stack. They want a ready-made candidate who already has “experience” in X Y Z W A B C. Call it tragedy of the commons, but being honest is not an optimal way to play the game.
jjice 4y ago
When I see a new grad say they're an advanced Java developer, I take it was a grain of salt. Then they don't remember what the associative array implementation is called in Java (HashMap). If you don't know your language's standard library implementation of common collections, you're not advanced. But I make sure to not judge them on that. They're often over zealous and looking for a job, so I don't blame them. The content of the interview is the real meat and potatoes in my experience.
- ajross 4y ago
  > But I make sure to not judge them on that. [...] The content of the interview is the real meat and potatoes Which is to say, the difference between a genuinely good candidate and one that merely claims to be is clearly visible in exactly the kind of interview the linked article is arguing against. I think there's lots of room for criticism of the Big Tech Coding Interview. But "it doesn't work" is just not reasonable. It does work, it objectively works very well, probably better than other techniques (the existence proof being that there aren't any other hiring organizations out there beating the FAANGs at their own HR game). If you want to criticize, point out that it doesn't necessarily work fairly. It rejects specific qualified candidates more often than it should, and it fails to reliably measure other areas of qualification than mere technical skill. But don't say it doesn't work, or that it's a waste of time. Show, don't tell. If you know how to hire better people, then do so and beat the world.
  - SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
    I have one and it’s quite difficult because it requires the interviewer to know their shit: drill down on a feature or technology listed in the resume in the interview with the developer. Get into the technical scope, the tradeoffs, pinch points and cruxes of problem set. Understand what the definition of success was in that feature and the individual contribution involved. A dev who only passably did the work or did so heavily relying on others expertise won’t be able to answer precise trade off questions in this way. Ultimately though if they did the work they did the work, and that’s more important than any leetcode/trivia nonsense.
gregmac 4y ago
I will often pick something "expert" on their resume to dig into, if nothing else than to gauge what "expert" means to them. Recently I interviewed someone who emphasized databases on their resume, and later mentioned they were very highly skilled in that area, so we started talking about indexes. I think I asked something like "Why wouldn't we just put an index on every field?" and the best I could get from them was "it might speed up, it might slow down" but they couldn't articulate why. Another one I will sometimes ask: You're an expert in language / framework x and have been using it for 10+ years? Cool. What recent additions have you most excited about it? What things about it do you hate/disagree with the most? Not being able to answer these things don't mean you 'fail' the interview of course, but to me it's a strong signal that our definitions of "expert" are different, and so I'll make that assumption about everything else on your resume.
actually_a_dog 4y ago
When directly asked about my git skills, I say something to the effect of "I've probably gotten myself into and out of most of the obvious sticky situations one can get themselves into. My main skills for getting out of them are 1. don't panic, and 2. look things up on google."
Accacin 4y ago
I think I'm the same, I try not to list too much to stop spam. Professionally I do JavaScript/TypeScript and work with React so I write that. I do like having a 'Familiar' section where I list languages I like to dabble with outside of work, generally where I can create a personal project but don't know the ins and outs. I find these useful to talk over in an interview as I don't want to come across as a very one-dimensional JS developer.
oaiey 4y ago
Please continue doing it. I have read too many CVs in my life. I can smell liars from just looking at their CVs. True, you might easier pass the HR/recruiter but latest when someone with a little bit of knowledge screens it, a liar is gone. You might argue, that not every pipeline works like that! Right. But now imagine the consequences if you are hired. Independent whether you fail, think how toxic a workplace must be, if liars are regularly employed. The hiding. The avoidance of responsibility. The amount of bad solutions. The success stealing. The meeting slideshows. The horrible code. So many consequences. Stay with the truth!

corrral 4y ago

I don't exaggerate or list things I don't have significant experience with, but a relative who's in recruiting keeps telling me I'm doing it wrong. But I think they mostly do recruiting for big companies with bad automatic filters or people who don't understand the job doing the first weed-out pass on the résumé pile, so maybe that's why.

wikfwikf 4y ago
The recruiter's interest and yours are not aligned. Recruiters would like everyone to list every skill on their resume. They have nothing to lose from you being interviewed for a position you're not suited for. And they get paid if you get hired into something that isn't right. Both these outcomes are less good, for you, than being interviewed less and only hired into jobs which are right for you.
- leaflets2 4y ago
  Recruiters get paid per interview? Or directly when someone got hired? I thought it was more common that they'd get paid per person hired and still at the job 3 months later? But I'm a bit clueless
  - wikfwikf 4y ago
    no, they get paid when you are hired. but the more people they send to interview, the more likely they are to get a hire, whether a good one or an indifferent one.
    - leaflets2 4y ago
      Aha, they're happy with mediocre hires, just good enough -- although it could have been (much) better for the company with another person A bit misaligned incentives in the same way as agencies have, I'm thinking

ardit33 4y ago

Same... and I got scolded by an recruiter after she asked me more questions about my experience. She basically told me I am underselling some of the experience, and I should put some of it more, and perk it up a bit. It was very helpful. Engineers have that. You have to take example a bit from real estate agents, on how they describe a place. Always highlight the positives.

doix 4y ago

I put as little as humanly possible on my CV to reduce the chance of getting asked about stuff I have pretty much completely forgotten about. I hate preparing for interviews and don't want to brush on my past. For example, I spent a year writing an LLVM backend for a DSP but I'm pretty sure I couldn't write more than a fizzbuzz in C++ now. Nor do I remember much about LLVM. I don't want to come across an LLVM enthusiast and have him start grilling me on details I have long forgotten. I try to write just enough to get an interview, anymore information makes you more likely to fail your interview in my book. Plus writing less makes you mysterious ;p.

bilsbie 4y ago
Would they think you’re inexperienced though?
- mmcdermott 4y ago
  Most resumes I see have both a skills section and some sort of work history section. You can keep advertised skills focused while still listing past projects and work if you use a format that makes a similar distinction.
  - the_only_law 4y ago
    My problem is the skills section isn't going to match up with the experience section, most of my technical knowledge came from just screwing around and trying to hack/fix stuff. Most of my professional career could be described more as "code-monkey if that". Last job search was depressing. I wanted to actually stick with it, and find me a job I actually wanted (as opposed to the same thing I've been doing for years + some more money). However nearly every job I applied to I got ATS screened out of, meanwhile the recruiters kept coming to me with more money for similar crappy jobs and I folded. Well either that or recruiters that never even read my resume spam me. I've been getting spam for RoR positions, I haven't touched ruby since 1.9 ad have never had professional experience with it.
    - 4y ago

woodruffw 4y ago

And to add the other side of things: as an interviewer, I do check. Inflating your skillset is going to get you into the wrong interviews, and you'll do poorly in them (and consequently will have these kinds of negative experiences). Either accurately represent or slightly undersell yourself; it comes off much better and will save you time and money.

Clubber 4y ago
I hate embellishing on resumes. Unfortunately when the game went from humans filtering resumes to automation/keyword filtering, it's and unfortunate requirement. Sanitation Engineer and all that. Required keywords "Agile/Scrum" does not appear on this resume, rejected.
- woodruffw 4y ago
  That's a fair point. We do very little algorithmic/automated filtering, so I'm biased in my predilection.
  - Clubber 4y ago
    If you use a headhunting firm, they certainly do.
    - woodruffw 4y ago
      We don't, at least to my knowledge.
- Silhouette 4y ago
  Required keywords "Agile/Scrum" does not appear on this resume, rejected. Is it really that bad now? If I were applying for employee roles today it would probably never have occurred to me that including "Agile" as a buzzword could be important to avoid getting filtered immediately. I can understand filtering someone for having no apparent experience in the main programming language you use if you have many other applicants who do. Filtering for something that basically every employer has claimed to do for about 200 years but no two of them would agree on what it means seems silly though.

lytefm 4y ago

I've also gotten positive feedback for clearly stating what I know and what I don't know. I'm using a „skill meter” to distinguish between „I'm an expert in this language“ and „I've used this a couple of years ago“. I got a job offer from a company whose main language is Go and I didn't even know the basics. A good software engineer can pick up any reasonable language in a reasonable amount of time [1]. I usually ignore recruiters who don't contact me via InMail. If they convey that they actually took a look at my profile, I'll reply. I've had a very good experience with the three EU companies that I've been interviewing with this year. One had a take-home assignment that was reasonably scoped for 2-4h and well thought. The others asked some basics and some architechture / design / business understanding related questions. No leetcode or whiteboard coding. Open communication + quick feedback. Was I just lucky in that regard or are there a lot of companies with a sane interview process out there, but some HN readers prefer to apply at those who don't? [1] https://www.kalzumeus.com/2011/10/28/dont-call-yourself-a-programmer/ https://www.kalzumeus.com/2011/10/28/dont-call-yourself-a-pr...

Lazare 4y ago
Most of us probably don't interview at a statistically significant sample of companies, so I guess it's hard to say. For the record, I recently did three tech interviews for tech lead level roles. * Company A: Small startup in a non-profit space. Technical part was an informal chat with a current tech lead, which led to them sending me a list of high level general questions around architecture and design to be discussed on a follow up call, then it moved on to a third non-technical round. Good approach overall, I appreciated being able to prepare in advance instead of being given a pop quiz, and I think it unpacked my skills pretty well. Total time maybe 3 hours? It led to an offer. * Company B: Medium sized ecommerce company. Technical part was a live coding challenge via screen share, with a tech lead and an engineering manager watching. Think "given this list of categories and items, how would you loop over it to find the item with the highest cost? How about all the items in a specific category? How about all green items in any category?"; a very simple problem, used purely as a jumping off place to discuss thought processes, trade offs, approaches, tools, algorithms, etc. I dislike live coding challenges, but this was about as good as could be expected, and led to two more follow up round of high level architecture and design questions. Three total rounds, each 1 hour. Again led to an offer. * Company C: Medium sized developer tooling company. Started with an take-home assignment that was very poorly defined. I was verbally told it should take "an evening" and "don't take it too seriously", but as I later found out they were expecting more like 18+ hours, finished to the standard you'd expect in production, ie, thorough unit tests, good code coverage, carefully chosen variable and method names, completely documented, all edge cases handled, etc. I didn't make it to round two, which would apparently have been a rigorous code review exercise on the code from the first step, which at the point I'm counting as a win. I honestly disliked the coding challenge from company B, and semi-enjoyed the one from company C (or what I thought they were asking for). But I'd have been reluctant to spend the incredible amount of time they expected on an unpaid coding challenge even if they'd managed to convey they wanted that, which they didn't. So based on my experience, about 1/3 of companies out there have terrible interview processes.

PragmaticPulp 4y ago

> I don't, I'm honest in my CV and during interviews When I first started interviewing people I assumed everyone wrote their resumes just like me: Honest, accurate, erring on the side of humble, avoiding exaggeration of my abilities. I learned the hard way that you can’t really trust what people put on their resumes. A lot of people are accurate and honest. Many people are actually too humble or often just bad at selling themselves, so you have to read between the lines and dig for their biggest achievements. But unfortunately, a large number of people will exaggerate their accomplishments far beyond anything that could be considered reasonable. Claiming proficiency in programming languages they couldn’t begin to even talk about. Writing about projects they didn’t actually work on. Making up unrealistic numbers for how effective or profitable their work was. The worst was when I receive a resume for a former coworker who hadn’t performed all that well when we worked together. The resume included some of my achievements, which the person hadn’t been involved with nor was even capable of. It was a shock to my naive system to see someone brazenly claim so much in hopes that they could slip past the interviewer and land a well-paid job where they presumably tried to blend in while dodging responsibility and accountability as much as possible. And that is why we all have to go through onerous tech interviews, despite listing our experience on our resumes.

dijit 4y ago
Not to discount this fact much, but there’s a reason that I optimise my interviews for weeding out liars. Tech tests on DS&A are fine, I guess, but usually you can sus a person out if you’re technical enough after 30 minutes of talking about previous projects and their level of involvement. Typically I ask more and more questions about it until they can’t answer, if they try to BS me once they’ve reached their level of incompetence then they're immediately disqualified no matter how good they are in other areas. I’d rather take a weaker person who doesn’t try to masquerade than a strong person who will.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- zarzavat 4y ago
  That’s fair enough, but from a candidate’s perspective most interviewers just want people who can BS effectively. They don’t want to train new hires in their particular stack. They want a ready-made candidate who already has “experience” in X Y Z W A B C. Call it tragedy of the commons, but being honest is not an optimal way to play the game.

jjice 4y ago

When I see a new grad say they're an advanced Java developer, I take it was a grain of salt. Then they don't remember what the associative array implementation is called in Java (HashMap). If you don't know your language's standard library implementation of common collections, you're not advanced. But I make sure to not judge them on that. They're often over zealous and looking for a job, so I don't blame them. The content of the interview is the real meat and potatoes in my experience.

ajross 4y ago
> But I make sure to not judge them on that. [...] The content of the interview is the real meat and potatoes Which is to say, the difference between a genuinely good candidate and one that merely claims to be is clearly visible in exactly the kind of interview the linked article is arguing against. I think there's lots of room for criticism of the Big Tech Coding Interview. But "it doesn't work" is just not reasonable. It does work, it objectively works very well, probably better than other techniques (the existence proof being that there aren't any other hiring organizations out there beating the FAANGs at their own HR game). If you want to criticize, point out that it doesn't necessarily work fairly. It rejects specific qualified candidates more often than it should, and it fails to reliably measure other areas of qualification than mere technical skill. But don't say it doesn't work, or that it's a waste of time. Show, don't tell. If you know how to hire better people, then do so and beat the world.
- SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
  I have one and it’s quite difficult because it requires the interviewer to know their shit: drill down on a feature or technology listed in the resume in the interview with the developer. Get into the technical scope, the tradeoffs, pinch points and cruxes of problem set. Understand what the definition of success was in that feature and the individual contribution involved. A dev who only passably did the work or did so heavily relying on others expertise won’t be able to answer precise trade off questions in this way. Ultimately though if they did the work they did the work, and that’s more important than any leetcode/trivia nonsense.

gregmac 4y ago

I will often pick something "expert" on their resume to dig into, if nothing else than to gauge what "expert" means to them. Recently I interviewed someone who emphasized databases on their resume, and later mentioned they were very highly skilled in that area, so we started talking about indexes. I think I asked something like "Why wouldn't we just put an index on every field?" and the best I could get from them was "it might speed up, it might slow down" but they couldn't articulate why. Another one I will sometimes ask: You're an expert in language / framework x and have been using it for 10+ years? Cool. What recent additions have you most excited about it? What things about it do you hate/disagree with the most? Not being able to answer these things don't mean you 'fail' the interview of course, but to me it's a strong signal that our definitions of "expert" are different, and so I'll make that assumption about everything else on your resume.

actually_a_dog 4y ago

When directly asked about my git skills, I say something to the effect of "I've probably gotten myself into and out of most of the obvious sticky situations one can get themselves into. My main skills for getting out of them are 1. don't panic, and 2. look things up on google."

Accacin 4y ago

I think I'm the same, I try not to list too much to stop spam. Professionally I do JavaScript/TypeScript and work with React so I write that. I do like having a 'Familiar' section where I list languages I like to dabble with outside of work, generally where I can create a personal project but don't know the ins and outs. I find these useful to talk over in an interview as I don't want to come across as a very one-dimensional JS developer.

oaiey 4y ago

Please continue doing it. I have read too many CVs in my life. I can smell liars from just looking at their CVs. True, you might easier pass the HR/recruiter but latest when someone with a little bit of knowledge screens it, a liar is gone. You might argue, that not every pipeline works like that! Right. But now imagine the consequences if you are hired. Independent whether you fail, think how toxic a workplace must be, if liars are regularly employed. The hiding. The avoidance of responsibility. The amount of bad solutions. The success stealing. The meeting slideshows. The horrible code. So many consequences. Stay with the truth!