a typical job interview is a conversation between two liars

[VanJulianna]

Honestly, I think that phrase captures a real tension in the hiring process, but it’s an oversimplification. A typical job interview isn’t a conversation between two liars, but rather a strategic performance from both sides. The candidate is trying to present the best version of their professional self, while the recruiter is trying to sell the role and the company. Neither is necessarily lying, but both are definitely curating information.

However, there are clear red flags where a candidate might be stretching the truth. For example, when a candidate’s experience doesn’t align with the job description or when they give vague answers to behavioral questions like “Tell me about a time you made a mistake.” I’ve seen this happen. The best way to cut through the noise is to use a structured interview format. This means asking every candidate the same set of competency-based questions and scoring them on a consistent rubric. It removes the guesswork.

Another critical tool is reference checks. You can’t rely solely on a candidate’s word. Speaking with a former manager or colleague can reveal discrepancies in the candidate screening process. Based on industry data like the 2023 SHRM Talent Acquisition Benchmarking Report, companies that use structured interviews see a 30% increase in new hire retention compared to those that rely on unstructured conversations.

Here’s a simple breakdown of what I look for:

Red Flag	What It Indicates	How to Verify
Vague timeline of employment	Potential gap or exaggeration	Ask for exact dates; compare with LinkedIn
Overly positive self-assessments	Lack of self-awareness	Use a structured interview with a scoring guide
Avoiding specific examples	Inflated responsibilities	Ask for a past behavior-based example (STAR method)

So, while some dishonesty can exist, the solution isn’t to assume everyone is lying. It’s to build a fair, objective, and evidence-based hiring process to protect your talent retention rate and ensure you’re hiring the best person for the actual job.

[MaliaRose]

I think that’s a pretty cynical view, but I get it. From my experience, the biggest issue is that both sides are trying to manage expectations. A candidate might embellish their salary range expectations, and a recruiter might downplay the workload. The real trick is to ask direct, open-ended questions that force clarity. If you’re a recruiter, never assume a candidate’s answer is the whole truth. Always follow up with a “How did that make you feel?” or “What was the specific outcome?” to get past the scripted answer.

[McCora]

I’ve been on both sides of the table, and I disagree with the “liar” label. It’s more about impression management. The key is to focus on validated data. I always ask for a portfolio or a work sample during the candidate screening process. If a candidate claims they boosted sales by 50%, ask them to walk you through the step-by-step plan. If they can’t, it’s a red flag. This approach is more about verification than accusation.

[SanLane]

From a practical standpoint, the phrase is a reminder to triangulate your information. A single interview is a poor diagnostic tool. I always combine it with a skills assessment and a personality test (like the Big Five). This gives you three data points. If a candidate’s interview story doesn’t match their test results or their work sample, you have a clear inconsistency. This is a standard part of modern talent assessment and helps avoid the “two liars” trap.

[Velazquez]

I think it’s a bit dramatic, but it highlights a real problem: information asymmetry.