Unemployment was at a decade-high of 5.4% as of December 2025, and is likely to creep even higher as the economy tanks and New Zealand heads further towards a recession.
As a result of intense competition in the labour market, some applicants appear to be taking matters into their own hands through a practice known as “careerfishing”.
“Careerfishing” has been defined as the systemic fabrication of qualifications across résumés and interviews as a deliberate competitive strategy.
Put bluntly, it is lying (or at least materially stretching the truth) to improve your chances of being hired.
In a market where candidates feel disposable, it is perhaps unsurprising that some are responding in this way.
Overseas reports suggest that over 90% of job seekers are engaging in this practice in order to appear more qualified for a vacant role.
This includes exaggerating their expertise to better match a position and inflating the impact or scope of their previous roles.
Further, nearly half of job seekers admitted to making up stories during interviews to better answer questions and adjusting their employment dates to hide gaps.
Nearly three in four respondents said they felt increased pressure to do so because of the current environment. Two in three said being on the job search for an extended period made the exaggeration necessary in order to compete.
Another driver of this practice appears to be a perception that traditional screening will not reliably catch such misrepresentations.
Whether or not this is true, candidates appear more willing to gamble that overstated claims will slip through when recruiters are overwhelmed.
“Ghosting” and “careerfishing” can be seen as two unintended consequences of the same turbulent employment market: one reflects strained hiring processes, the other reflects strained candidate behaviour. In an employment context, “ghosting” is the colloquial term for submitting an application (or attending an interview) and receiving no meaningful follow-up.
The emergence of these practices indicates that employers are struggling with the volume of applications to the point of non-response.
And on the other side of the equation, employees, competing in an overpopulated hiring environment, have been pushed to embellish and lie to prospective employers.
But misrepresenting professional qualifications can have serious consequences.
For employers, poor-quality hires lead to decreased productivity, inefficiency, high turnover rates, increased safety incidents, and higher costs associated with rehiring or training.
For applicants, misrepresenting qualifications and experience can create immediate pressure to perform at a level they have not reached.
Reports suggest that a third of those who engaged in “careerfishing” said they experienced stress or anxiety once they were hired, and a quarter reported they faced negative consequences because their skills did not match their CV.
More consequentially, misrepresenting skills, duties, or qualifications can have compounding legal and contractual effects.
Typically, employment agreements include a representation clause which requires an employee to confirm that the information that they provided in their application for employment was true and complete.
If this is the case, employers who catch the misrepresentation prior to offer and acceptance can lawfully withdraw the offer, and the applicant generally has no remedy as there is no concluded and binding contract in place.
This is the case even when an applicant has resigned from a prior role in reliance on the offer.
If the misrepresentation is discovered after the employee has accepted the offer, employers will generally need to commence a disciplinary process. This is because, even if the employee has not started in the job, they are a “person intending to work” and deemed to be in an employment relationship with the employer.
Dismissal can be justified for misrepresentations made in the course of a recruitment process, where the dishonesty was material, and it damaged the relationship of trust and confidence.
In New Zealand, employment relationships are underpinned by good faith obligations. While “good faith” does not mean a candidate must disclose every detail of their past, deliberate deception during recruitment would likely breach that obligation.
Additionally, the more senior, specialised, or safety-critical the role, the more likely it is that inaccurate claims will be treated as serious.
Ultimately, misrepresentation in job applications can have consequences that far outlast the loss of the job itself.
It may leave an applicant with a permanent stain on their record which is easily trackable through a goggle search, and, in extreme cases, career derailment.
Of course, we are all guilty of a little hyperbole at times, but there is a fine line between some gentle embellishment and pure fabrication.
So, while many are feeling the pressures of this competitive environment, overt exaggeration may make a tough market even tougher.
Originally published in The Post
