HONEST WORK

We all want to present the best possible version of ourselves when we’re applying for jobs but when does a positive spin turn into all-out lying? Katie Rosseinsky asks the experts

- Katie Rosseinsky

In theory, our CVs should be a straightforward reflection of our careers to date, listing jobs, qualifications, and any particularly important skills. Simple, right? But if the versions of ourselves laid out in these documents were to come to life, chances are we probably wouldn't recognise them. Instead, they'd appear as awful Apprentice candidate doppelgangers, whose grandiose claims definitely wouldn't pass a bullshit detector test.

“Highly proficient” in Microsoft Excel? The last time you opened a spreadsheet was in a secondary school ICT suite running Windows 95. Can your rusty Spanish really be classed as business standard, unless your line of business involves ordering beers? And as for that “integral role in high-level negotiation”? Well, you sat in on a few Zoom calls. With your camera off. In silence. Somewhere along the line, getting a little bit, ahem, imaginative with your resumé became commonplace.

This month alone, two politicians have had their CVs in the spotlight. First, chancellor Rachel Reeves made headlines for all the wrong reasons after it emerged that her LinkedIn profile erroneously elongated her stint at the Bank of England by nine months (she’d previously been called out for claiming she’d worked as an economist at HBOS, when she was employed in retail banking instead). The profile has since been amended, and a spokesperson for Reeves blamed administrative errors made by her team. Then it was the turn of business secretary Jonathan Reynolds to come under fire. A biography on his old constituency website had previously referred to him as solicitor – despite the fact he’d never actually qualified. In an echo of the Reeves saga, Labour sources put it down to “human error from his office”.