Johnny C. Taylor Jr. answers workplace questions every week on USA TODAY. Taylor is president and CEO of SHRM, the world’s largest human resources professional organization, and author of Reset: A Leader’s Guide to Work in an Age of Upheaval.
Have a question? Please submit here.
Question: As a hiring manager, I frequently encounter candidates who: resumes They seem great, but their actual skills don’t match what they claim in interviews. How can employers effectively validate real-world competencies without creating overly rigid or discouraging hiring processes? – Near
Answer: At SHRM, we use the term to describe what you’re describing as “skill fishing,” or presenting qualifications, skills, and experience that don’t fully translate to real-world execution. Actually, this is nothing new. For as long as employers have been recruiting, candidates have been exaggerating their abilities. What has changed is how easy it has become to use artificial intelligence to construct sophisticated, professional narratives that may or may not reflect authentic depth.
So how do you differentiate between actual ability and strong self-promotion? Start before the interview even begins. When reviewing applications, look for indicators that the candidate has invested in developing and validating their expertise. Relevant certifications, licenses, portfolios, or demonstrated project work provide a useful baseline. These are not foolproof, but they can help employers differentiate between those who have studied a subject and those who have actually practiced it.
From there, the interview itself becomes your most valuable tool. Don’t let candidates speak in general terms. Ask them to give specific examples of how they applied the skills they claim to have. What was the situation like? What decisions did they make? What obstacles did they encounter? What was the outcome? People with authentic experiences tend to speak specifically and clearly because they have lived it.
The important thing here is not to stop at the first answer. Ask follow-up questions. Would they do things differently today? What trade-offs did they consider? What went wrong along the way? Real-life experiences have texture. It includes setbacks, adjustments, and lessons learned. People who rely on surface-level familiarity often struggle when the conversation moves beyond their rehearsed talking points.
Practical assessments can also be incorporated if desired. That doesn’t mean turning the hiring process into an obstacle course. But asking a candidate to review a case study, solve a real-world problem, or demonstrate part of their job can convey much more than another conversational interview. The best ratings reflect the actual demands of the role, rather than trying to “catch” someone making a mistake.
To be clear, a rigorous hiring process doesn’t necessarily have to feel adversarial. Strong candidates usually appreciate thoughtful questions and clear expectations. High performers want to know that their organization is about substance, not just presentation.
At the same time, employers must remember that recruiting is not just about polish but also about potential. Not all great candidates interview perfectly. The goal is not to eliminate all risks. It’s about creating a process that gives people a fair chance to prove whether they can really do the job.
The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of USA TODAY.
