how would you deal with the incidents if you are a manager?

Re: how would you deal with the incidents if you are a manag
That would depend on the persons performance. If she does her job well than I'd say keep her, but that definitely goes as a written reprimand in her file. If she truly doesn't have the skills she needs than she would have to be let go.

I would also look at how much time and training you have invested in her? Is it worth letting her go to have to train someone all over again?

Pretty much agree with roverroad on this one. Cold cost/benefit decision; nothing personal, just business. As long a tool already at hand works as well as or better than another tool of equal or greater cost in a given assigned application, and demonstrates no reason to expect shortcoming in performance, maintenance, or other cost of operation as compared to an alternative, regardless of configuration or design purpose, there is no economic reason to replace that tool and undertake the effort and expense of acquiring the other. Regardless of cost, configuration, or design purpose, a tool which performs a given assigned application inadequately should be replaced with a more appropriate tool at the soonest practical opportunity. That's just taking care of business.

And, even if she does the job well, the resume discrepencies give management a powerful bargaining tool come salary review time.

Your covered dude. I concur with both answers... cept I probably wouldn't bother to mark her file either. Unless its a sensitive position where additional liability exists.

I agree with the others. If she does a good job, I'd keep her, but if she doesn't know the job at all after she said she did, I'd let her go. Business is business.

I am not so sure. It all has to do with the level of exaggeration, and the content of the lies. I think that many people "stretch" some points in their resume. For instance, if she said that she had three years experience, and it was really two years and three months, no big deal. If she claimed to have a certain training in her background that was necessary for the position, and she didn't, that would be another story.

Also, it has a lot to do with the type of work. I would be less concerned about a clerical person, than a person who lied about having a certification, or a license. Only you can determine whether you have any liability.

Another thing. If the falsehoods were more than a "stretch", how do you feel about trusting this person in the future?

We had someone at work that we wanted to let go in the worst way. Because of the laws, we had to document EVERYTHING. As part of this guy's job, he had to take clients on trips in a van, from time to time. It was in the job description.

And then we discovered that he was driving with a suspended license.......................................

yep, we should decide whether keep her or not according to her performance. perhaps we could test her in the probation period. If she can't do job well, she will get the dismission.

Yeah, Phoenix ... the license/certification thing is a biggie ... definitely a maintenance/cost of operation thing. If it is a factor, its a deciding factor.

Otherwise, fischitter, you betchya, test her ... go ahead and stress-test her if possible, being careful, of course to have in place a backup/damage control plan in the event she does prove inadequate to the task. I'm not saying push her to the failure point, just see if she can handle things when the going is a little rough. A pedigree doesn't mean a dog will hunt, and plenty of mutts do a great job in the field. You never know 'till you see 'em work when it counts.

How did you find out that she lied?

And when you did - did you with humor and kindness confront her about it?

If not - why not?

I disagree with the first few posts. Her lying prevented others from receiving the job who deserved it more than she did. If you can afford it, then she deserves to be fired. Of course, I'm a revengeful person, often at my own expense.

People here get fired, no questions asked, if a lie is found on their resume or c.v.

It's considered an indication of what can be expected of them as an employee. It's noted in the hiring contract that it is a 'walk-out' offence.

I agree that that should be the case with some jobs, but if it were a job and Wendy's, for example, I wouldn't care if I were the manager. What sort of work was she hired to, and in what type of organization (if you don't mind releasing that information)? That could make the difference.

No argument the real purely ethical thing to do is can her. You just gotta decide if ethics outweigh cost/benefit ... then too, there are the ethics involved with responsibility for the bottom line. Its your call, and you're the one that's gotta live with it. What's company policy in such instances? If SOP is to fire the miscreant, to fail to do so is a violation of policy. If its not covered as policy, you're right back to cost/benefit, with your own ethical standards among the cost/benefit calculations.

ehBeth- If a person fills out an application, and signs it, they are attesting to the veracity of what they have written. Theoretically, if any of the information is untruthful, IMO, they are committing fraud. Any legal experts around that could confirm this?

I have heard that also, but that is not the expert confirmation you requested. It seems to be illegal along the same lines as downloading songs off of the internet. It's widespread, rationalized, and overlooked.

True. A boss does not HAVE to act on it, but I believe that it gives him a legal out.

I look at it from the point of view of a person who has worked in a medical research and clinical labs, and in a design profession. Lying is not ok in these professions and lying to get the job is a symptom of possible unstraightforwardness re test results, or various measurements.

I once had a new hire lab tech falsify test results. I found it right away. She eventually explained to the lab owner that she did it because she didn't understand the procedure. She was immediately fired, not for not understanding, but for falsifying.

So... trust is very important in some fields. I wouldn't even consider cost benefit in the example above, but I can see one could consider it with some other jobs. I guess I think that even in those instances one should discuss the matter with the employee.

Another option--dock the employee's pay as punishment. She applied for a position & salary requiring (?) a particular amount of training and experience. If she proves capable of doing the job (i.e., you don't want to fire her), you are certainly still within your right to reduce her pay to what someone with her (lower) training and experience would normally make.

You don't say if you work for a large or small company, but there may be an existing policy on this. I'd discuss it with my boss or personnel.
Personally, I'd be inclined to fire them unless it was a minor exaggeration. She did push others out of the running and lied. Is that the kind of intergrity you want in your organization?

Depends on what they exaggerated about. If they put they worked some where for a couple of extra months, I wouldn't worry about it. Lying on the other hand is a bigger issue. In most cases, I would have the person fired. Basically how can you trust the person if they lied on their information? I don't care about performance. What else will they try to cover up on their job? My sense is I would not be able to trust this individual. However, I would pull them aside first to get the details from them. Perhaps it was an error on their part. I know one of one circumstance where one person lied about receiving an advanced degree. They had been working for a few months and from what I understand was doing a good job. As a follow up, HR processed his references. When it was found he did not receive the degree he claimed he received, he was immediately dismissed. It was the issue of lying rather than the lack of advanced degree.