Should I take the job when I cheated to get it

[Fuzzywuzzy1]

Name changed.

I'm rubbish at interviews and had failed at over 7 over 6 months.

I had a job coming up and I knew there was a friend of a friend who could help me. I admit I was manipulative. I gave her a bit of a sob story about how I was so depressed I couldn't get a job (it was true though). Knowing she would put a good word in for me.

So she told the hiring manager I was brilliant and the person she wanted to get the job etc. She worked for the same department previously and was very well respected so this personal recommendation mattered. But while it helps there is a 'merit' based system so while it's not point based it's an overall mark for your answer.

So the friend found out the questions beforehand for me and rang me to give me them and then sat down with me the following week and told me what to say for each one.

When the day of the interview came I obviously excelled as I knew the questions and answers. There was one question I didn't know but gave a good answer anyway.

I got the job and was delighted. I am qualified for the job and competent but I'm so so rubbish at interviews.

As my start date goes nearer I my excitement has gone.

I cheated.

I would not have known the answers without help and had a HUGE advantage over the other candidates. I don't think I would be sacked if found out and there's no way they could prove it anyway but I just feel bad.

Like I've not got the job on merit.

But then loads of people get jobs because of who they know every day.

So maybe I should forgive myself.

AIBU to feel really guilty?

It's pretty easy to work out whether this is unethical or not: ask yourself what your new employer would do if they found out. If you think they'd be fine with it, then you can relax.

Perhaps the new employer is just as corrupt? Maybe everyone there takes a steer from the boss, who lies and cheats all day long. Perhaps that's the way that company operates. Drop your car keys and expect to get it nicked. If you want it, take it. That's kind of thing.

*that

Take it! I'm a hiring manager and despair at interviews as it's quite obvious that they're a poor method of selecting the best candidates for a position. Wish we could do away with them altogether.

I'm a hiring manager and despair at interviews as it's quite obvious that they're a poor method of selecting the best candidates for a position. Wish we could do away with them altogether

I can believe that. I remember friend's brother who studied engineering and got excellent grades couldn't get a job because he was cripplingly shy, so less able and less qualified people were being hired before him.

BossyBitch, what would you recommend instead? Interviews are hellish!

The candidate is interviewing the company aswell though?

Ime they are a very effective part of recruitment and selection. Every hire I've made has been an asset to my company. One ended up as a Director! Suppose it depends on the format and techniques used?

Any job requiring a knowledge of relevant legislation, imo, demands a high level of integrity on the part of the practitioners. Otherwise we get cover ups in(for example) social services re Child Abuse, building /planning re health and safety, police re criminal investigation etc etc. And mistakes have consequences for other, often innocent, people. If you are prepared to cheat to get a job, why wouldn't you cheat and try to cover up a mistake?

If you were my DC and I found out what you'd done, I would feel ashamed of you.

Well said bossy. I agree.

It does matter how you recruit. It will always suit some candiates better than others.

And people will always find ways to cheat. Someone will always have 'friend of a friend' who, apparantly, knows them well enough to bet their job to help them. But not well enough to be called a friend.

If anyone ever found out your friend could possibly loose her job as most jobs these days have a set selection and interview criteria. Which if another candidate questioned the outcome could open a huge can of worms. However it's done move on

Lots of people do this in my industry. Unfortunately it's who you know. Don't even get a foot in the door without knowing somebody...

My problem with interviews is that they favour good talkers over good taskers. At my firm we now employ a series of assessment techniques including realistic work scenarios that have to be solved both in a group and individually. We observe our applicants for one to two days (depending on position) and decide on that basis.

Regrettably, we also still interview. IME what tends to happen is that good talkers have an excuse for everything at which their performance was less than stellar whereas good candidates who lack confidence wither in front of a panel of field force managers and HR professionals.

I've recently had a candidate who was so confident about the fact that he'd listed two skills that he later admitted he didn't actually have at all that my HR guy was willing to hire him anyway because he sold himself so well. Luckily for the firm, we operate an 'anyone on the panel may veto' policy, so I just about stopped that.

So, yeah, that's the problem with interviews. I have zero interest in people who sell well but can't actually do. Much prefer task based selection processes.

"I used to work for a large blue chip company. If you were going for the next grade band up, it was common for your own manager to slip you a copy of the interview questions"

Was it also common for your own manager to tell you the answers to questions which were beyond your technical knowledge?

I'm confused why people are still fixing on the OP being bad at interviews and therefore this is fine. The OP was asked technical questions she would not have known the answers to without being told by her friend. That's a lack of sufficient knowledge, not poor interview technique.

bossy in your situation the Op could have still cheated.

She didnt have the knowledge until her friend of a friend gave her the exact answers.

I actually think selection shouldnt be only interviews. But i think interviews are important. For both employer and potenial employees.

A lot of people dont work well while being watched and scrutinised. Not many jobs include having someonr observe you work all the time. So that wont always guarantee the right person will get the job either.

It does not matter what the selection process is. Some people, who could do the job, will struggle and some people would cheat.

That's true ... which is why it's a good idea to assess candidates in multiple ways rather than just one.

A candidate being asked to program something, for example, won't know where to start even if they aced a technical interview thanks to cheating and great prep. A good programmer with poor team working skills, OTOH, would do well but would struggle when asked to prep a presentation in a group of five.

It's actually quite effective. I've seen an perfectly prepped candidate (who knew roughly what to expect) fail spectacularly at group exercises because she was so focussed on making herself noticed while ticking all the right boxes that she ended up actually elbowing another candidate in order to stand in front while presenting. All her prep didn't help - she spent two days demonstrating her great potential as a corporate psychopath and we naturally ended up not hiring her after that.

Good points @BossyBitch! In my current industry we get a bonus for referring candidates if they are hired (and quite a few grand) - obviously can't sit on the panel - but clearly you are going to give them tips. Have only ever recommended if thought person was good (and did split bonus 50/50 - which is common and expected). Interviews are too easy for blaggers to get a role - was on the panel in one firm for the technical side - one candidate was a liability and failed with lowest possible score - but got top mark for BS interview - was then borderline for the role!! Had to threaten to resign on the spot if offered a role!! And would have done - fortunately reason prevailed and a few more 'nervous' but technically good candidates were selected!

Yed i agree bossy it needs to be several different things.

But in a lot if industrirs you could still cheat.

My last interview was a group session based on how to improve a failing business similar to the one we are in. Then a role play, then and presentation and an interview.

No technical skills but needed regulator knowledge. Again you could have cheated. If someone had have known the situations and questions etc.

The op hasnt interviewed poorly. She hasnt had the knowledge and others have. Instead of finding it out. She gave a sob story to a friend of a friend and the friend did the work for her.

Don't beat yourself up about this OP. I'm awful at exams and interviews but I'm a good worker. Always give 100%, always go the extra mile and can be relied upon. If a friend asked me to put a good word in for them and I knew they were rubbish, I simply just wouldn't do it because i wouldn't want it to reflect badly on me.

Take it! I'm a hiring manager and despair at interviews as it's quite obvious that they're a poor method of selecting the best candidates for a position. Wish we could do away with them altogether.

In DHs industry interviews and references are considered outdate and anyone who does them is considered a bit of a dinosaur. People tend to do a shadow day by the end of which both parties tend to know if it's a good fit. However they do have the fallback of requiring professional registration/accreditation, so if anyone was awful it'ld show up when they check that.

The small organisation I work for is hiring at the moment and our petty power crazed administrator is practically licking her lips over all the bullshit HR nonsense. She loves interviewing and anything that involves lots of box ticking guff.

I would like to know if everyone who thinks this is "cheating" has old fashioned O levels instead of GCSEs.

I am the last year of O levels. In June 1987 we all walked into our school halls in complete ignorance of the papers and wrote 3 hours worth of essays on questions we could not predict. Some us were ill. Some of us had cramp or stage fright or dislexia. Some of us were bereaved. Some of us had slept terribly. the result were a bit of a lottery. (I aced it - this suits my style)

The year after that, the 16 year olds were not expected to do this. They wrote and re-wrote essays on known subjects over 2 years, and the best ones were sent for assessment. They had open book exams. they knew what was coming, they prepared for it, and they got on with it.

Were they all cheating?

Of course they weren't cheating. They all had the same opportunity to achieve.

(I took the old O level, BTW)

I did gcses.

I know people who were bereaved at tgeir gcses. Some had cramps, frights etc. I have dyslexia.

We never kept redoing assignments. I didnt have any open book exams.

We knew roughly which subjects would be i the paper. The same as everyone else. It was an even playing field.

If a teacher had given someone the exact questions that would be on the paper and then the answers. That would be cheating.

AntiGrinch I say the OP cheated - no question about it and has a very screwed up moral compass. I took old fashion Scottish O Grades and Highers. But in answer to your question - no this is not cheating. Everyone in one group was working to the same set of criteria - the fact the criteria changed for each group is irrelevant.