In a job market that feels increasingly crowded, fast-moving and uncertain, more candidates are feeling pressure to stand out by any means necessary. As competition intensifies and job seekers face longer searches, higher expectations and more automated screening, the temptation to overstate skills, stretch experience or fill career gaps with polished half-truths is becoming harder to ignore. What was once seen as occasional embellishment is now being talked about as a growing hiring trend with real consequences.
This shift is not just about honesty on a CV. It reflects deeper issues in the recruitment process itself. Candidates are trying to break through systems that often feel impersonal, while employers are trying to move quickly without compromising on quality. In the middle sits a growing trust gap. When job seekers feel overlooked and employers feel misled, the hiring process becomes harder for everyone.
It also raises a bigger question for businesses and professionals alike. If more people feel they need to exaggerate in order to be seen, what does that say about the way talent is being assessed in the first place?
“People are struggling. It’s really debilitating. I get why people are doing it, but there are better ways to get noticed.”
On a recent AU Market Update, Host Aiden Boast, North Shore Manager at people2people was joined by Guest Chloe Spillane, Founder and Career Coach at Chloe Careers, to unpack the rise of career fishing and what it means for both candidates and employers. Their discussion explored why this behaviour is becoming more common, where it tends to show up most, and what both sides can do to create a more effective and honest recruitment process.
One of the most important points raised was that career fishing is often a symptom of a highly competitive job market rather than simple dishonesty. When candidates feel boxed out by rigid screening, employment gaps or impossible wish lists in job ads, some respond by reshaping their experience to appear more employable. That does not make the behaviour right, but it does help explain why it is happening. For many job seekers, the issue is not a lack of ambition but a lack of confidence in how their real story will be received.
The conversation highlighted that exaggeration often appears around technical skills, consulting experience and career gaps. Instead of openly explaining a less traditional career path, some candidates invent projects or freelance work to present a smoother narrative. The better alternative, however, is to build a stronger personal value proposition around transferable skills, genuine strengths and a clearer career story. Rather than trying to look perfect on paper, candidates are more likely to succeed by showing how their existing capabilities can solve problems in a new role.
A strong online presence was also positioned as a more sustainable way to stand out. With AI making it easier than ever to produce polished applications, a well-written CV alone is no longer enough to differentiate a candidate. Sharing insights on LinkedIn, building credibility in a niche area and leaning into professional networks can all help job seekers become more visible without resorting to misleading claims. That visibility can create better long-term opportunities than a short-term win based on exaggeration.
From an employer perspective, the discussion made it clear that the answer is not simply to become more sceptical. Businesses need better systems, not just stricter judgement. Stronger reference checks, better compliance processes and more thoughtful screening are all critical. If a company is under pressure to hire quickly, gaps in checking processes can create openings for inaccurate claims to slip through. At the same time, overly narrow screening can eliminate capable candidates before a human ever sees their application.
That is where the balance becomes crucial. Employers were encouraged to look closely at how roles are advertised and how screening questions are designed. Vague job descriptions attract vague applications. Generic requirements make it easier for unsuitable candidates to shape themselves around the role. More specific, meaningful and values-based screening can improve quality while still leaving room for high-potential applicants who may not tick every technical box. The conversation also touched on the growing use of AI in recruitment, with a clear warning that automation should support human judgement, not replace it.
For candidates, the long-term risks of overselling were also brought into focus. Even if career fishing helps someone secure an interview or an offer, it does not remove the pressure of having to perform in the role itself. When expectations are built on inflated claims, stress and anxiety can rise quickly. In some cases, candidates leave roles early because the gap between what they promised and what they can deliver becomes too difficult to manage. In that sense, exaggeration may open the door, but it can also set people up for poor fit and short-lived success.
Looking ahead, the discussion suggested that career fishing may continue for some time, particularly while job seekers and employers are both feeling pressure in a strained market. But there was also a clear sense that change is possible. Candidates can do more to communicate their value honestly and strategically. Employers can do more to refine hiring processes so that genuine capability is easier to spot. The strongest hiring outcomes will come from reducing friction on both sides and rebuilding trust in the process.
What can employers and job seekers do differently to reduce career fishing?
- Focus on transferable skills rather than forcing a perfect career narrative
- Build clearer, more specific job ads that reflect what success in the role actually looks like
- Keep a human element in screening, even when using AI tools
- Strengthen reference checks and compliance processes to reduce hiring risk
- Encourage candidates to develop visibility through networking and online credibility
- Assess potential, values and communication style alongside technical experience
