Think I caught a candidate lying… what now?

I'd definitely dig deeper with specific scenario-based questions - ask them to walk through exactly how they'd use those tools in a classroom setting or handle a common technical issue. If they can't provide concrete examples or their explanations are still vague, that's usually a red flag worth acting on.

I've been in similar spots with healthcare tech candidates, and that gut feeling is usually worth trusting. What I've found effective is asking them to walk me through their actual workflow - like "tell me about the last time you had to troubleshoot X system" or "describe how you'd onboard a new user." The real users will give you messy, detailed stories with specific pain points they remember, while someone bluffing tends to give textbook answers that sound too clean. That said, I've also learned to distinguish between someone who's genuinely nervous (they might stumble but still show real understanding) versus someone who's clearly name-dropping tools they've never touched. In healthcare, getting this wrong can be costly since we're dealing with sensitive systems, so I'd rather err on the side of thorough vetting than regret it later.

I've encountered this with manufacturing candidates claiming experience with specific safety protocols or equipment they clearly hadn't used. What works for me is asking them to describe a specific problem they solved or mistake they made - authentic experience always includes those messy details and lessons learned that you can't fake. The nervousness versus deception distinction is crucial, especially in our industry where safety compliance isn't negotiable.

I've found that asking candidates to walk through their actual workflow or describe a specific challenge they faced usually reveals the truth pretty quickly. The ones with real experience can give you those concrete details and pain points, while the ones stretching the truth tend to give vague, textbook-style answers.

That's such a smart approach! I've started doing something similar - asking candidates to describe their most frustrating moment with a particular tool or system. It's amazing how quickly you can tell who's actually wrestled with the real-world quirks versus who just read about it online.

The genuine users will immediately launch into specific complaints or workarounds they've discovered, while the others usually give you those generic "well, sometimes it can be challenging" responses. Plus, it feels more natural in the conversation than putting them on the spot with a pop quiz.

This is such a common challenge, and honestly, you're right to trust your instincts here. I've been in similar situations where something just feels off during the interview process, and it's always better to dig deeper than to ignore those red flags.

What I've found works well is creating scenarios that require them to walk through actual problem-solving with those tools. Instead of just asking "Have you used X platform?", I'll say something like "Tell me about a time when you had to troubleshoot an issue with X, or when it wasn't working the way you expected." The responses are usually pretty telling - people with real experience will immediately dive into specific frustrations, workarounds they discovered, or even limitations they bumped up against.

I also like to ask about integration challenges. Most educational tech doesn't exist in a vacuum, so if someone claims experience with multiple platforms, I'll ask how they handled data transfer between systems or how they managed when two tools didn't play nicely together. That's where you really separate the wheat from the chaff, because those integration headaches are something you only know if you've actually lived through them.

For reference checks, I've started being more strategic about timing. If I have concerns about technical competency, I'll do a quick informal reference call before moving to final rounds rather than waiting until the end. I frame it as wanting to understand their experience better so I can tailor the rest of the interview process. Most references are pretty honest about skill levels when you ask specific questions.

The tricky part is that some candidates genuinely do have exposure but maybe not deep hands-on experience, and they're trying to present themselves in the best light without outright lying. In education especially, people often get thrown into using tools with minimal training, so their knowledge might be patchy. I try to give some benefit of the doubt while still being thorough in my vetting.

What's your gut telling you about this particular candidate? Sometimes our instincts pick up on inconsistencies before our logical brain catches up.

The scenario-based questioning approach is spot on - I've found that asking candidates to walk through specific problem-solving situations reveals gaps pretty quickly. We've also started doing brief technical demonstrations during interviews for roles where tool proficiency is critical, which helps separate actual experience from resume padding.

I totally get that uncomfortable feeling when something doesn't add up! What's worked well for me is asking them to describe a specific challenge they faced with one of those tools and how they solved it - genuine users almost always have a story about something that went wrong or a workaround they had to figure out. The nervousness factor is real though, so I try to frame it as "tell me about a time when..." rather than putting them on the spot with rapid-fire technical questions. If they still can't provide concrete examples after a couple of gentle probes, that usually tells me what I need to know without having to play detective.

That's solid advice about asking for specific examples. In manufacturing, we've learned that technical skills claims need to be backed up with real scenarios - I usually ask candidates to walk me through a particular process they've managed or a problem they've solved using the equipment they claim to know. The nervousness factor is definitely real, but genuine experience usually comes through when you give people a chance to tell their story rather than putting them through a quiz.

Yeah, I do something similar - I'll ask them to describe a specific situation where they had to troubleshoot or train someone else on the tool. Usually the real users can paint that picture pretty clearly, while the ones who just googled the software beforehand start stumbling around the details.

That's a solid approach - situational questions really do separate genuine experience from surface-level knowledge. I've found that asking candidates to walk through their actual workflow or describe a challenge they faced usually reveals the truth pretty quickly. The hesitation and vague responses become obvious when they can't provide those concrete details that come naturally to someone who's actually used the tools.

Oh man, this hits close to home! I've definitely been in similar spots where someone's answers just don't quite add up. What's helped me a lot is asking them to describe a specific problem they solved using that tool - like "tell me about a time when [tool] didn't work as expected and how you handled it." People with real experience usually light up and share war stories, while others kind of fumble around. I've also started doing quick reference checks before final decisions, especially for roles where those skills are make-or-break. It feels awkward at first, but honestly it's saved me from a couple of bad hires where the person would've struggled from day one. The nervousness factor is real though - I try to give people a chance to elaborate if their first answer seems shaky, because sometimes they just need a moment to collect their thoughts!

That's such a solid approach! I've found that asking for specific examples really does separate genuine experience from surface-level familiarity. One thing I've started doing is creating a more comfortable environment first - sometimes I'll share a brief story about my own struggles with a similar tool, which tends to relax candidates and get them talking more naturally about their real experiences. The reference check timing is spot-on too - I used to wait until the very end, but doing it earlier has definitely helped me avoid those awkward situations where everything falls apart at the offer stage.

I've learned to frame follow-up questions as collaborative problem-solving rather than interrogation - something like "walk me through how you'd handle X scenario with that tool." It's amazing how quickly you can tell the difference between someone who's actually troubleshot issues versus someone who just knows the feature list.