Being the only specialist in a department can be exhausting, especially when the work keeps piling up and support arrives later than promised. When that support finally shows up, most people hope for relief, not another problem to manage.
That hope quickly faded for one employee after a new colleague joined the team under questionable circumstances. What started as confusion turned into disbelief as the quality of work failed to meet even basic expectations.
Once the truth surfaced, emotions ran high and patience wore thin.
Workplace dynamics often hinge not just on skills and productivity, but on trust and transparency.
In this situation, the OP brought in a new colleague to ease an unmanageable workload. Based on her résumé and claimed qualifications, he expected competent 3D modeling support.
Instead, her deliverables were unusable and slow, wasting time he needed to spend fixing her mistakes.
When asked, she admitted she had exaggerated her experience, revealing she had only completed the required introductory semester rather than the full advanced coursework she claimed.
That disclosure reframed the problem: it was no longer a performance gap but a misrepresentation of qualifications.
From the OP’s view, that justified firm boundaries to maintain his productivity and the team’s output.
From the colleague’s side, fear, insecurity, or desperation likely led her to exaggerate, followed by avoidance when the work exceeded her actual skill.
This issue reflects a well-documented workplace phenomenon known as job fraud or résumé fraud, where applicants intentionally exaggerate or fabricate skills and experience to secure positions.
By definition, résumé fraud involves providing exaggerated or misleading information on applications to acquire roles one may be unqualified for.
Research on the topic shows that such misrepresentation is common and consequential.
Scholars developing measures of resume fraud find that deceptive claims are not rare and that they can predict reduced job performance and counterproductive outcomes once the person is in the role.
Statistics underscore how widespread this problem has become in modern job markets. Surveys across job candidates indicate that over half of applicants admit to some form of exaggeration or lie on their resumes.
Inflated skills and embellished experience are among the most common, and such claims are often revealed only when an employee struggles to perform at the level they advertised.
Modern workplace research also highlights the importance of psychological safety, an environment where team members feel comfortable admitting limitations and asking for help without fear of judgment.
According to leadership scholar Amy Edmondson, psychological safety fosters collaboration, learning, and skilled performance because people speak up about uncertainty instead of hiding it.
In this case, the new colleague’s choice to conceal her lack of training reduced the chances for early intervention and support, and ironically increased the very struggle she hoped to avoid.
At the same time, placing full responsibility for correcting a foundational skills gap on an already overloaded colleague is neither practical nor sustainable.
Professional roles typically assume that candidates meet basic competence before onboarding, freeing teams to fine-tune performance, not rebuild it from scratch.
When foundational skills are missing, both productivity and morale can suffer.
Neutral advice in such situations leans toward professional documentation and structured expectations.
The OP could articulate the discrepancy between stated and demonstrated skills to leadership, request formal performance support from HR or management, and clarify the limits of mentoring time so it doesn’t detract from his core responsibilities.
Where possible, a constructive performance improvement plan with clear objectives and timelines helps ensure that both the colleague’s development and the team’s workflow are respected.
Through the OP’s experience, the core lesson becomes clear: honesty in representing skills is essential for trust and effective collaboration.
When that trust is broken early, even well-intentioned offers of help can falter because the mismatch between expectation and reality reshapes the professional relationship.
In this context, setting boundaries was not about lacking empathy, but about preserving trust, productivity, and professional integrity within the workplace.
Here’s what people had to say to OP:
This group pushed for immediate escalation. They agreed the OP should loop in a boss or HR right away, framing it as self-protection rather than tattling.
This group zeroed in on the lie itself. They agreed that exaggerating skills is one thing, but fabricating qualifications crosses a line.
These commenters took a harder stance, saying the problem should have already been dealt with.
These Redditors shared personal horror stories about unqualified coworkers, emphasizing wasted time, lowered morale, and resentment.
This group reassured the OP that responsibility stops at their own role.
This clash wasn’t really about personality. It was about expectations, honesty, and the invisible cost of carrying someone else’s workload.
. Was it fair to draw a hard line and protect their own workload, or should desperation have earned more patience?
Where does responsibility fall when a colleague misrepresents their skills and everyone else pays the price? Drop your take below.
