Honesty not the best policy? Job seeker learns a hard lesson after being too truthful during job interview

In today’s competitive job market, interviews often test more than just skills and experience. They also quietly assess how long a candidate is likely to stay, sometimes through questions that blur the line between professional relevance and personal life. One such interview experience, shared by a first-time job seeker on Reddit, has triggered a broader conversation on whether complete honesty during hiring processes can sometimes do more harm than good.

In the Reddit post, the candidate explained that they were asked during an interview whether they had any future plans to go abroad. Choosing to answer honestly, they mentioned that relocating later in the year was a possibility. Soon after, they were rejected for the role. While no official reason was provided, the candidate felt the answer played a key role in the decision.

The job seeker said this was their first attempt at finding a job and that they were uncomfortable with lying or hiding information. They described the question as a filtering tool used by companies to avoid hiring people who may not stay long term. The rejection left them frustrated and questioning whether honesty was a mistake in this situation.

Doubts after the rejection

Following the interview outcome, the candidate reflected on whether being fully transparent was the right call. They wondered if, instead of disclosing uncertain future plans, it would have been better to focus only on getting hired, especially since they were not being picky and simply needed work to avoid sitting idle and to earn money.

The post captured a common concern among early-career professionals who struggle to balance personal ethics with the realities of a hiring system that often favours predictability over openness.

How other Reddit users responded

The comments section saw a strong response, with many users arguing that the issue was not stupidity but discretion. Several commenters pointed out that interviews are meant to assess suitability for the role at present, not hypothetical situations one or two years down the line. According to them, future travel or relocation plans are personal matters and not relevant unless they are immediate.

Others highlighted that companies do not share their own future decisions, such as layoffs or internal restructuring, during interviews. From that perspective, candidates are not obligated to volunteer information that could weaken their chances.

Some users were more blunt, stating that the job market is uneven and candidates should not feel guilty about protecting their interests. They argued that answering vaguely or withholding personal details is often necessary and should not be confused with dishonesty.


A few responses came from users who identified as senior professionals or career coaches. They acknowledged the candidate’s integrity but explained why such honesty can backfire. Mentioning possible relocation signals a risk of early departure, which employers naturally try to avoid.

These commenters advised candidates to keep answers focused on the role and present goals. Stating commitment to learning, growth, and contributing to the company was described as truthful while still safeguarding personal plans. If circumstances change later, resigning professionally is widely accepted in the corporate world.


The wider discussion points to a clear lesson: interviews are not confessionals. Honesty matters, but so does relevance. Sharing uncertain future plans too early can work against candidates, even when intentions are genuine.

For job seekers, especially those entering the workforce, the episode serves as a reminder that being ethical does not mean revealing everything. Sometimes, discretion is simply part of navigating a system that prioritises immediate business needs.