Never underestimate people's ability to get creative. Job seekers are adding invisible keywords to résumés to beat applicant tracking systems. Students are using AI tools like ChatGPT to rewrite essays in ways traditional plagiarism detectors cannot always catch. Amazon sellers are inflating ratings with fake reviews, and content creators are joining engagement pods to fool social media algorithms. Across industries, individuals are finding ways to get past automated filters, strict systems, and rigid evaluation processes. In many cases, it is about outsmarting processes that feel impossible to navigate fairly. What may seem like manipulation often reflects frustration, curiosity, and a desire to be seen. From white fonting to résumé rewriting to gaming content platforms, these behaviors raise bigger questions. If people are constantly outsmarting the system, what does that say about the system itself? And what can leaders, hiring teams, and educators learn from these increasingly common tactics?
White fonting is a résumé trick where applicants insert key phrases in white text so they are invisible to human readers but still readable by applicant tracking systems. A candidate applying for a marketing role might hide words like HubSpot, content strategy, or Google Ads throughout their document even if they lack those skills. The goal is to bypass keyword filters and get a shot at an interview.
While it may seem dishonest, many job seekers using white fonting do not see it that way. They are trying to be noticed in a system that feels too automated, too rigid, and too competitive. For them, outsmarting the résumé filter is more of a survival skill than a scam.
Résumé hacks like white fonting, keyword stuffing, and AI-generated job applications can still work in some cases. In addition to hiding text, job seekers may repeat desirable phrases or inflate their job titles to appear more qualified.
However, today's applicant tracking systems are more sophisticated. Many strip formatting, detect excessive repetition, and flag suspicious content. Outsmarting the AI might work once, but it can also backfire if a recruiter notices inconsistencies or patterns that look inauthentic.
What is more telling is why candidates feel they have to use these tactics in the first place. In a process designed to automate decisions, standing out as a human is becoming harder.
Before white fonting showed up in résumés, I had already seen similar tactics in education. Some of my own students told me they used to wrap copied text in white quotation marks to get around plagiarism software. These days, it's more likely they're using ChatGPT to rewrite their papers.
But getting around the system isn't new. Students have found ways to outsource their work for years. I once had a student submit a paper that included the following at the bottom, something she clearly forgot to delete: "Thank you for purchasing this paper. That will be fifteen dollars." I believe the price has gone up since then.
While those kinds of shortcuts were easier to spot, the tools students use now are more sophisticated. Grammarly, for example, was widely recommended as a writing aid, and many schools encouraged its use. But now it sometimes gets flagged in AI detection reports. What was once a tool to support learning might now complicate things. Whether it is helpful or harmful often depends on the intent behind it and the system doing the reviewing.
Detection tools have gotten better at spotting tricks by looking at context and removing formatting. But the bigger issue is still there. When students believe the system is more focused on catching them than helping them learn, they will always find a way around it.
The same mindset driving white fonting and AI-written essays shows up across nearly every platform.
Social media influencers use engagement pods to artificially boost visibility. Sellers use brushing scams and fake reviews to rank higher on e-commerce sites. SEO specialists use keyword stuffing and cloaked pages to rise in search rankings. Test takers use screen mirroring, hidden devices, or even fake webcam movement to fool remote proctoring.
Outsmarting the system has become a skill. But it is often a response to the feeling that the system itself is no longer working for the individual. Still, it raises a fair question. If people spent as much time doing the work as they do trying to get around it, wouldn't that be more productive? Maybe. But when someone feels the odds are stacked against them, working around the system can feel like the only way forward.
This behavior is not always about deception. More often, it is about frustration. People feel unseen by machines and blocked by rules they do not understand. They want in but do not know how to navigate the filters standing in the way.
There is something deeper too. People are naturally curious. They test boundaries, push limits, and explore loopholes not always to break the rules but to understand them. Outsmarting is not always defiance. Sometimes it is innovation.
White fonting and similar behaviors fall on a spectrum. Sometimes they are clever ways to gain visibility. Other times they cross the line into deception. But if people are bending the rules just to be considered fairly, it may be time to examine the rules themselves.
For job seekers, students, and creators, the issue is often not about ethics but about access. They are asking how else they can get a chance.
Rather than punish manipulation, HR teams should examine what is driving it. If people are outsmarting your hiring process, that is a signal. It means the process is perceived as unfair, overly filtered, or too impersonal.
Here is what organizations can do:
The best candidates may not always look perfect on paper. Sometimes, the most valuable hires are the ones trying the hardest to be seen.
The same mindset of outsmarting applies to company review sites. Some former employees have found ways to manipulate platforms like Glassdoor to damage an employer's reputation. Tactics include mass posting negative reviews under multiple fake accounts, copy-pasting slightly altered feedback to create volume, or coordinating group efforts to flood a company's page. Others wait for news of layoffs or leadership changes and time their reviews for maximum visibility.
While Glassdoor uses fraud detection tools to identify suspicious content, no system is perfect. Some coordinated attacks can still get through. These actions are attempts to outsmart a system that may feel like the only way to hold a company accountable. For HR leaders and executives, these incidents are a reminder that reputation systems must be monitored, but they must also be trusted enough not to invite sabotage.
If people feel they need to cheat your system, the system may be part of the problem. White fonting, fake reviews, AI-generated content, and even coordinated review attacks all stem from environments where trust in the process has broken down.
Instead of reinforcing complexity, organizations should examine what is encouraging these behaviors in the first place. Outsmarting the systems provides feedback. People are still trying. They want in. They are just not convinced that playing by the rules will work.
Most people do not try to outsmart systems they trust. If outsmarting the system is happening everywhere, from classrooms to job boards to e-commerce platforms, it deserves serious attention. I once interviewed Dr. John Kotter, a renowned Professor Emeritus at Harvard Business School and a leading expert on leadership and change. His work on resistance is especially relevant in this context because when people do not feel empowered within a system, they often look for ways to work around it. They are not necessarily resisting the outcome but rather the structure that feels unfair or unyielding. The future of work will increasingly depend on automation and algorithms, but it must also allow space for trust, transparency, and human creativity. If someone is trying to outsmart your system, the more important question is not how to stop them but what their actions are revealing about the system itself. Outsmarting the system is not going away, but there is an opportunity to design systems that are strong, fair, and human in ways that reduce the desire to bypass them.
