How and Why Do Interviewers Try to Make Impressions on Applicants?

20 Pages·2016·0.16 MB·English

JournalofAppliedPsychology ©2015AmericanPsychologicalAssociation
2016,Vol.101,No.3,313–332 0021-9010/16/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0000046
How and Why Do Interviewers Try to Make Impressions on Applicants?
A Qualitative Study
Annika Wilhelmy and Martin Kleinmann Cornelius J. König
UniversitätZürich UniversitätdesSaarlandes
Klaus G. Melchers Donald M. Truxillo
UniversitätUlm PortlandStateUniversity
y.
shers.broadl Tatotrarecmtaanindvrieatbailneitnoptocdaanyd’isdhatiegsh.lyHceonmcep,eitnittievrevibeuwseinrseshsaevnevtihroengmoeanltns,oittoisnlcyruocfiaildefonrtifoyrignagnipzraotimonissintog
dpubliminated adpeplilbicearanttessbiugtnaallisnogobferheapvrieosresntairnegathkeeiyrofargctaonrizfaotrioantt.raAclttihnoguagphpiltichaanstsbaenendpthruospofsoerdenthsautriinngteorvrgieawniezras-’
salliedisse tiinotnersv’iseuwcecresass,nsoepcaornacteepftruoamlmtohdeelapabpoliuctanimt.pTreossdioenvemloapnasguecmheantc(oIMnc)eepxtuisatlsmfroomdetlhoenvihewowpoainntdofwthhye
ofitobe iindteenrtvifieywinegrstheusberoIaMd,raonugreqoufaimlitpartievsesiosntusdtyhaetlianbteorrvaiteewsesrisgninatleinngdttohecoreryateinonthaeppilnictearnvtise,wwhcaotnktienxdtsboyf
et
onot signalsinterviewersdeliberatelyusetocreatetheirintendedimpressions,andwhatoutcomestheypursue.
n
ors Followingagroundedtheoryapproach,multipleratersanalyzedin-depthinterviewswithinterview-
i
ationand ebrrsocahnudreaspptolicgaenntse.raWteeaalcsoonocbespeturvaeldmaocdtuealloefminptleoryvmieewnetrinItMer.vRieewssulatsndshaonwaleydzetdhamtethmeosspaencdtruimmagoef
cier
sous interviewers’IMintentionsgoeswellbeyondwhathasbeenproposedinpastresearch.Furthermore,
s
Aal interviewers apply a broad range of IM behaviors, including verbal and nonverbal as well as
aldu paraverbal, artifactual, and administrative behaviors. An extensive taxonomy of interviewer IM
ologicindivi imnetenntstioanres,pbreesheanvtieodr,s,anadndavinetneunedsedforoufutctoumreersesiesadrcehvealroepedde,riivnetde.rrelationships between these ele-
he
ch
yt
Psof Keywords: employment interview, impression management, signaling theory, recruitment, qualitative
ne
as study
cu
erial
mn
Aso
eer
hp
ythe The employment interview continues to be the most popular interviewerstrytodetectwhattheirinteractionpartnerisinterested
bt
yrightedolelyfor saeenxldcehcsateinloegncettopoornolecueassnesodetshbeybreb(tMwoteahecnaapnap,pl2ipc0la0icn9at)sn.tIastnid(swochhrogaarwanciaztneatrtiizotoendsgbteoyt ahssoisrceeidsas)l i(nBaSaninggdnearttlerinyr,gRtpoorouuclsieens,ste&hsisiKniötnhnfeiogir,nmt2ea0rt1vio2ien)w.tohasveenmdaainplpyrobpereinatsetusdiigendailns
ps
coed and representatives of the organization (who want to attract and termsofimpressionmanagement(IM)efforts(Delery&Kacmar,
isnd select the best candidates). To reach their goals, applicants and 1998). Scholars have repeatedly pointed out that interviewers
entnte frequently use IM and that these deliberate behaviors are a key
mi
docucleis feaccotnoormfoircastturcaccetisnsg(aep.gp.l,icDaniptsboanydet&husJoehnnsusorinn,g2a0n1o3r;gaRnoizseantifoenld’s,
Thissarti ThisarticlewaspublishedOnlineFirstOctober5,2015. 1997). However, it is striking that past interview research has
Thi Annika Wilhelmy and Martin Kleinmann, Department of Psychology, rarelyaddressedthephenomenonofinterviewerIM,asmostprior
Universität Zürich; Cornelius J. König, Department of Psychology, Uni- studies have limited their focus on how applicants use IM (Ko-
versität des Saarlandes; Klaus G. Melchers, Institute of Psychology and slowsky&Pindek,2011).Furthermore,researchhasassumedthat
Education,UniversitätUlm;DonaldM.Truxillo,DepartmentofPsychol- interviewers use the same IM behaviors as applicants (e.g., Ste-
ogy,PortlandStateUniversity. vens,Mitchell,&Tripp,1990)withouttakingacloserlookatwhat
WethankTalyaN.BauerandAdrianBangerterfortheirhelpfulcom- interviewersactuallydowhentheyinteractwithapplicants.
ments on earlier versions of the paper. We are grateful to Stéphanie WedefineinterviewerIMasinterviewers’deliberateattemptsto
Weissert,LisaJulianeSchneider,RomanaNussbaumer,andSabrinaEngeli
create impressions on applicants (cf. Schlenker, 1980) and argue
fortheirhelpwithdatacollectionandanalysisandtoMichelHunzikerfor
that it is important to identify and explain interviewer IM. As
hishelpwithdataanalysis.WewouldalsoliketothankSusanneInglin,
outlinedbelow,wearguethatinterviewers’aimsandopportunities
DomenicoAmendola,andRogerKellerfortechnicalandmethodological
maybedifferentfromthoseofapplicants,andthereforetheirIM
consultations.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Annika effortsshouldbesomewhatdifferentaswell.Furthermore,schol-
Wilhelmy,DepartmentofPsychology,UniversitätZürich,Binzmuehlestrasse14/ ars have noted that signaling theory, which is most often used to
12,8050Zurich,Switzerland.E-mail:[email protected] explain recruitment phenomena (Bangerter et al., 2012; Spence,
313
314 WILHELMY,KLEINMANN,KÖNIG,MELCHERS,ANDTRUXILLO
1973),iscurrentlynotwelldefinedandunderstoodinthecontext tion to create impressions on applicants (e.g., asking challenging
of interviewers’ IM intentions and behaviors (Celani & Singh, interviewquestionsnotonlybecausetheyarepartoftheinterview
2011).Thus,toprovideamorecomprehensivetheoreticalunder- guidebutalsowiththeintentiontosignaltheorganization’shigh
standingofhowandwhyinterviewerstrytocreateimpressionson performanceexpectations).Conversely,ifaninterviewer’sbehav-
applicants,itiscrucialtolearnmoreaboutinterviewers’deliberate ior is not linked with such an intention (e.g., asking challenging
signalingbehaviorsaswellastheirunderlyingintentions. interview questions only because they are part of the interview
Therefore, the aim of the present study is to use a qualitative guide),itdoesnotconstituteinterviewerIM.
approachtocreateataxonomyandaconceptualmodelbyidenti- Althoughsignalingtheoryistheframeworkmostoftenusedto
fying and analyzing the broad range of possible interviewer IM explainrecruitmentphenomena,itiscurrentlynotwelldefinedand
intentions,behaviors,andintendedoutcomes.Weusethisconcep- understoodwhenitcomestoorganizationalrepresentatives’inten-
tual model to point out propositions for future research on inter- tions and deliberate signaling behaviors (Celani & Singh, 2011).
viewer IM. Drawing on interdependence theory (Rusbult & Van Tofurtherdevelopsignalingtheory,therehavebeencallstoview
Lange, 2003), this study sheds light on how interviewer and andstudysignalswithintheirsocialcontext,suchasthecontextof
y. applicant IM are similar and distinct. Furthermore, our study employment interviews. As such, a typology of signals that are
shers.broadl einlatbhoeraitnetsersvigienwalicnogntthexeotrbyy(Bgaainnginergteirnseitgahlt.s,2in0t1o2;spSepceinficce,si1g9n7a3ls) sbeenotfinhicgehrtvaainluecotontepxatrsti—tiolinkethethseeseimgnpalolsyminetontmienatenrivnigefwul—cwatoeguold-
publinated thataredeliberatelyusedbyinterviewersandwhythesesignalsare riesandthusfurtherunderstandsignalingphenomena.Inaddition,
dmi beingsent. researchwouldbenefitfrominvestigatingtheincentivesofsignal-
itsallieedisse Theoretical Background e(Crso,nsnueclhlyaesttahle.,o2u0t1co1m).eTshtuhse,ythweamntation afocchuiesvoefbtyhisussitnugdysigisnaolns
ofob signalingintentions,thesignalsthatinterviewersdeliberatelysend
oneott Signaling Processes in the Interview through their behavior to create applicant impressions, and the
orsn outcomesinterviewerswanttoachieve.
i
ationand intTerhveieewmerpsloaynmdenatppilnitcearnvtisewenigsagaediynnasmociicalexincthearancgteionin, gwahthicehr orgPaontieznattiioanlssitgrynatolinagttraocntathnderseitdaeinopfrothmeisiinngtearpvpielwicearn.ts,Wdehliebn-
cier
sous information, and create and form impressions (Levashina, eratesignalssuchasinterviewerIMbehaviorhavebeenproposed
s
Aal Hartwell,Morgeson,&Campion,2014).Consequently,inthelast tobeparticularlyimportant(Celani&Singh,2011).Nevertheless,
ologicalindividu tvwieowdeercaanddesa,prpelsiceaanrcthpeerrsspheacvteivienscarneadshinagvleygciovnensidmeoreredabttoetnhtiionntetro- dinetseprivtieewexetresnisnivteendcatlolsaifnfetchtealpitpelriactaunrteitmoperxeassmioinnes h(cofw. Daenlderwyh&y
he howapplicantsandinterviewersintentionallyadapttheirbehaviors Kacmar, 1998; Dipboye & Johnson, 2013; Gilmore, Stevens,
ch
Psyoft to pursue their interests (Dipboye, Macan, & Shahani-Denning, Harrell-Cook, & Ferris, 1999; Macan, 2009), there have been no
ne 2012). systematic attempts to examine the broad range of IM behaviors
as
cu
erial Inemploymentinterviews,applicantshaveinformationthatisof usedbyinterviewers.However,evidencesuggeststhatinterview-
Amson interesttointerviewersbuttowhichinterviewersdonotnecessar- ers pursue specific goals and that there are certain interviewer
eer ily have access (e.g., information about the applicants’ personal- characteristicsthatpositivelyinfluenceapplicantattraction(Chap-
hp
ythe ity).Similarly,interviewershaveinformationthatisofinterestto man,Uggerslev,Carroll,Piasentin,&Jones,2005;Derous,2007).
bt
yrightedolelyfor a(hepa.pvgle.i,casacenclteesscsbtiuototntdocirswistiehmriicialh)a.raIpinnpflsoiicrtmaunaatttsiioodnnos,nsliiokgtennatelhicniesg,sstwahrheioelynryht(waBvoeanpagacerctreitesessr hinatvIetervisibeewiemenproebrxetaahnmatvinitooerdsno(wetei.gtht.h,arcetogmoanrpdleytetvonatgabupeephlcaicavatienogtrs,o’rpireposefreocsefspibotienohanalsvbiooerf-
ps
coed etal.,2012;Spence,1973)ishelpfulfordescribingandexplaining havior, friendly behavior; cf. Chapman et al., 2005). Whereas it
isnd behavior.Accordingtothistheory,signalingprocessesconsistof hasbeenfoundthatcertaininterviewerbehaviorsandcharacteris-
entnte severalelements,suchastwoprimaryactors—thesignaler,sender, tics influence recruiting outcomes, such as perceived interviewer
mi
docucleis othreinaspipdleicra(net.)g—.,athsewineltleravsiethweear)ctaunadlstihgenraelscesievnetrboyrtohuetssiidgenral(eer.gt.o, pwearrsmontha,blhenuemsos,r, caonmdpjeotebncken,owinlefodrgmea(tiCvaernleessss, &truIsmtwbeorr,th2in0e0s7s;,
hisarti thereceiver(Connelly,Certo,Ireland,&Reutzel,2011).AsCon- Chapman et al., 2005), the signals that interviewers deliberately
Ts
hi nellyetal.(2011)pointedout,thesignalercanalsotakeanactive send through their behavior to create these intended impressions
T
part in this signaling process. For instance, interviewers can de- have not been identified. Knowing more about these specific,
liberately choose whether and how to reduce information asym- deliberatesignalsiscrucialbecauseitwouldhelpinterviewersto
metrybyintentionallycommunicating(orsignaling)certainqual- influence applicant impressions and thus to enhance recruitment
ities to applicants who lack this information (Connelly et al., success.
2011). Furthermore,wedonotknowtowhatdegreetheseinterviewer
Inthisvein,IMbehaviorsreflectanintentionalwayofsending behaviors represent IM in terms of intentional, goal-directed be-
signals(cf.Schlenker,1980).Whileinterviewers’signalscouldbe haviors. For instance, Tullar (1989) examined on-campus inter-
anythingthatisinterpretedasasignalbytheapplicant,interviewer viewerutterancesandfoundthatabouttwothirdsoftheutterances
IMreferstosignalsthataredeliberatelysentbytheinterviewer.In could be categorized as being structuring (e.g., expanding on a
otherwords,interviewerIMrelatestoadeliberatefacetofsignal- previous statement) and nearly one third as demonstrating equiv-
ing theory (Bangerter et al., 2012). In addition, it is important to alence such as mutual identification (e.g., “That is interesting”).
notethatanybehaviorthataninterviewerappliescouldconstitute Nevertheless,itremainsunclearwhether,how,andwhyinterview-
interviewerIMbehaviorifthisbehaviorisshownwiththeinten- ers intentionally adjust their behaviors to create images in appli-
INTERVIEWERIMPRESSIONMANAGEMENT 315
cants’ minds—for example, images of being competent, profes- signalsandshouldthustranslateintoabroadersetofIMbehaviors
sional,orfriendly. ascomparedtoapplicants.
Potential differences between applicants’ and interviewers’ For example, while research on applicant IM has primarily
signaling. Applicants and interviewers find themselves in the focused on verbal IM behaviors (i.e., the content of applicants’
same social setting, but it might be misleading to apply existing responses and statements), scholars have pointed out that much
applicantIMtaxonomiestointerviewers.Theremaybeconsider- morecouldbeconsideredaspartofone’sattempttocreateimages
abledifferencesinapplicants’andinterviewers’roles,intentions, (Dipboyeetal.,2012).Forinstance,nonverbalIMhasbeenseen
and scopes of action. Interdependence theory (Rusbult & Van as a fruitful area of research, including IM behaviors such as
Lange,2003)focusesonthecausaldeterminantsofdyadicsocial smiling,eyecontact,andbodyposture(Levine&Feldman,2002),
behaviorandprovidesaconceptualframeworkforthestructureof aswellasheadnods,handshakes,andhandgestures(McFarland,
interpersonalsituations.Themainideaofthistheoryisthatchar- Yun,Harold,Viera,&Moore,2005).Inaddition,verbalbehaviors
acteristicsofthesituation(e.g.,individuals’interests,information, through ways other than words may be used, also referred to as
and level of dependence) exert strong effects on individuals’ paraverbal or paralinguistic behaviors (DeGroot & Motowidlo,
y. behavior—forexample,IMbehavior.Thus,althoughinterviewers 1999).Examplesofparaverbalbehaviorsincludestyleofdelivery
shers.broadl sthheoyulsdhoauplpdlyalssoomapepIlMydbifefhearevniotrIsMsibmeihlaavritoorsthboesceauosfeathpepylicdaifnftesr, (e.Tg.h,iprdit,cihntaenrdviespweeercsharnadtea)papnldicavnetrsbaalref,luteoncsoym. e extent, depen-
publinated fromapplicantsregardingseveralsituationalcharacteristics. dentuponeachother,butindistinctways,whichshouldresultin
dmi First, interdependence theory (Rusbult & Van Lange, 2003) some differences in their IM (Rusbult & Van Lange, 2003). For
salliedisse swuhgegnestthseythpaturisnudeivdiidfufearlesnatrgeolailkse.lAystopouisneteIdMouitnbdyifBfearnegnetrtwerayest ienvsatlaunacteio,naspapflfieccatntthseirrelcyhaonncesinotefravijeowbeorfsfebre(ccaf.uBsearirnictekr,vSiehwafefresr’,
ite
ofob al.(2012),applicantsandinterviewershavepartlydivergentinter- &DeGrassi,2009).Therefore,applicantsaimtocreateapositive
oneott ests.Forinstance,whileapplicants’primarysignalinginterestisto image. Similarly, interviewers depend on applicants in terms of
orsn get a job offer, one of the interviewers’ interests is to identify, applicants’jobchoicebehaviorandhenceintendtocreateimpres-
i
ationand aintttrearcvti,eawnedrsfitnryaltloychriereattehaenbiemstagpeernfoortmoenrl.yWofitthhetmhisseelvnedsibnumtainlsdo, asiroenussounalalyppilnicaanmtso(rDeippobwoyeerfeutlapl.o,s2it0io1n2)t.hHanowaepvpelirc,ainnttserbveiecwauesres
cier
sous ofthejobandtheorganizationasawhole(Connellyetal.,2011). applicants only get to make a decision about whether or not to
s
Aal Inotherwords,interviewersneedtoinfluenceapplicants’imageof work for the organization if they are offered a job (Anderson,
ologicalindividu mfroumltipalpepltiacragnettsI.MThreusse,airnchadsduicthioanstsoelIfM-prboemhaovtiioonrsotrhsaetlfw-feockunsoewd 1si9g9n2a)l.inCgothnisseqpuoewnetlryb,yinutseirnvgieIwMerbsehmaivgihotrshtahvaetgtohebeiynotenndtioapnploi-f
he IM behaviors (i.e., describing one’s past accomplishments and cants’IM.
ch
yt
Psof competenciesinapositiveway)andingratiationorother-focused
anse IMbehaviors(i.e.,flatteringone’sinteractionpartner),interview- Aims of the Present Study
cu
erial ers may use additional strategies to promote the job and the
Amson organization. In summary, interviewers’ goals and opportunities for IM are
eer Furthermore, many existing taxonomies distinguish between likelytodifferfromapplicants’goalsandopportunities.Therefore,
hp
ythe assertiveIMbehaviorsthataimtoenhanceone’sownimageand toenhanceourtheoreticalunderstandingofthisphenomenon,itis
yrightedbolelyfort dpIdeodfseeitnkisvinievgeeim,IMMagceFbae(rehl.aagvn.,ido,Er&sllitRsh,aaytWmaeiasmrtk,,tR2o0yd0ane7f,)e.&nHdoDwageeSavihenors,nti,nth2ar0de0da2itts;iotVnoatnoa cminruotecdrievalileawtboeorudtienvtheteelormdpesaliobcfeorinmatteeprrsveiihgeenwnaesliirvnIegMtp.arxTooocneaosdsmedsyreosansndtthheaesescioednmecpeoipfrtiutchaaell
copeds the goal of promoting or defending oneself, the job, and the andtheoreticalgaps,wewanttoexplorethreemainquestionswith
isnd organization,interviewershavealsobeengivenrecommendations ourqualitativestudy.Basedontheseresearchquestions,ouraimis
entnte to provide realistic information to facilitate self-selection todevelopaconceptualmodelandataxonomyabouthowandwhy
mi
docucleis (2W01a1n)o.uTs,hu1s9,76in)aonrddetrotsoigncarelahteonreesatlyis(tEicaranpepslti,cAanlltenim,&preLsasniodniss,, intRerevsieeawrecrhsaQpupelystiIoMn.1. What do interviewers intend to signal
hisarti interviewersmayapplybehaviorsthatgobeyondapplicantIMand toapplicants—thatis,whatareinterviewers’IMintentions?
This thatshouldresultinabroaderrangeofIMbehaviorsthantheones Research Question 2. What signals do interviewers deliber-
T
thatapplicantsapply. ately use to create their intended impressions—that is, what IM
Second, according to interdependence theory (Rusbult & Van behaviorsdointerviewersapply?
Lange,2003),individuals’behaviorisinfluencedbytheinforma- Research Question 3. What outcomes do interviewers want
tion that is available to them. This is particularly relevant in to achieve by deliberately sending signals to applicants—that is,
employmentinterviews,whichinvolveinteractionbetweenstrang- whatareinterviewers’intendedIMoutcomes?
ers and are characterized by the presence of vague information
about the other (Rusbult & Van Lange, 2003). For example, Method
interviewers have access to information on applicants’ past fail-
ures,potentialweaknesses,andgapsintheapplicants’curriculum
Grounded Theory Approach
vitae(CV)—whereasapplicantsusuallydonoteasilygetinforma-
tion before the interview regarding the job, the organization, and Grounded theory is a qualitative methodology that is particu-
theinterviewer.Thisdepthofinterviewers’informationonappli- larly appropriate for our study because it has been developed to
cants should give them more possibilities to deliberately send understand phenomena about which little is known (Glaser &
316 WILHELMY,KLEINMANN,KÖNIG,MELCHERS,ANDTRUXILLO
Strauss, 1967)—such as interviewer IM. In addition, grounded trainee and administrative positions to positions with managerial
theory has been shown to help researchers understand complex functions.Theindustrysectorsofthesevacancieswerealsovery
social processes (Willig, 2009). Thus, it has been suggested that diverse,suchashumanhealthservices,financialservices,andthe
researchers apply qualitative research strategies, like grounded army.
theory, in employment interview and IM research (cf. Macan, Applicantswere25to46yearsold(M(cid:2)31.1,SD(cid:2)7.7),and
2009). 33.3% were male. Their interview experience was very diverse,
A core characteristic of grounded theory research is that data rangingfrom5to30interviews,andthenumberofinterviewsin
collection and analysis are closely interrelated to engage with a whichtheyhadparticipatedinthepast12monthsrangedfrom3
phenomenonasdeeplyaspossible.Assuch,analyzingdatainflu- to 11. Furthermore, our applicant sample consisted of people
ences the strategy of data collection and vice versa (Glaser & applying for various positions such as paid internships, adminis-
Strauss, 1967). Hence, in our study, data analysis influenced our trative jobs, PhD programs, executive officer, senior consultant,
subsequentchoiceofparticipants,interviewquestions,observation and senior manager positions in various industry sectors ranging
emphasis,andtopicsforfurtherdataanalysis. fromhumanhealthservices,financialservices,andtravelservices
y. Furthermore, grounded theory involves collecting data from toresearchandeducation.
shers.broadl mmuullttiippllee spoeursrcpeesctuivseinsgtomucrlteiaptleeatecmhunlitqifuaecsetaenddsaennasleyzoinfgthiet fprohme- calFsoallmopwliinngg(aEnisaepnphraoradcth&wGitrhaienbgnreoru,n2d0e0d7)t,hweoerdyidcanloletddethteeromreintie-
publinated nomenon(Glaser&Strauss,1967).Thus,followingrecommenda- a priori what kind of and how much data we wanted to collect.
dmi tions by Bluhm, Harman, Lee, and Mitchell (2011), we sampled Instead,weusedinformationgatheredduringtheresearchprocess
salliedisse dinivfoerrmseatiinotnerfvrioemweirns-daenpdthapinptleircvainetwssanwdithcoilnletecrtveidewcoemrsparnedheanpspivlie- tnoexdte.vTehleospeindeewasdaabtaouwtewrehuosecdoutoldsebeewinhteetrhveirewadedditiaonndalorbesleervvaendt
ite
ofob cants, observations of selection interviews, the review of memos categories might emerge, whether categories were well estab-
oneott related to these in-depth interviews and observations, and the lished, and whether relationships between categories were fully
orsn reviewofinformationalmaterialthatwasgivenorrecommended developed(Glaser&Strauss,1967).Thus,laterintheprocess,we
i
ationand tdoisacpupssliecdanbtysmduurlitnipglethreesienatercrvhieerws.(fTolhleosweindgatraecwoemremaennadlaytzieodnsanbdy athlsaotwapepreronaoctheydetinintecrlvuideewdeirnsoanudrsaapmplpilcean(ets.gf.r,ommaninudfuacsttruyrisnegctaonrds
cier
sous Corbin&Strauss,2008). gambling services) because industry sectors were mentioned as a
s
Aal Moreover, according to grounded theory, data collection and potentially important aspect by participants. In addition, we pur-
ologicalindividu annoalnyeswisccoantetignoureieusntainldnocnoenwceipntfsoremmaetriogneifsrogmainethde—dthataat.isI,nunthtiel pinogsetlhyeiirncrleupduetdatoiornga(nei.zga.t,ioanwsthhoalteswaeleretrfaadciengsedrvififciecuoltrigeasnriezgaatirodn-
he present study, this point, which is called theoretical saturation thathadrecentlyfacedascandal)becauseparticipantspointedout
ch
Psyoft (Glaser&Strauss,1967),wasreachedafteranalyzing30in-depth that this might help to capture potential defensive strategies used
ne interviews, 10 observations of real employment interviews, 43 byinterviewers.Furthermore,participants’commentsledusaddi-
as
cu
erial memos,and12piecesofinformationalmaterial. tionallytoincludethird-partyinterviewers(e.g.,recruitingconsul-
Amson tants) and interviewers within an employing organization, inter-
eer viewers with experience in college recruiting and in initial
hp Samples
ythe screening interviews in addition to late-stage interviews, and in-
bt
yrightedolelyfor ssaomcTiopalleibsnetteotrefarcptuoinopdnuelprarstotiaocnnedssseiwnshtieonrvehimeawdpleofryisr’mstIehMnatnidbneteehxravpvieieorwiressn,:cpweeeowpsiltteuhdwithehdoe tvneierdsvesioeowfinesturescrhvaniiednwtaespr,vpailenicwdasnp)t.asSnwealmitihpnlteienxrgpveiweriwaesnscd(eobneinecattuehlsreoepuhogofhntjheoebincwtoeermvbmiseitwoenss-,,
ps
coed are regularly conducting employment interviews (i.e., interview- an alumni pool of a Swiss university, and references from our
isnd ers) and people who had recently been interviewed in several participants.
entnte employment interviews (i.e., applicants). We included applicants
mi
docucleis btheecasuigsneaslisgtnhaelyerasp(pi.ley..,iSnpteercvifiiecwalelrys,)wmeiguhstednoitnfaolwrmayatsiorenpporrotvaildleodf Data Collection
hisarti by applicants to develop ideas about possible interviewer IM Fordatacollection,weappliedseveralmethodsassuggestedby
Ts
hi intentionsandbehaviors.Wethenaskedinterviewerswhetherthe Bluhm et al. (2011): semistructured in-depth interviews of inter-
T
behaviors and intentions reported by applicants actually repre- viewers and applicants, observations of real employment inter-
senteddeliberateinterviewerIM. views,memos,andreviewofinformationalmaterialsprovidedto
To achieve high heterogeneity of data sources, we began our applicants.Itisimportanttonotethatbehaviorsthatwereobserved
study with different variables in mind that might influence inter- andonesthatwerereportedbyapplicantsprovideduswithaddi-
viewerIM,suchasgender,age,interviewexperience,hierarchical tional ideas of potential IM behaviors that we could verify in
level,andeducationallevel(Dipboye,2005).Interviewerswere27 subsequent in-depth interviews to ensure that these behaviors
to 63 years old (M (cid:2) 41.5, SD (cid:2) 12.2), and 60.0% were male. constitutedIM(i.e.,thattheywereappliedbyinterviewerswiththe
Their interview experience ranged from several months to 40 intention of creating impressions on applicants). The in-depth
years, and the number of interviews conducted in the past 12 interviews and observations are further described below. Memos
months ranged from 4 to 300. Furthermore, their hierarchical (one to two pages) were written subsequent to each in-depth
levels were very diverse, ranging from assistant positions (e.g., interview and observation and during the coding process. They
humanresources[HR]assistant)toseniormanagerpositions(e.g., wereusedtodocumentideasfordatainterpretationandtoengage
commandingofficerinthearmy),andtheirvacanciesrangedfrom in self-reflection about potential personal biases (see Glaser &
INTERVIEWERIMPRESSIONMANAGEMENT 317
Strauss, 1967; Suddaby, 2006). Furthermore, as suggested by Furthermore,oneinterviewertookpartinboththein-depthinter-
Bansal and Corley (2011), informational material (such as bro- viewsandtheobservations.Inaddition,threeoftheemployment
chures) that was given or recommended to applicants was ana- interviews were not only observed but were also audio or video
lyzed. recorded. To avoid observer-expectancy effects, observation par-
In-depthinterviews. Allofthe30in-depthinterviews(1hr) ticipants were not told that this study examined interviewer IM
withinterviewersandapplicantswereconductedbythefirstauthor behavior(Kazdin,1977).Instead,theywerebrieflyinformedthat
inSwitzerlandandGermany.Regardingin-depthinterviewswith wewereinterestedinthesocialprocessestakingplaceinemploy-
applicants, the main goal was to develop ideas about what IM mentinterviewsandwereensuredconfidentiality.
intentions interviewers might have had and what signals they The first author and a trained industrial and organizational
mighthaveappliedtocreatefavorableimpressions.Regardingthe psychology (I-O) master’s-level student conducted all of the ob-
in-depthinterviewswithinterviewers,however,weplacedspecial servationsusinganobservationguide(seeAppendixC).Thegoal
emphasis on whether they really reported having had these ofthisobservationguidewastohelpconsiderallimportantaspects
intentions and whether they deliberately engaged in them in of the interview. The guide consisted of three main parts: obser-
y. terms of IM. vationspriortotheemploymentinterview(e.g.,whatinterviewers
shers.broadl in-Fdoeplltohwiinntgervainewosriwenetriengbatsheedoroentisceamlipsetrruscpteucrteidvein(tLerovcikeew, g2u0i0d1e)s, sIMayabnedhaavsikorprdiourritnogthteheinetemrvpileowym),edniftfeinretenrtvkieinwds(eo.fgi.n,theorvwiewinetersr-’
publinated derived from insights gained during the review of the existing viewerstalktotheapplicantsduringtheinterview),andobserva-
dmi literature.AscanbeseeninAppendicesAandB,theseinterview tions after the employment interview (e.g., body language of
salliedisse gthuaitdeaspcpolivcearnetdsfofourrmaspdeucrtisn:g(ai)nwtehrevtiheewrsthmepigahrtticbuelarimimpporretasnsitontos icnotnetraviineewderssecatfitoenrsthfeoirntuenrvstireuwc)t.uIrnedadodbistieornv,atthioenosbsinervoardtieorntgouiidne-
ite
ofob interviewers,(b)impressionsthatinterviewerswantapplicantsto cludedatathatmightleadtonewinterpretationsorthemes.Similar
oneott form, (c) behaviors that interviewers apply to create these favor- tothein-depthinterviewquestions,thecontentoftheobservation
orsn able impressions, and (d) possible consequences of interviewer guidewasconstantlyadaptedinthecourseoftheresearchprocess.
i
ationand IwMer.ePcaortnc(ear)noefdtahbeouinttethrveieimwpgreusisdieonesnsauprpeldicathnatst foourrmpadrutricinipgatnhtes whDicuhrinIMg anbdehaafvtieorrseaicnhteorvbiseewrveartsiosnh,otwheedobosnervtheersbwasroisteodfotwhne
cier
sous interview. It also prepared the mind-set of our participants and observationguideandnotedverbatimwhattheinterviewerssaid.
s
Aal stimulatedthemtotakearecruitmentperspectiveontheinterview Observedbehaviorsweredescribedwithasmuchdetailaspossi-
ologicalindividu tionteernvsieuwres.that we had a common basis for the data from all bfillele.dAotutthaesuernvdeyoftheaatcchovoebresedrvdaetmioong,rathpehicobasnedrvceodnteinxtteirnvfioerwmears-
he Furthermore,ourinterviewquestionswerecontinuouslyadapted tion.Asdescribedabove,theobservedbehaviorswerethenincor-
ch
Psyoft during the data collection process depending on the insights we porated into the in-depth interviews with interviewers to ensure
ne gained (Glaser & Strauss, 1967): Questions asked earlier in the that they actually constituted instances of IM rather than some
as
cu
erial researchprocessweredifferentfromthoseaskedlateraswebetter otherkindofbehavior.
Amson understoodtheinterviewers’andapplicants’experiencesandcon-
eer texts(seeAppendicesAandB).Forinstance,toverifyideasthat
hp Data Analysis
ythe emerged from applicants’ statements or from observations, we
bt
yrightedolelyfor athodaavvpieotrerisdfytrhatehthaqeturethsttehisoaennsbsfeoohrmaoveuiororistnh-wedree,rpetnhaintiunterteanrltlviyoienwoalcslcywuraitrphinpiglnietedbrevIhiMeawvibeoerrs-. (fGouClarosmenratei&nntsStterapansu.saFsl,yir1ssi9ts,6.d7a;FtSaouwldloedwraebinying,s2p0eg0cr6toe)ud,nasdlelenddtaetnatchweeoebrryyesaenpnartlieynnzcceiepdlbeinys
ps
coed Hence,ourin-depthinterviewsbecameincreasinglyfocusedover twoindependentratersofapooloffiveraters(thefirstauthor,the
isnd thecourseofthestudy. I–O master’s-level student who also served as an observer, and
entnte At the beginning of each in-depth interview, participants were three other I–O master’s-level students). Raters participated in a
mi
docucleis ecnesssuirnegd.oTfhecyonwfiedreenitniastlrituyctaenddtoanaonnswymeritoyudruqruinesgtifounrsthbearsdedatoanptrhoe- hparalfc-tdicaeyhtroawinitnogcsoedsseio(en.gc.o,nhdouwctetdobayppthlyeafinrdstmauotdhiofrytocalteeagronriaensd)
hisarti employment interviews they had conducted (or participated in as usingthecodingsoftwareATLAS.ti6(Friese,2011).Theuseof
Ts
hi an applicant) within the past 12 months. At the end of each twocodersensuredmultipleperspectivesonthedata,assuggested
T
in-depth interview, participants were given a survey that covered byCorbinandStrauss(2008)toincreasecreativityintheanalysis
demographic and context information. Furthermore, we audio re- whilealsodecreasingpersonalbias.Furthermore,toincreaseim-
cordedallin-depthinterviews. mersion in the data content, one of these two coders had always
Observations. AsinterviewerIMbehaviorsmightnotalways either conducted, observed, or transcribed the in-depth interview
berecognizedbyeitherinterviewersorapplicants,wedecidedto under investigation and was therefore familiar with the interview
observe 10 actual employment interviews. Following recommen- content. Regarding the coding of the in-depth interview data,
dations by Bluhm et al. (2011), these observations served as an interviews were transcribed verbatim until we came closer to
additional data source to develop ideas on possible interview IM saturation(i.e.,whenthenumberofnewcategorieswasdecreasing
categoriesthatcouldbeverifiedinsubsequentin-depthinterviews notably). This was the case when 20 of the interviews had been
withinterviewers. transcribed, which totaled 613 double-spaced pages. For the re-
Theobservedemploymentinterviewswerebetween25minand maining 10 interviews, tape recordings were directly coded. Ob-
2hrlongandtookplaceinsevendifferentorganizations.Twoof servationswerecodedbasedonobservationnotesand,ifavailable,
these employment interviews were with the same interviewers. onaudioandvideorecordings.FollowingKreiner,Hollensbe,and
318 WILHELMY,KLEINMANN,KÖNIG,MELCHERS,ANDTRUXILLO
Sheep (2009), coding was done based on an evolving system of Memberchecks. Finally,weconductedmemberchecks(also
categories,aso-calledcodingdictionarythatwascontinuallymod- knownasparticipantchecks,informantfeedback,communicative
ified based on iterative comparisons between newly coded and validation, or respondent validation) to give voice to our partici-
previously analyzed data. Each word, sentence, paragraph, and pants(Bluhmetal.,2011)andtoensurethatthecategoriesderived
passagewasseenasafeasiblecodingunitandcouldbecoded.The in this study were indeed grounded in the data (Yanow &
ATLAS.ti 6 software was used to enter codes, perform text and Schwartz-Shea, 2006). Member checks imply that categories are
audio searches, and identify intersections of codes (following testedwithmembersofthosestakeholdinggroupsfromwhomthe
recommendationsbyGrzywaczetal.,2007). data were originally collected (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). We went
In a second step, the two coders met in joint coding meetings. backtothe30participantsinthein-depthinterviewsandaskedfor
They compared individual codings and discussed discrepancies their feedback on our categories. Three of these member checks
untilconsensuswasestablishedaboutwhichcodewasappropriate. were conducted by telephone, and 23 were conducted online (an
Furthermore,thetechniqueoftriangulationwasused,meaningthat 86.7%overallresponserate).
agreement and discrepancies among different data sources and First, participants were introduced to all of the categories de-
publishers.natedbroadly. dtolhaibrfeslfyyeerrlvevenaadttliutotoyanbpstlehesoefoinsfaasdicmgatuhetaatsclwaietenemrtgeopoelrnxoioeaysnmmv(ieeWnnrebtidalillanigntae,dnr2dvd0iie0sawcr9tu)is.sfaspFecrodtourvtaoeildxsieaendmetewpprvlaheiree,ttiwohcuueerr-r rpEoianvar.cethdiRcgiiepnrgaoanutrhtpdsisiwnwsgaetsurtedghyiitvs.heeAnsnusabawdsllaieofmfcewaprtleeeerndetotsifonutbceosarnaetemesgtopeodflreifeioonsfu,ircnpad-atdeirfegtfipoectrrihpeienafsntettegosdrfbowoaucecpurkses,.
sallieddissemi IeMrs.bTehheasveiobreshathvaiotrwsewreerenoetitshpeornctoannfeiormuseldywrehpeonrtwededbiyreicnttleyrvasiekwed- auassskkeefeuddltftooorwicnhodanitcceeaxptetteunwatlhiztehitnehgyeribnetthleierevvibeeedwhetahrvaiItoMres.acSrheppesrcienifsgieclneatleclyda,tetdgheoelryibyewwreaartees
ite interviewersaboutthem(e.g.,displayingapplicationdocumentson
ofob theinterviewtable)ornotconfirmedandthusnotintegratedinto interviewer IM in terms of behaviors that are applied to create
oneott oursystemofcategories(e.g.,displayingone’ssecuritypass). favorable applicant impressions. Second, we asked participants
orisn Inathirdstep,codersidentifiedabstractcategoriesorconcepts whether any categories should be merged, deleted, divided, or
ationand attheendofeachjointmeetingtoenhancetheconceptualstructure aTdhdiredd,awnedawnhaelythzeerdthpeayrtiwciopuanldts’chiadnegaes tahnedccaotemgmoreiensta’risetrsu,cwtuernet.
cier of the categories. The aim was to “lift” the data to a conceptual
ssous level by comparing codes and ideas emerging from the data back to our data for confirmation, and integrated the results into
Aal oursystemofcategories.
aldu (Martin&Turner,1986).Codersremainedattentivetohowthese
ologicindivi ainbgstrraecsetacrocnhcecpotusldwebreeureseladtetdotiodeenxtiisftyinagnrdesneaamrcehnaenwdhcoawtegeoxriisets- Results
he
ycth (Locke,2001).Afterthesemeetings,anynewcategories(includ-
Psof ing descriptions and example quotes) and any category changes Overview
ne
caus weredocumentedinthecodingdictionary.
eAmeriersonal cepIntuaalfloeuvretlh, ostuerpa,ntoalymsiosvfeocfuurstehdermfaroinmlyaondehscorwipttihveectaoteagocroines- ctiroeTnashteeainamidmprbeoesfhsatihovinisosrsostunadanypdwpwlaicshaytnottsihneivnyetseetnrigmgaastgeoehfoiinnwtetihrnvetsieeerwvbieeerwhIaeMvrsioitnrrstyenitno-
ythhep were linked (Schilling, 2006), especially on links between inter- termsofintendedIMoutcomes.RegardinginterviewerIMinten-
bt viewerIMintentions,behaviors,andintendedoutcomes.Forthis
yrightedolelyfor pinugrspoosfet,heonine-draetpetrhwinetnetrvbiaecwkstwoitthheinttrearnvsicerwipetrssatondexaaumdiionerewchoircdh- tiiinnottnoens,ttiwtohnoesmdthaaatjatorraenftahelreymtsoiessinyt(ieesrelvdeieedTwafeibrvlsee’co1av)t:eergproirdrimiinesagrtyghoaiatnltweorefvrioeerwpgraeenrsiezIneMtd-
iscopndeds cthaetemgeoroievserwthereecroeuprosreteodfteoagcehthiner-dienpttherminsteorvfiefowr.mAinllgoafcthoemlminokns itnragcttihveenoersgsaannizdastiiognn,altihnegjaoubt,heanntdicitthye)masnedlvseesco(ni.dea.,rysiignntearlivnigewaet-r
entnte that were identified were documented to gain an overview about IM intentions that refer to interviewers’ actual personal interac-
documcleisi wstrhoicnhgecsta,teagnodriweshicwherpeatatesrsnoscioafteads,sowchiaictihonassseomceiargtieodn.s were the tiinontesrmwisthofappprloicfeasnstiso(nia.eli.s,msi,gnaanldinsgigcnloalsienngesdsi,sstaignncaeliinngtderismtasncoef
hisarti Interrateragreement. Giventheemergentnatureofourcat- superiority).IntermsofinterviewerIMbehaviors,wefoundfive
This egories, it was not possible to determine interrater agreement differenttypesofbehavior:verbal,paraverbal,nonverbal,artifac-
T
duringtheprimarycodingprocessdescribedabove.Therefore,we tual, and administrative interviewer IM behaviors (see Table 2).
engagedinasecondarycodingprocesstotestthereliabilityofour WithregardtointendedinterviewerIMoutcomes,wefoundthree
categoriesandtodeterminethefitoftheemergentcategorieswith different types: outcomes related to the interview’s recruitment
thedata(Butterfield,Trevino,&Ball,1996).FollowingKreineret function, outcomes related to the interview’s selection function,
al.(2009),wegavetwoofthefivecodersmentionedaboveafinal andoutcomesrelatedtotheinterviewersthemselves(seeTable3).
version of the coding dictionary that had emerged as well as a As can be seen in Tables 1–3, these types of IM intentions,
representative transcript subsample of 60 pages (10%, following behaviors,andintendedoutcomescouldeachbefurtherdifferen-
Bluhmetal.,2011)containing185interviewpassages.Thecoders tiated into higher level (left column) and lower level categories
were instructed to assign each interview passage to the category (rightcolumn)basedonourdata.Inaddition,manyoftheemer-
that they believed best represented the passage. The overall per- gentcategorieswereunanticipatedbypastIMresearch(indicated
centage of agreement between the two coders was .91, and Co- by the italicized category names in Tables 1–3). Our conceptual
hen’s(cid:3)was.88,suggestingverygoodagreement(Fleiss&Cohen, modelofinterviewerIMisdepictedinFigure1anddisplayshow
1973). interviewerIMintentions(squareboxes),behaviors(round-edged
INTERVIEWERIMPRESSIONMANAGEMENT 319
Table1
HowInterviewersApplyImpressionManagement(IM):StructureofInterviewerIMIntentions
Higherlevelcategories Lowerlevelcategories
PrimaryIMintentions:Whatdointerviewersintendtosignaltoapplicantswithregardtorepresentingthe
organization,thejob,andthemselves?
1.Attractiveness
2.Authenticity
SecondaryIMintentions:Whatdointerviewersintendtosignaltoapplicantswithregardtotheirpersonal
interactionwiththeapplicant?
3.Closeness 3a.Buildingrapport
3b.Individualityandappreciation
y. 3c.Trustworthiness
s.adl 4.Distanceintermsofprofessionalism 4a.Fairness
herbro 4b.Selectioncomplexityandeffort
dpublisminated 5.Distanceintermsofsuperiority 455cab...SSPtteraratfuiogsrhmatnfaodnrcwpeoawredxenpreeoscstfadtieocnission
salliedisse Note. CategoriesofinterviewerIMintentionsthatareprintedinitalicsare5nce.wSuinspceonmseparisontoBarricketal.
ite
ofob (2009)andJonesandPittman(1982).
et
onot
n
ors cells), and intended outcomes (at the end of arrows outside of While the intention of appearing attractive is in line with the
i
ciationerand bFoigxuerse)1arearleinnkoetd.coPmleparseehneontseivtehabtutthceoInMstibtuetheavreioprrsespernetsaetinvteedexin- dinotmenitniaonntoufnadpeprsetaarnindgingauothfeInMtic(ea.dgd.,sJaonneism&porPtiatntmtnanew,1a9s8p2e)c,tt.hIet
os
ssu amples to demonstrate the main patterns of relationships that we suggests that for interviewers, creating realistic images is impor-
alAdual found among IM intentions, behaviors, and intended outcomes tant not only in terms of realistic job previews and self-selection
ologicindivi gleanedfromTables1–3. (taWkeannosuesr,io1u9s7l6y)bbyutaaplpsloiciannttesr.msofbeingperceivedassincereand
he
ycth How Interviewers Apply IM Furthermore,participantstoldusaboutadditionalIMintentions
Psof thatwecalledsecondarybecauseincontrasttothetwoprimaryIM
ne Whatareinterviewers’IMintentions? Togaininsightsinto
caus intentions, these intentions seemed to be more closely related to
erial howinterviewersapplyIM,weanalyzedinterviewers’underlying interviewers’ personal interaction with the applicant and were
Amson intentions. We found a broad spectrum of impressions that inter- usually mentioned later in the in-depth interviews (see Table 1).
eer viewersintendtocreateonapplicantsandfoundthatdifferentaims
hp RegardingsecondaryinterviewerIMintentions,threemajorcate-
bytthe or foci can be distinguished. We found that interviewers try to gories emerged from what interviewers reported in the in-depth
yrightedolelyfor ittnheafelmuine,tntehcreeviajeopwbpe,liracsnatdnhtetihmmespeorlrevgseassnioibznuasttinaoolnstoaosrnelagyawrredhgionalrged.iinmFgoprrimeesxpsairomenspssiloeo,nfsotnhoeef iinntetervrmieswso:fspigrnoafelisnsgiocnlaolsiesmnes(sIM(IMInItnetnetniotinon43),),asnigdnsailginngaldinisgtadnicse-
ps tance in terms of superiority (IM Intention 5). As can be seen in
coed interviewersaid1: Table 1, these secondary intentions could each be further differ-
sd
in
entnte The impression I create on the applicant concerning myself as a entiatedintolowerlevelcategoriesbasedonthedata.
documcleisi pthearts’osnthaenbdacsoisnfcoerrnthinegwohuorleco[hmirpianngy]parnodceosusrtwhaatymoafywsotarrktinafgt,erIwthairndks inItenrtmersesotfinsgulpye,rtihoeristyecionnddicaartyesinttheartviienwteervriIeMweinrstednotinoontoaflwdiasytasntcrye
Thissarti .ev.e.ryWthhiantgcIo’umntrsepisretsheenptienrgc.e(pItniotenrvthieawtethre62c)andidategetsofmeand tiontebrevfieriwenedrslymaingdhtbruaitlhderraphpavoerttwheithinttheentaiopnplitcoansitg.nInalstohmeiercsatasteuss,
hi
T andpower(IMIntention5a)ortoconveyafeelingofuncertainty
Hence,comparedtoapplicantIM,interviewerIMmaybecon-
to applicants about the likelihood of receiving a job offer (IM
sidered a more complex phenomenon because applicants’ major
Intention5c).
(and maybe only) aim is to enhance interviewer impressions of
How are interviewers’ IM intentions interrelated? Data
themselves(cf.Barricketal.,2009).
analyses revealed various interrelations between interviewer IM
Furthermore, we noticed that early in the in-depth interviews,
participantsmainlytoldusabouttheimpressionsapplicantsshould
receiveregardingtheorganization,thejob,andtheintervieweras 1For the sake of brevity, quotes supporting these categories are not
aperson.AstheseIMintentionshavetodowiththemaingoalof presented for all categories but are available from the first author upon
theinterviewer(i.e.,representingthecompany)andconstitutevery request.
basic intentions, we called them primary (see Table 1). Data 2Quotesarelabeledwithparticipantcodenumbers,whicheitherstart
with “Interviewer” to indicate that an interviewer was the source of
analysissuggestedthatinterviewerIMservestwomainpurposes:
informationor“Applicant”toindicatethatanapplicantwasthesourceof
signalingattractiveness(IMIntention1)andsignalingauthenticity information.Moredetailedinformationaboutanyquotespresentedinthis
(IMIntention2). articleisavailablefromthefirstauthoruponrequest.
320 WILHELMY,KLEINMANN,KÖNIG,MELCHERS,ANDTRUXILLO
Table2
HowInterviewersApplyImpressionManagement(IM):StructureofInterviewerIMBehaviors
Higherlevelcategories Lowerlevelcategories
VerbalIMbehaviors:Whatdointerviewersdeliberatelysaytoinfluenceapplicantimpressions?
1.Self-focused 1a.Self-enhancement
1b.Demonstratingjob knowledge
1c.Demonstratinghumor
1d.Tellingpersonalstories
1e.Expressingenthusiasm
2.Applicant-focused 2a.Referringtotheapplicantbyname
2b.Demonstratingknowledgeoftheapplicant
2c.Applicant-enhancement
2d.Goalsettingfortheapplicant
2e.Demonstratingempathy
s.adly. 22fg..TOhfafenrkiinnggsupport
herbro 2h.Givingvoice
s
blied 2i.Challenging
punat 2j.Applicant-depreciation
dmi 3.Fit-focused 3a.Fitenhancing
itsallieedisse 4.Job-,team-,ororganization-focused 344bab...EDGneohmaalonsncesetttmrinaetgnintfgoorfsitjmhoebil,jaotrebiat,ymte,aomr,oorrgaonrgizaantiizoantion
ofob 4c.Confessing
et 4d.Positiveframing
onnot 5.Interviewprocess-focused 5a.Enhancementoftheinterviewprocess
oris 5b.Apologizing
ationand 6.Throughstyleofcommunication 66ab..PVaerrabpahlreanscionugraagnedmsuenmtmarizing
ociser 6c.Modifyingtheapplicant’sspeechportion
ssu 6d.Modifyingone’sdetailednessoflanguage
ologicalAindividual 66ef..AMdoadpitfiynigngonoen’es’svofocrambuallaitryyoafnldandgiaulaegcet
he ParaverbalIMbehaviors:Howdointerviewersdeliberatelyusetheirvoicetoinfluenceapplicant
ch
Psyoft 7.Speakinginanempatheticway impr7eas.siSopnesa?kingwithlowpace
anse 7b.Speakingwithlowvolume
cu
erial 7c.Speakingwithhighpitch
mn 8.Speakinginanauthoritativeway 8a.Speakingwithhighpace
eAerso 8b.Speakingwithhighvolume
hp 8c.Speakingwithlowpitch
ythe 9.Speakinginanunobtrusiveway 9a.Speakingwithmoderatepace
bt
yrightedolelyfor 99bc..SSppeeaakkiinnggwwiitthhmmooddeerraatteepvoitlcuhme
ps NonverbalIMbehaviors:Howdointerviewersdeliberatelyusebodylanguagetoinfluenceapplicant
coed impressions?
sd
in
mentinte 10.Towardtheapplicant 1100ab..LSamuiglihnigng
docucleis 1100cd..NMoadkdininggeyaeffciromnataticvtely
hisarti 10e.Makinghandgestures
Ts 10f.Leaningforward
hi 10g.Mirroring
T
10h.Notetaking
10i.Shakinghands
10j.Backslapping
10k.Doingsomethingelse
11.Towardotherinterviewers 11a.Smiling
11b.Noddingaffirmatively
11c.Mirroring
(tablecontinues)
INTERVIEWERIMPRESSIONMANAGEMENT 321
Table2(continued)
Higherlevelcategories Lowerlevelcategories
ArtifactualIMbehaviors:Howdointerviewersdeliberatelyuseappearance,visualinformation,and
promotionalitemstoinfluenceapplicantimpressions?
12.Throughinterviewerappearance 12a.Modifyingone’sclothing
12b.Modifyingone’saccessories
13.Throughpremisesappearance 13a.Choosingtheinterviewbuilding
13b.Choosingtheinterviewroom
13c.Decoratingtheinterviewroom
13d.Checkingthelightintensity
13e.Choosingtheinterviewtable
13f.Choosingtheseatingfurniture
13g.Placementofseatingfurniture
y. 14.Throughvisualinformation 14a.Showingprintedinformationmaterial
s.adl 14b.Displayingapplicationdocuments
sherbro 1144cd..DDiissppllaayyiinnggnteosttersetsaukletsnpriortotheinterview
publinated 15.Throughpromotionalitems 1155ab..HHaannddiinnggoouuttpprrionmteodtiionnfoarlmgiafttisonmaterial
dmi
salliedisse 15c.Handingoutone’sbusinesscard
ite AdministrativeIMbehaviors:Howdointerviewersdeliberatelyusetimingofcommunicationandprovide
ofob servicestoinfluenceapplicantimpressions?
et
onot 16.Throughtimingofcommunication 16a.Ensuringtimelinessofpreinterviewcommunication
n
ors 16b.Modifyingtimelinessofinterviewstart
i
ationand 1166cd..MEnosduirfyininggtiimnteelrivnieeswsolefnfegethdback
ociser 16e.Offeringtimetothinktheofferover
ssu 17.Byprovidingservicestoapplicants 17a.Confirmingreceiptofapplication
alAdual beforetheinterview 17b.Givingdirections
hologiceindivi 111777cde...IAInncvvciiottiimnnggmttohhdeeaaatippnppglliiwccaaitnnhtttpbheyertsienoltneeparhlvlioyenwedate
ycth 17f.Accommodatingwiththeinterviewlocation
Psof 17g.Preventinginterruptions
anse 17h.Modifyingtheroomtemperature
cu
erial 17i.Airingtheinterviewroom
eAmerson 18.dBuyrinpgrotvhiediinngtersveirevwicestoapplicants 1188ab..ATpapkirnogacthheinagptphleicaapnpt’lsicjaanctket
byththep 1188cd..OOffffeerriinnggdarbinrkesak
yrightedolelyfor 111888efg...OIOnffcffeoerrripinnoggraartesifniutgendfvuiostuiftrteracvoellleeaxgpueensses
ps 18h.Escorting
coed 19.Byprovidingservicestoapplicants 19a.Givingfeedbackpersonally
sd
in aftertheinterview 19b.Givingfeedbackorally
entnte 19c.Givingdetailedfeedback
mi
hisdocuarticleis N(L2eo0vt0ea9.s)h,iCnBaaotaleingndoor,CieKasmaocpfmiionantre,(r2Tv0iue0rwn7l)ee,ryMI,McaFnbaderhlGaanvildisoterrastpathl(.a2t(02a00r8e0)5p,)r,DinPeteeGedrtoeinrostitaaannliddcsLMaieroevteonnweswid(2lion00c(6o1)m9,9pa9na)rd,isESoclnlhitsnoeeiBtdaearrlr.i(c1(k2908e01t2)a.)l,.
Ts
hi
T
intentions.Forinstance,thetwoprimaryinterviewerIMintentions intention, signaling distance in terms of professionalism and su-
ofsignalingattractivenessandsignalingauthenticitywerefoundto periority was reported less often and may thus play an important
constitute two separate dimensions that often co-occur with each role only for some interviewers. Interestingly, those interviewers
other(e.g.,“It’snotonlyaboutapositiveimpressionbutalsoabout who reported the intention of signaling distance always reported
arealisticone”;Interviewer15).Inaddition,thesetwointentions the intention of signaling closeness as well. This provides some
werereportedbymostinterviewers,whichindicatesthatsignaling indication that interviewers can have both intentions simultane-
attractivenessandsignalingauthenticityarebothfundamentalfor ously.
mostinterviewers. In addition, we found that all interviewers reported multiple
Furthermore,ourfindingsshowthatthesecondaryIMintentions primary and secondary IM intentions and that some of these
differ regarding their importance for interviewers. Whereas sig- intentions seemed synergetic while others seemed rather incom-
naling closeness was reported in almost all of the in-depth inter- patible. This is also represented in the way the different kinds of
views and thus seems to be a universal and fundamental IM impressions are arranged in Figure 1 in terms of being located
322 WILHELMY,KLEINMANN,KÖNIG,MELCHERS,ANDTRUXILLO
closertogetherversusfartherapart.Forexample,interviewerswith Connerley and Rynes (1997), who suggested that interviewers
the intention of creating an impression of authenticity often also mightsometimeshavethegoalofintimidatingapplicants.
reportedtheintentionofcreatinganimpressionofprofessionalism, NonverbalinterviewerIM. NonverbalinterviewerIMmeans
suchas: thatinterviewersusetheirbodylanguagetocreateimpressionson
the applicant. As shown in Table 2, we found that interviewers
Theremaybecompanies...thatonlypresentthepositiveandtryto may use nonverbal IM to create an impression of closeness—for
misleadpeople,butwithus,that’snotthecase...Idon’twantto
example,bylaughing(IMBehavior10a)andmakingeyecontact
persuade[theapplicant]ofsomethingthat’snottrue.Oneshouldbe
(IM Behavior 10d). For example, an interviewer reported, “To
truthful, open, transparent. I don’t think this is about putting on a
makesureit’scasualandcomfortable,maybechucklingwiththe
show.(Interviewer3)
candidates” (Interviewer 7). In addition, data indicated that non-
Incontrast,interviewerswiththeintentiontosignaldistancein verbal interviewer IM can also be applied in the form of body
terms of superiority rarely reported the intention of signaling contact.Thisincludesnotonlyhandshakes(IMBehavior10i),as
attractiveness, indicating that these intentions may be rather in- suggestedbyapplicantIMresearch(e.g.,McFarlandetal.,2005),
publishers.natedbroadly. cinnootmWteropvhnaialetyiwtbilIeneMrcsflouabrpdepeihnlvyateevarrivbobiarerlsowaadendordsr.iapnnatgreearvvoeiferbdwaieflfrebsreeahnpatvpIilMoyr?sbbehuWatveailofsorosuintnhdcalttuhddaoet beaenpnudpctelayolasfepolpetfhlrmiieceeannindnttsltyeimorbvfpaieercemwkss.psliaaoFtpnhusser,t(thIiscMeurclmiBhsoteearhnseai,mnvgiwiorerr(oc1frf0.ionjBu)g—nodtdhfieoethr,aae2ptx0pa1liimn1ct)apenrltevot’,iseianwtpfotelhusres--
sallieddissemi nonVveerrbbaall,ianrtteirfavcietuwaelr,aInMd.admVienribsatrlatiinvteerbveiehwaveirorIsM(semeeTaanbsleth2a)t. t1sue0rrcev)e.(IDaMsaItBaMeah(lsia.ove.i,roerdvo1ei0anlgge)dsaotnmhdaetnthaoidnldagcinukgnoraefflafeitmremdpaattotihvetehtlieycc(loiIsMntdeunBcinetghoafmvtihaoyer
ite interviewers use the content of what they are saying to influence
ofob applicant impressions. As can be seen inTable 2, results suggest interview; IM Behavior 10k). To irritate applicants and convey
oneott that verbal interviewer IM behaviors can be divided into self- superiority,someinterviewersintentionallyavoidedeyecontact—
orisn focused (i.e., interviewer-focused; IM Behavior 1); applicant- for example, by paging through documents or looking out the
ationand focused(IMBehavior2);fit-focused(IMBehavior3);job-,team-, wviienwdeorwstwatheidle: “aPpuptltiicnagntosnwaerpeoktaelrkifnagc.e,Fowrelel,xaImtpryle,toanresintrtaeirn-
cier or organization-focused (IM Behavior 4); and interview process-
ssous focusedIMbehavior(IMBehavior5).Additionally,anotherform myself”(Interviewer7).
Aal ArtifactualinterviewerIM. ArtifactualinterviewerIMrefers
ologicalindividu otpifoornvtieo(rInbM,aaldBinaetpehtriavnvigieoworne6er’)s,IMvsuocicshabmauosladmriyfoyadinnifgdydoininagele’tschtesttoyalptehpeolifacpacpnoltmisc’masnuptn,eiaecncahd- tWoehhomweiinerte,r2v0i0ew5,eprs.7u2s)e,“saunchobasjemctamniapduelabtiyngappreorfseosns”io(nHaol,rnstbaytu&s,
he andaestheticcuestoinfluenceapplicantimpressions(Gardner&
ycth usingverbalencouragers(e.g.,“mmmh,”“ya,”“yeah”).
Psof Analysisofourin-depthinterviewswithinterviewersindicated Martinko,1988;Schneider,1981).AscanbeseeninTable2,we
ne found that interviewers use four different kinds of artifacts to
caus that to place themselves, their organization, and the job in a
eAmeriersonal fmavatoiroanblaendligexhpt,reinssteervnitehwuseirassmaretoltihkeelayptpolicparnetse(nIMt pBoseihtiavveioirn1foer)-. cpprrleaeaymteeidseidsmuaraigpnepgse:athraaesnpicneetcet(rsIvMioefwBte(hIheMairviBaoperhp1aev3ari)oa,nrvc1ies4u)(a,IlManindfBogerimhvaeavatiiwooanry1sd2ios)r-,
ythhep Wealsofoundthattoinduceanimpressionofauthenticity,some- promotionalitemsforapplicants(IMBehavior15).
bt timesinterviewersintentionallystatenegativeaspectsofthecom-
yrightedolelyfor pwaenayknoerssthese ojofbthseucchomasp,a“nTyo.b.e.a,iuntdhiecnattiectahnedphoosniteisvte, Ibuintdaiclsaote raecpcFoeisrrtsseotd,ricethosan(tsIMitshteeBnyethmwaoviditohifrya1p2thpbel)iictroancilntoftIlhuMienngtcae(xIioMmnpoBrmeesihessaio,vniiosn.rtHe1ro2vwaie)ewvaeenrrds,
iscopndeds wfoeuankdnethssaetst”o(sIingtnearvliaetwtrearct1iv0e;nIeMssBdeeshpaivteionre4gca)t.ivFeuratshpeercmtso,rein,twere- itnhecoanptpreaasrtatnocaepopflicthaentsin,tienrtveirevwiewbuerilsdwinegre(IfMounBdehtoavailosro1c3oan)s,idine-r
entnte viewers often frame negative information in a positive way (IM terviewroom(IMBehavior13b),andtheseatingarrangement(IM
documcleisi Btryehtaovdioort4hdis).iFnoarefrxaanmkpwlea,ya,nininatesrtvriaeiwghetrforerwpoarrtdedw,a“yIp.e.r.sTohnearlely Binetehravviieowre1r3sga)id,as“Aacvoenrfyereimncpeorrtoaonmt I.M. .topoolr.traFyoirngintshteandceep,aartn-
hisarti are negative aspects regarding the work load but, of course, that ment,thatcertainlyhasamorepositiveimpactthanifonegetsthe
This resultsinahigherqualityofour[services].Sonegativeaspectsare impressionthatit’sachillycubbyhole”(Interviewer7;IMBehav-
T
justifiedinapositiveway”(Interviewer8). ior 13b). Additionally, regarding the seating arrangement, sitting
ParaverbalinterviewerIM. ParaverbalinterviewerIMrefers kitty-cornermayaimtocreateimpressionsofcloseness(e.g.,“then
tointerviewers’verbalbehaviorsotherthanwordsthatareapplied he [the applicant] certainly doesn’t feel so exposed . . . notlike
to influence applicant impressions (cf. Barrick et al., 2009; De- being before the court”; Interviewer 8), while sitting face-to-face
Groot&Motowidlo,1999).AsdepictedinTable2,wefoundthree mayaimtosignalsuperiority(e.g.,“it’salwaysbeenface-to-face
differentcategoriesofhowinterviewersmodulatetheirvoicewhen ...atypicalexamsituation”;Applicant1).
communicatingwithapplicants:speakinginanempatheticwayto Second, we found that interviewers provide applicants with
signalcloseness(IMBehavior7);speakinginanauthoritativeway visual information during the interview to convey images. For
to signal distance in terms of superiority (IM Behavior 8); and instance, interviewers reported that they intentionally display ap-
speaking in an unobstrusive, neutral way to signal distance in plicants’ application documents on the table (IM Behavior 14b),
termsofprofessionalism(IMBehavior9).Thefindingthatinter- sometimesmarkedinbrightcolors,tocreateaprofessionalimage.
viewers may intentionally talk in an authoritative way provides Finally,anaspectthathasnotbeenconsideredinpastresearchis
empirical support for propositions by Gilmore et al. (1999) and thatinterviewersmayhandoutgiveawaysandpromotionalitemsto