Search

Although research has long examined applicants’ use of impression management (IM) behaviors in the interview, interviewers’ IM has only been recently investigated, and no research has attempted to combine both. The aim of this research was to examine whether and how applicants and interviewers adapt their IM to one another. To answer this question, we bring together IM, signaling theory, and the concept of adjacency pairs from linguistics, and carried out two studies. Study 1 was an observational study with field data (N = 30 interviews including a total of 6290 turns of speech by interviewers and applicants). Results showed that both applicants and interviewers are more likely to engage in IM in a way that can be considered as a “preferred” (vs. “dispreferred”) response pattern. That is, self-focused IM is particularly likely to occur as a response to other-focused IM, other-focused IM as a response to self-focused IM, and job/organization-focused IM as a response to job/organization-focused IM. In study 2, we used a within-subjects design to experimentally manipulate interviewer IM and examine its impact on (N = 120) applicants’ IM behaviors during the interview. Applicants who engaged more in “preferred” IM responses were evaluated as performing better in the interview by external raters. However, “preferred” IM responses were not associated with any other interview outcomes. Altogether, our findings highlight the adaptive nature of interpersonal influence in employment interviews, and call for more research examining the dynamic interactions between interviewers and applicants.

Although research demonstrates that self‐verification striving can have positive outcomes in the hiring process, it remains unclear how this drive to present oneself authentically manifests in candidates’ behavior during job interviews. We examine whether self‐verifying behavior, including revelation of negative information about the self, is related to success in job interviews. Study 1 showed that self‐verification striving among 112 MBA students predicted their self‐verifying behavior during mock job interviews, which in turn led to success in converting interviews into actual offers 6 months later. Using a sample of 102 recent job seekers, Study 2 showed that self‐verification striving was associated with the extent to which candidates disclosed negative information about themselves during real job interviews, ultimately predicting their interview success., International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 28 (4)

Personnel selection research has recognized the importance of providing applicants with both standardized (i.e., “consistent”) and individualized (i.e., “personable”) treatment during interviews. However, research has yet to examine the mechanisms underlying the effects of perceived consistency and personableness in the interview on applicants’ attraction to organizations. Drawing from signaling theory, we investigate how interview consistency and personableness impact organizational attractiveness. To this end, we developed a conceptual model that proposes that applicants interpret perceived interview consistency and personableness as signals about what the organization is like in terms of symbolic organizational attributes (organizational competence and benevolence, Lievens and Highhouse 2003), which in turn influence perceptions of organizational attractiveness. A longitudinal three-wave field study with 129 applicants showed that applicants’ perceptions of both consistency and personableness positively impacted organizational attractiveness. Additionally, these effects were mediated by organizational competence perceptions, but not by organizational benevolence perceptions. Furthermore, consistency and personableness perceptions differed in their relative influence on organizational competence, benevolence, and attractiveness, with personableness perceptions being a more influential predictor. This study contributes to a nuanced theoretical understanding of how applicants interpret interviews as signals about how organizations treat their members.

I agree with and expand on Pratt and Bonaccio's (2016) view that in order to facilitate the use of qualitative research in our field, we need more guidance for industrial–organizational (I-O) researchers in terms of training, best practice articles, and criteria for evaluating research quality. Fortunately, the interest in and openness to qualitative research is slowly but steadily growing in our field, something that is reflected in small but increasing numbers of publications and best practice articles (Bluhm, Harman, Lee, & Mitchell, 2011; Smith, Madden, & Ashmos Plowman, 2015). To give an example, the Journal of Applied Psychology (JAP), a journal not well known for publishing qualitative research, has recently published a qualitative article written by my colleagues and me (Wilhelmy, Kleinmann, König, Melchers, & Truxillo, 2016).

To remain viable in today's highly competitive business environments, it is crucial for organizations to attract and retain top candidates. Hence, interviewers have the goal not only of identifying promising applicants but also of representing their organization. Although it has been proposed that interviewers' deliberate signaling behaviors are a key factor for attracting applicants and thus for ensuring organizations' success, no conceptual model about impression management (IM) exists from the viewpoint of the interviewer as separate from the applicant. To develop such a conceptual model on how and why interviewers use IM, our qualitative study elaborates signaling theory in the interview context by identifying the broad range of impressions that interviewers intend to create on applicants, what kinds of signals interviewers deliberately use to create their intended impressions, and what outcomes they pursue. Following a grounded theory approach, multiple raters analyzed in-depth interviews with interviewers and applicants. We also observed actual employment interviews and analyzed memos and image brochures to generate a conceptual model of interviewer IM. Results showed that the spectrum of interviewers' IM intentions goes well beyond what has been proposed in past research. Furthermore, interviewers apply a broad range of IM behaviors, including verbal and nonverbal as well as paraverbal, artifactual, and administrative behaviors. An extensive taxonomy of interviewer IM intentions, behaviors, and intended outcomes is developed, interrelationships between these elements are presented, and avenues for future research are derived.

Impression management (IM) refers to tactics used by individuals to influence the image others have of them. Such tactics are particularly relevant in situations where making a good impression is c...

Job search is a dynamic, self-regulated process during which individuals engage in various behaviors and strategies to obtain employment, while considering individual and contextual factors (e.g., ...

„Der richtige Mensch am richtigen Platz“ – dies ist nicht nur fur Organisationen wichtig, um von leistungsstarken Mitarbeitenden zu profitieren, sondern auch fur Bewerbende, um einer erfullten Arbeitstatigkeit nachgehen zu konnen. Damit eine hohe Passung gewahrleistet ist, wahlen sich Organisationen und Bewerbende gegenseitig aus. Gleichzeitig verfolgen Organisationen und Bewerbende das Ziel, ihre Auswahlentscheidungen gegenseitig zu beeinflussen – um die eigenen Chancen zu steigern, ausgewahlt zu werden, aber auch um den Grundstein zu legen fur eine langfristige Bindung.