Home Uncategorized Literature and Problem Statement

Uncategorized

Literature and Problem Statement

For this Discussion, you will evaluate the purpose statements in assigned journal articles in your discipline and consider the alignment of theory, problem, and purpose. You will also explain your position on the relationship between research and social change.

Alignment means that a research study possesses clear and logical connections among all of its various components. To achieve these connections, researchers must carefully craft the components of their study such that when they are viewed together, there is a coherent interrelationship.

As you read the authors’ purpose statements, consider how well the intent of the study, and its connection to the problem and theoretical framework, is presented. Also, consider if the purpose statement reveals the study’s potential for engendering positive social change.

As you know, social change is a distinguishing feature of Walden University’s mission. Positive social change implies a transformation that results in positive outcomes. This can happen at many levels (e.g., individual, family systems, neighborhoods, organizations, nationally and globally); and positive social change can occur at different rates: slow and gradual or fast and radical.

Journal Article

Wilhelmy, A., Kleinmann, M., König, C. J., Melchers, K. G., & Truxillo, D. M. (2016). How and why do interviewers try to make impressions on applicants? A qualitative study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(3), 313-332. doi:10.1037/apl0000046

Post a critique of the research study in which you:

Evaluate the authors’ use of literature.
Evaluate the research problem.
Explain what it means for a research study to be justified and grounded in the literature; then, explain what it means for a problem to be original.

The Use of Literature Checklist and Problem Statement Checklist serve as guides for your evaluations. Please do not respond to the checklists in a Yes/No format in writing your Discussion post.

Be sure to support your Main Issue Post and Response Post with reference to the week’s Learning Resources and other scholarly evidence in APA Style.

ResearchTheory, Design, and Methods Walden University

Use of Literature Checklist

Use the following criteria to evaluate an author’s use of literature.

• Look for indications of the following ways the author used literature:

• Introduce a problem

• Introduce a theory

• Provide direction to the research questions and/or hypotheses

• Compare results with existing literature or predictions

• Did the author mention the problem addressed by the study?

• Is the purpose of the study stated?

• Are key variables in the study defined?

• Is information about the sample, population, or participants provided?

• Are the key results of the study summarized?

• Does the author provide a critique of the literature?

• Are sources cited to support points?

• Are the citations to recent literature (within the past 5 years with the exception
of seminal works)?

• Does the literature justify the importance of the topic studied?

Use of Literature Checklist

Research Theory, Design, and Methods Walden University

Problem Statement Checklist

Use the following criteria to evaluate an author’s problem statement:

• Is a problem identified that leads to the need for this study?

• Is a rationale or justification for the problem clearly stated?

• Is the problem framed in a way that is consistent with the research approach?

• Does the statement convey how the study will address the problem?

• Are the citations to literature current (i.e., within the past 5 years with the
exception of seminal works)?

Problem Statement Checklist

Litmus Test for a Doctoral-Level Research Problem

Background on these “litmus test” questions

· The distinguishing characteristic of doctoral-level research (as opposed to masters level) is that it must make an original contribution to the field. However, students may struggle to identify what will authentically contribute to their field or discipline.

· The most critical step in making such a contribution is to first identify a research problem with the 4 doctoral hallmarks below. Identifying a doctoral-level research problem is “necessary, but not sufficient,” to produce doctoral-level capstone.

REQUIRED DOCTORAL HALLMARKS OF THE RESEARCH PROBLEM

In Walden’s scholar-practitioner model, a research problem shows promise of contributing meaningfully to the field ONLY if the answer to ALL of the following questions is “yes.”

Yes

1. JUSTIFIED?

Is there evidence that this problem is significant to the professional field?

There must be relevant statistics (expressing an unjust inequality, financial impact, lost efficiency, etc.), documentable discrepancies (e.g., two models that are difficult to reconcile), and/or other scholarly facts that point to the significance and urgency of the problem. The problem must be an authentic “puzzle” that needs solving, not merely a topic that the researcher finds interesting.

2. GROUNDED IN THE LITERATURE?

Can the problem be framed in a way that will enable the researcher to either build upon or counter the previously published findings on the topic?

For most fields, this involves articulating the problem within the context of a theoretical or conceptual framework. Although there are multiple ways to ground a study in the scientific literature, the essential requirement is that the problem is framed in such a way that the new findings will have implications for the previous findings.

3. ORIGINAL?

For research doctorates (Ph.D.):
Does the problem reflect a meaningful gap in the research literature?
For the professional doctorates (Ed.D. and D.B.A.):
Does the problem describe a meaningful gap in practice?

4. AMENABLE TO SCIENTIFIC STUDY?

Can a scholarly, systematic method of inquiry be applied to address the problem?
The framing of the problem should not reveal bias or present a foregone conclusion. Even if the researcher has a strong opinion on the expected findings, scholarly objectivity must be maximized by framing the problem in the context of a systematic inquiry that permits multiple possible conclusions.

Seediscussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279955332

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

Qualitative Study

Article in Journal of Applied Psychology · March 2016

DOI: 10.1037/apl0000046

CITATIONS

44
READS

1,131

5 authors, including:

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

personality testing during personnel selection View project

Procrastination View project

Annika Wilhelmy

University of Zurich

17 PUBLICATIONS 70 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Martin Kleinmann

University of Zurich

115 PUBLICATIONS 1,874 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Cornelius J. König

Universität des Saarlandes

168 PUBLICATIONS 3,239 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Klaus Melchers

Ulm University

89 PUBLICATIONS 1,448 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Annika Wilhelmy on 08 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279955332_How_and_Why_Do_Interviewers_Try_to_Make_Impressions_on_Applicants_A_Qualitative_Study?enrichId=rgreq-a6f1f5f5e7a40dfcb6a30ca820afe70b-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI3OTk1NTMzMjtBUzoyODIyNTAwNDc0NDI5NDRAMTQ0NDMwNTA2MzM5OA%3D%3D&el=1_x_2&_esc=publicationCoverPdf

https://www.researchgate.net/project/personality-testing-during-personnel-selection?enrichId=rgreq-a6f1f5f5e7a40dfcb6a30ca820afe70b-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI3OTk1NTMzMjtBUzoyODIyNTAwNDc0NDI5NDRAMTQ0NDMwNTA2MzM5OA%3D%3D&el=1_x_9&_esc=publicationCoverPdf

https://www.researchgate.net/project/Procrastination-3?enrichId=rgreq-a6f1f5f5e7a40dfcb6a30ca820afe70b-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI3OTk1NTMzMjtBUzoyODIyNTAwNDc0NDI5NDRAMTQ0NDMwNTA2MzM5OA%3D%3D&el=1_x_9&_esc=publicationCoverPdf

https://www.researchgate.net/?enrichId=rgreq-a6f1f5f5e7a40dfcb6a30ca820afe70b-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI3OTk1NTMzMjtBUzoyODIyNTAwNDc0NDI5NDRAMTQ0NDMwNTA2MzM5OA%3D%3D&el=1_x_1&_esc=publicationCoverPdf

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Annika_Wilhelmy?enrichId=rgreq-a6f1f5f5e7a40dfcb6a30ca820afe70b-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI3OTk1NTMzMjtBUzoyODIyNTAwNDc0NDI5NDRAMTQ0NDMwNTA2MzM5OA%3D%3D&el=1_x_4&_esc=publicationCoverPdf

https://www.researchgate.net/institution/University_of_Zurich?enrichId=rgreq-a6f1f5f5e7a40dfcb6a30ca820afe70b-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI3OTk1NTMzMjtBUzoyODIyNTAwNDc0NDI5NDRAMTQ0NDMwNTA2MzM5OA%3D%3D&el=1_x_6&_esc=publicationCoverPdf

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martin_Kleinmann?enrichId=rgreq-a6f1f5f5e7a40dfcb6a30ca820afe70b-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI3OTk1NTMzMjtBUzoyODIyNTAwNDc0NDI5NDRAMTQ0NDMwNTA2MzM5OA%3D%3D&el=1_x_4&_esc=publicationCoverPdf

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Cornelius_Koenig?enrichId=rgreq-a6f1f5f5e7a40dfcb6a30ca820afe70b-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI3OTk1NTMzMjtBUzoyODIyNTAwNDc0NDI5NDRAMTQ0NDMwNTA2MzM5OA%3D%3D&el=1_x_4&_esc=publicationCoverPdf

https://www.researchgate.net/institution/Universitaet_des_Saarlandes?enrichId=rgreq-a6f1f5f5e7a40dfcb6a30ca820afe70b-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI3OTk1NTMzMjtBUzoyODIyNTAwNDc0NDI5NDRAMTQ0NDMwNTA2MzM5OA%3D%3D&el=1_x_6&_esc=publicationCoverPdf

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Klaus_Melchers?enrichId=rgreq-a6f1f5f5e7a40dfcb6a30ca820afe70b-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI3OTk1NTMzMjtBUzoyODIyNTAwNDc0NDI5NDRAMTQ0NDMwNTA2MzM5OA%3D%3D&el=1_x_4&_esc=publicationCoverPdf

https://www.researchgate.net/institution/Ulm_University?enrichId=rgreq-a6f1f5f5e7a40dfcb6a30ca820afe70b-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI3OTk1NTMzMjtBUzoyODIyNTAwNDc0NDI5NDRAMTQ0NDMwNTA2MzM5OA%3D%3D&el=1_x_6&_esc=publicationCoverPdf

INTERVIEWER IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT 1

How and Why Do Interviewers Try To Make Impressions on Applicants? A Qualitative Study

Annika Wilhelmy and Martin Kleinmann
Universität Zürich

Cornelius J. König

Universität des Saarlandes

Klaus G. Melchers
Universität Ulm

Donald M. Truxillo

Portland State University

This article is currently in press in Journal of Applied Psychology

Author Note

Annika Wilhelmy and Martin Kleinmann, Department of Psychology, Universität Zürich,

Switzerland; Cornelius J. König, Department of Psychology, Universität des Saarlandes, Germany;

Klaus G. Melchers, Institute of Psychology and Education, Universität Ulm, Germany; Donald M.

Truxillo, Department of Psychology, Portland State University, Oregon, USA.

We thank Talya N. Bauer and Adrian Bangerter for their helpful comments on earlier versions

of the paper. We are grateful to Stéphanie Weissert, Lisa Juliane Schneider, Romana Nussbaumer,

and Sabrina Engeli for their help with data collection and analysis, and to Michel Hunziker for his

help with data analysis. We would also like to thank Susanne Inglin, Domenico Amendola, and

Roger Keller for technical and methodological consultations.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Annika Wilhelmy, Department

of Psychology, Universität Zürich, Binzmuehlestrasse 14/12, 8050 Zurich, Switzerland. E-mail:

a.wilhelmy@psychologie.uzh.ch.

INTERVIEWER IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT 2

Abstract

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 for

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.

Keywords: employment interview, impression management, signaling theory, recruitment, qualitative

study

INTERVIEWER IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT 3

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

A Qualitative Study

The employment interview continues to be the most popular selection tool used by both

applicants and organizations to assess and select one another (Macan, 2009). It is characterized by

social exchange processes between applicants (who want to get hired) and representatives of the

organization (who want to attract and select the best candidates). To reach their goals, applicants and

interviewers try to detect what their interaction partner is interested in and try to use this information

to send appropriate signals (Bangerter, Roulin, & König, 2012).

Signaling processes in the interview have mainly been studied in terms of impression

management (IM) efforts (Delery & Kacmar, 1998). Scholars have repeatedly pointed out that

interviewers frequently use IM, and that these deliberate behaviors are a key factor for attracting

applicants and thus ensuring an organization’s economic success (e.g., Dipboye & Johnson, 2013;

Rosenfeld, 1997). However, it is striking that past interview research has rarely addressed the

phenomenon of interviewer IM, as most prior studies have limited their focus on how applicants use

IM (Koslowsky & Pindek, 2011). Furthermore, research has assumed that interviewers use the same

IM behaviors as applicants (e.g., Stevens, Mitchell, & Tripp, 1990) without taking a closer look at

what interviewers actually do when they interact with

applicants.

We define interviewer IM as interviewers’ deliberate attempts to create impressions on

applicants (cf. Schlenker, 1980) and argue that it is important to identify and explain interviewer

IM.

As outlined below, we argue that interviewers’ aims and opportunities may be different from those of

applicants, and therefore their IM efforts should be somewhat different as well. Furthermore, scholars

have noted that signaling theory, which is most often used to explain recruitment phenomena

(Bangerter et al., 2012; Spence, 1973), is currently not well-defined and understood in the context of

interviewers’ IM intentions and behaviors (Celani & Singh, 2011). Thus, to provide a more

INTERVIEWER IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT 4

comprehensive theoretical understanding of how and why interviewers try to create impressions on

applicants, it is crucial to learn more about interviewers’ deliberate signaling behaviors as well as

their underlying intentions.

Therefore, the aim of the present study is to use a qualitative approach to create a taxonomy

and a conceptual model by identifying and analyzing the broad range of possible interviewer IM

intentions, behaviors, and intended outcomes. We use this conceptual model to point out propositions

for future research on interviewer IM. Drawing on interdependence theory (Rusbult & Van Lange,

2003), this study sheds light on how interviewer and applicant IM are similar and distinct.

Furthermore, our study elaborates signaling theory (Bangerter et al., 2012; Spence, 1973) in the

interview context by gaining insights into specific signals that are deliberately used by interviewers,

and why these signals are being sent.

Theoretical Background

Signaling Processes in the Interview

The employment interview is a dynamic exchange in which interviewers and applicants

engage in social interaction, gather information, and create and form impressions (Levashina,

Hartwell, Morgeson, & Campion, 2014). Consequently, in the last two decades, researchers have

increasingly considered both interviewer and applicant perspectives and have given more attention to

how applicants and interviewers intentionally adapt their behaviors to pursue their interests (Dipboye,

Macan, & Shahani-Denning, 2012).

In employment interviews, applicants have information that is of interest to interviewers but

to which interviewers do not necessarily have access (e.g., information about applicants’ personality).

Similarly, interviewers have information that is of interest to applicants but to which applicants do

not necessarily have access (e.g., selection criteria). In situations like this, when two parties have

access to dissimilar information, signaling theory (Bangerter et al., 2012; Spence, 1973) is helpful for

INTERVIEWER IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT 5

describing and explaining behavior. According to this theory, signaling processes consist of several

elements, such as two primary actors – the signaler, sender, or insider (e.g., the interviewer), and the

receiver or outsider (e.g., the applicant) – as well as the actual signals sent by the signaler to the

receiver (Connelly, Certo, Ireland, & Reutzel, 2011). As Connelly et al. (2011) pointed out, the

signaler can also take an active part in this signaling process. For instance, interviewers can

deliberately choose whether and how to reduce information asymmetry by intentionally

communicating (or signaling) certain qualities to applicants who lack this information (Connelly et

al., 2011).

In this vein, IM behaviors reflect an intentional way of sending signals (cf. Schlenker, 1980).

While interviewers’ signals could be anything that is interpreted as a signal by the applicant,

interviewer IM refers to signals that are deliberately sent by the interviewer. In other words,

interviewer IM relates to a deliberate facet of signaling theory (Bangerter et al., 2012). In addition, it

is important to note that any behavior that an interviewer applies could constitute interviewer IM

behavior if this behavior is shown with the intention to create impressions on applicants (e.g., asking

challenging interview questions not only because they are part of the interview guide but also with

the intention to signal the organization’s high performance expectations). Conversely, if an

interviewer’s behavior is not linked with such an intention (e.g., asking challenging interview

questions only because they are part of the interview guide), it does not constitute interviewer IM.

Although signaling theory is the framework most often used to explain recruitment

phenomena, it is currently not well-defined and understood when it comes to organizational

representatives’ intentions and deliberate signaling behaviors (Celani & Singh, 2011). To further

develop signaling theory, there have been calls to view and study signals within their social context,

such as the context of employment interviews. As such, a typology of signals that are sent in certain

contexts – like the employment interview – would be of high value to partition these signals into

INTERVIEWER IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT 6

meaningful categories and thus further understand the signaling phenomenon. In addition, research

would benefit from investigating the incentives of signalers, such as the outcomes they want to

achieve by using signals (Connelly et al., 2011). Thus, the main focus of this study is on signaling

intentions, the signals that interviewers deliberately send through their behavior to create applicant

impressions, and the outcomes interviewers want to achieve.

Potential signaling on the side of the interviewer. When organizations try to attract and

retain promising applicants, deliberate signals such as interviewer IM behavior have been proposed

to be particularly important (Celani & Singh, 2011). Nevertheless, despite extensive calls in the

literature to examine how and why interviewers intend to affect applicant impressions (cf., Delery &

Kacmar, 1998; Dipboye & Johnson, 2013; Gilmore, Stevens, Harrel-Cook, & Ferris, 1999; Macan,

2009), there have been no systematic attempts to examine the broad range of IM behaviors used by

interviewers. However, evidence suggests that interviewers pursue specific goals and that there are

certain interviewer characteristics that positively influence applicant attraction (Chapman, Uggerslev,

Carroll, Piasentin, & Jones, 2005; Derous, 2007).

It is important to note that only vague categories of behavior have been examined with regard

to applicants’ perceptions of interviewer behaviors, (e.g., competent behavior, professional behavior,

friendly behavior, cf. Chapman et al., 2005). Whereas it has been found that certain interviewer

behaviors and characteristics influence recruiting outcomes, such as perceived interviewer

personableness, competence, informativeness, trustworthiness, warmth, humor, and job knowledge

(Carless & Imber, 2007; Chapman et al., 2005), the signals that interviewers deliberately send

through their behavior to create these intended impressions have not been identified. Knowing more

about these specific, deliberate signals is crucial because it would help interviewers to influence

applicant impressions and thus to enhance recruitment success.

INTERVIEWER IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT 7

Furthermore, we do not know to what degree these interviewer behaviors represent IM in

terms of intentional, goal-directed behaviors. For instance, Tullar (1989) examined on-campus

interviewer utterances and found that about two-thirds of the utterances could be categorized as being

structuring (e.g., expanding on a previous statement) and nearly one-third as demonstrating

equivalence such as mutual identification (e.g., “That is interesting”). Nevertheless, it remains

unclear whether, how, and why interviewers intentionally adjust their behaviors to create images on

applicants’ minds, for example, images of being competent, professional, or friendly.

Potential differences between applicants’ and interviewers’ signaling. Applicants and

interviewers find themselves in the same social setting, but it might be misleading to apply existing

applicant IM taxonomies to interviewers. There may be considerable differences in applicants’ and

interviewers’ roles, intentions, and scopes of action. Interdependence theory (Rusbult & Van Lange,

2003) focuses on the causal determinants of dyadic social behavior and provides a conceptual

framework on the structure of interpersonal situations. The main idea of this theory is that

characteristics of the situation (e.g., individuals’ interests, information, and level of dependence)

exert strong effects on individuals’ behavior, for example, IM behavior. Thus, although interviewers

should apply some IM behaviors similar to those of applicants, they should also apply different IM

behaviors because they differ from applicants regarding several situational characteristics.

First, interdependence theory (Rusbult & Van Lange, 2003) suggests that individuals are

likely to use IM in different ways when they pursue different goals. As pointed out by Bangerter et

al. (2012), applicants and interviewers have partly divergent interests. For instance, while applicants’

primary signaling interest is to get a job offer, one of interviewers’ interests is to identify, attract and

finally hire the best performer. With this end in mind, interviewers try to create an image not only of

themselves but also of the job and the organization as a whole (Connelly et al., 2011). In other words,

interviewers need to influence applicants’ image of multiple targets. Thus, in addition to IM

INTERVIEWER IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT 8

behaviors that we know from applicant IM research such as self-promotion or self-focused IM

behaviors (i.e., describing one’s past accomplishments and competencies in a positive way), and

ingratiation or other-focused IM behaviors (i.e., flattering one’s interaction partner), interviewers

may use additional strategies to promote the job and the organization.

Furthermore, many existing taxonomies distinguish between assertive IM behaviors that aim

to enhance one’s own image and defensive IM behaviors that aim at defending against threats to a

positive image (e.g., Ellis, West, Ryan, & DeShon, 2002; Van Iddekinge, McFarland, & Raymark,

2007). However, in addition to the goal of promoting or defending oneself, the job, and the

organization, interviewers have also been given recommendations to provide realistic information to

facilitate self-selection (Wanous, 1976) and to signal honesty (Earnest, Allen, & Landis, 2011). Thus,

in order to create realistic applicant impressions, interviewers may apply behaviors that go beyond

applicant IM and that should result in a broader range of IM behaviors than the ones that applicants

apply.

Second, according to interdependence theory (Rusbult & Van Lange, 2003), individuals’

behavior is influenced by the information that is available to them. This is particularly relevant in

employment interviews, which involve interaction between strangers and are characterized by the

presence of vague information about the other (Rusbult & Van Lange, 2003). For example,

interviewers have access to information on applicants’ past failures, potential weaknesses, and gaps

in the applicants’ CV – whereas applicants usually do not easily get information before the interview

regarding the job, the organization, and the interviewer. This depth of interviewers’ information on

applicants should give them more possibilities to deliberately send signals and should thus translate

into a broader set of IM behaviors as compared to applicants.

For example, while research on applicant IM has primarily focused on verbal IM behaviors

(i.e., the content of applicants’ responses and statements), scholars have pointed out that much more

INTERVIEWER IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT 9

could be considered as part of one’s attempt to create images (Dipboye et al., 2012). For instance,

nonverbal IM has been seen as a fruitful area of research, including IM behaviors such as smiling,

eye contact, body posture (Levine & Feldman, 2002), as well as head nods, handshakes, and hand

gestures (McFarland, Yun, Harold, Viera, & Moore, 2005). In addition, verbal behaviors through

ways other than words may be used, also referred to as paraverbal or paralinguistic behaviors

(DeGroot & Motowidlo, 1999). Examples of paraverbal behaviors include style of delivery (e.g.,

pitch and speech rate) and verbal fluency.

Third, interviewers and applicants are to some extent dependent upon each other, but in

distinct ways, which should result in some differences in their IM (Rusbult & Van Lange, 2003). For

instance, applicants rely on interviewers because interviewers’ evaluations affect their chances of a

job offer (cf. Barrick, Shaffer, & DeGrassi, 2009). Therefore, applicants aim to create positive

images. Similarly, interviewers depend on applicants in terms of applicants’ job choice behavior, and

hence intend to create impressions on applicants (Dipboye et al., 2012). However, interviewers are

usually in a more powerful position than applicants because applicants only get to make a decision

about whether or not to work for the organization if they are offered a job (Anderson, 1992).

Consequently, interviewers might have the intention of signaling this power by using IM behaviors

that go beyond applicants’ IM.

Aims of the Present Study

In summary, interviewers’ goals and opportunities for IM are likely to differ from applicants’

goals and opportunities. Therefore, to enhance our theoretical understanding of this phenomenon, it is

crucial to develop a comprehensive taxonomy and a conceptual model about the deliberate signaling

processes on the side of the interviewer in terms of interviewer IM. To address these empirical and

theoretical gaps, we want to explore three main questions with our qualitative study. Based on these

INTERVIEWER IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT 10

research questions, our aim is to develop a conceptual model and a taxonomy about how and why

interviewers apply IM.

Research Question 1: What do interviewers intend to signal to applicants, that is, what

are interviewers’ IM intentions?

Research Question 2: What signals do interviewers deliberately use to create their

intended impressions, that is, what IM behaviors do interviewers apply?

Research Question 3: What outcomes do interviewers want to achieve by deliberately

sending signals to applicants, that is, what are interviewers’ intended IM outcomes?

Method

Grounded Theory Approach

Grounded theory is a qualitative methodology that is particularly appropriate for our study

because it has been developed to understand phenomena about which little is known (Glaser &

Strauss, 1967) – such as interviewer IM. In addition, grounded theory has been shown to help

researchers understand complex social processes (Willig, 2009). Thus, it has been suggested that

researchers apply qualitative research strategies, like grounded theory, in employment interview and

IM research (cf. Macan,

2009).

A core characteristic of grounded theory research is that data collection and analysis are

closely interrelated to engage with a phenomenon as deeply as possible. As such, analyzing data

influences the strategy of data collection and vice-versa (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Hence, in our

study, data analysis influenced our subsequent choice of participants, interview questions,

observation emphasis, and our choice of topics for further data analysis.

Furthermore, grounded theory involves collecting data from multiple sources using multiple

techniques and analyzing it from multiple perspectives to create a multi-faceted sense of the

phenomenon (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Thus, following recommendations by Bluhm, Herman, Lee,

INTERVIEWER IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT 11

and Mitchell (2011), we sampled diverse interviewers and applicants and collected comprehensive

information from in-depth interviews with interviewers and applicants, observations of selection

interviews, the review of memos related to these in-depth interviews and observations, and the

review of informational material that was given or recommended to applicants during the interview.

These data were analyzed and discussed by multiple researchers (following recommendations by

Corbin & Strauss, 2008).

Moreover, according to grounded theory, data collection and analysis continues until no new

information is gained, that is, until no new categories and concepts emerge from the data. In the

present study, this point, which is called theoretical saturation (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), was reached

after analyzing 30 in-depth interviews, 10 observations of real employment interviews, 43 memos,

and 12 pieces of informational material.

Samples

To better understand interviewers’ IM behaviors, we studied samples of populations who had

firsthand experience with the social interaction processes in employment interviews: people regularly

conducting employment interviews (i.e., interviewers) and people who had recently been interviewed

in several employment interviews (i.e., applicants). We included applicants because signalers (i.e.,

interviewers) might not always report all of the signals they apply. Specifically, we used information

provided by applicants to develop ideas about possible interviewer IM intentions and behaviors. We

then asked interviewers whether the behaviors and intentions reported by applicants actually

represented deliberate interviewer IM.

To achieve high heterogeneity of data sources, we began our study with different variables in

mind that might influence interviewer IM, such as gender, age, interview experience, hierarchical

level, and educational level (Dipboye, 2005). Interviewers were 27 to 63 years old (M = 41.5, SD =

12.2), and 60.0% were male. Their interview experience ranged from several months to 40 years, and

INTERVIEWER IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT 12

the number of interviews conducted in the past 12 months ranged from 4 to 300. Furthermore, their

hierarchical levels were very diverse ranging from assistant positions (e.g., HR assistant) to senior

manager positions (e.g., commanding officer in the army), and their vacancies ranged from trainee

and administrative positions to positions with managerial functions. The industry sectors of these

vacancies were also very diverse, such as human health services, financial services, and the army.

Applicants were 25 to 46 years old (M = 31.1, SD = 7.7), and 33.3% were male. Their

interview experience was very diverse, ranging from 5 to 30 interviews, and the number of interviews

in which they had participated in the past 12 months ranged from 3 to 11. Furthermore, our applicant

sample consisted of people applying for various positions such as paid internships, administrative

jobs, PhD programs, executive officer, senior consultant, and senior manager positions in various

industry sectors ranging from human health services, financial services, travel services, to research

and education.

Following an approach within grounded theory called theoretical sampling (Eisenhardt &

Graebner, 2007), we did not determine a priori what kind of and how much data we wanted to

collect. Instead, we used information gathered during the research process to develop ideas about

who could be interviewed and observed next. These new data were used to see whether additional

relevant categories might emerge, whether categories were well established, and whether

relationships between categories were fully developed (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Thus, later in the

process, we also approached interviewers and applicants from industry sectors that were not yet

included in our sample (e.g., manufacturing and gambling services) because industry sectors were

mentioned as a potentially important aspect by participants. In addition, we purposely included

organizations that were facing difficulties regarding their reputation (e.g., a wholesale trade service

organization that had recently faced a scandal) because participants pointed out that this might help to

capture potential defensive strategies by interviewers. Furthermore, participants’ comments led us

INTERVIEWER IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT 13

additionally to include third-party interviewers (e.g., recruiting consultants) and interviewers within

an employing organization; interviewers with experience in college recruiting and in initial screening

interviews in addition to late-stage interviews; and interviewers and applicants with experience in

telephone interviews, video interviews, and panel interviews (because of the commonness of such

interviews). Sampling was done through job websites, an alumni pool of a Swiss university, and

references from our participants.

Data Collection

For data collection, we applied several methods as suggested by Bluhm et al. (2011): semi-

structured in-depth interviews of interviewers and applicants, observations of real employment

interviews, memos, and review of informational materials provided to applicants. It is important to

note that behaviors that were observed and ones that were reported by applicants provided us with

additional ideas of potential IM behaviors that we could verify in subsequent in-depth interviews to

ensure that these behaviors constituted IM (i.e., that they were applied by interviewers with the

intention of creating impressions on applicants). The in-depth interviews and observations are further

described below. Memos (one to two pages) were written subsequent to each in-depth interview and

observation and during the coding process. They were used to document ideas for data interpretation

and to engage in self-reflection about potential personal biases (see Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Suddaby,

2006). Furthermore, as suggested by Bansal and Corley (2011), informational material (such as

brochures) that was given or recommended to applicants was analyzed.

In-depth interviews. All of the 30 in-depth interviews (1 hour) with interviewers and

applicants were conducted by the first author in Switzerland and Germany. Regarding in-depth

interviews with applicants, the main goal was to develop ideas about what IM intentions interviewers

might have had and what signals they might have applied to create favorable impressions. Regarding

the in-depth interviews with interviewers, however, we placed special emphasis on whether they

INTERVIEWER IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT 14

really reported having had these intentions and whether they deliberately engaged in them in terms of

IM.

Following an orienting theoretical perspective (Locke, 2001), in-depth interviews were based

on semi-structured interview guides derived from insights gained during the review of the existing

literature. As can be seen in Appendices A and B, these interview guides covered four aspects: (a)

whether the particular impressions that applicants form during interviews might be important to

interviewers, (b) impressions that interviewers want applicants to form, (c) behaviors that

interviewers apply to create these favorable impressions, and (d) possible consequences of

interviewer IM. Part (a) of the interview guide ensured that our participants were concerned about the

impressions applicants form during the interview. It also prepared the mind-set of our participants

and stimulated them to take a recruitment perspective on the interview to ensure that we had a

common basis for the data from all interviews.

Furthermore, our interview questions were continuously adapted during the data collection

process depending on the insights we gained (Glaser & Strauss, 1967): Questions asked earlier in the

research process were different from those asked later as we better understood the interviewers’ and

applicants’ experiences and contexts (see Appendices A and B). For instance, to verify ideas that

emerged from applicants’ statements or from observations, we adapted the questions for our in-depth

interviews with interviewers to verify that these behaviors were intentionally applied IM behaviors

rather than some other, naturally occurring behavior. Hence, our in-depth interviews became

increasingly focused over the course of the study.

At the beginning of each in-depth interview, participants were ensured of confidentiality and

anonymity during further data processing. They were instructed to answer our questions based on the

employment interviews they had conducted (or participated in as an applicant) within the past 12

INTERVIEWER IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT 15

months. At the end of each in-depth interview, participants were given a survey that covered

demographic and context information. Furthermore, we audio-recorded all in-depth interviews.

Observations. As interviewer IM behaviors might not always be recognized by either

interviewers or applicants, we decided to observe 10 actual employment interviews. Following

recommendations by Bluhm et al. (2011), these observations served as an additional data source to

develop ideas on possible interview IM categories that could be verified in subsequent in-depth

interviews with interviewers.

The observed employment interviews were between 25 minutes and 2 hours long and took

place in seven different organizations. Two of these employment interviews were with the same

interviewers. Furthermore, one interviewer took part in both the in-depth interviews and the

observations. In addition, three of the employment interviews were not only observed but also audio

or video recorded. To avoid observer-expectancy effects, observation participants were not told that

this study examined interviewer IM behavior (Kazdin, 1977). Instead, they were briefly informed that

we were interested in the social processes taking place in employment interviews and were ensured

confidentiality.

The first author and a trained I/O Master’s level student conducted all of the observations

using an observation guide (see Appendix C). The goal of this observation guide was to help consider

all important aspects of the interview. The guide consisted of three main parts: observations prior to

the employment interview (e.g., what interviewers say and ask prior to the interview), different kinds

of interviewers’ IM behavior during the employment interview (e.g., how interviewers talk to the

applicants during the interview), and observations after the employment interview (e.g., body

language of interviewers after the interview). In addition, the observation guide contained sections

for unstructured observations in order to include data that might lead to new interpretations or

INTERVIEWER IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT 16

themes. Similar to the in-depth interview questions, the content of the observation guide was

constantly adapted in the course of the research process.

During and after each observation, the observers wrote down which IM behaviors

interviewers showed on the basis of the observation guide, and noted verbatim what the interviewers

said. Observed behaviors were described with as much detail as possible. At the end of each

observation, the observed interviewers filled out a survey that covered demographic and context

information. As described above, the observed behaviors were then incorporated into the in-depth

interviews with interviewers to ensure that they actually constituted instances of IM rather than some

other kind of behavior.

Data Analysis

Content analysis. Following grounded theory principles (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Suddaby,

2006), all data were analyzed in four main steps. First, data were inspected sentence by sentence by

two independent raters of a pool of five raters (the first author, the I/O Master’s level student who

also served as an observer, and three other I/O Master’s level students). Raters participated in a half-

day training session conducted by the first author to learn and practice how to code (e.g., how to

apply and modify categories) using the coding software ATLAS.ti 6 (Friese, 2011). The use of two

coders ensured multiple perspectives on the data, as suggested by Corbin and Strauss (2008) to

increase creativity in the analysis while also decreasing personal bias. Furthermore, to increase

immersion in the data content, one of these two coders had always either conducted, observed, or

transcribed the in-depth interview under investigation and was therefore familiar with the interview

content. Regarding the coding of the in-depth interview data, interviews were transcribed verbatim

until we came closer to saturation (i.e., when the number of new categories was decreasing notably).

This was the case when twenty of the interviews had been transcribed, which totaled 613 double-

spaced pages. For the remaining ten interviews, tape recordings were directly coded. Observations

INTERVIEWER IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT 17

were coded based on observation notes and, if available, based on audio and video recordings.

Following Kreiner, Hollensbe, and Sheep (2009), coding was done based on an evolving system of

categories, a so-called coding dictionary that was continually modified based on iterative

comparisons between newly coded and previously analyzed data. Each word, sentence, paragraph,

and passage was seen as a feasible coding unit and could be coded. The ATLAS.ti 6 software was

used to enter codes, perform text and audio searches, and identify intersections of codes (following

recommendations by Grzywacz et al., 2007).

In a second step, the two coders met in joint coding meetings. They compared individual

codings and discussed discrepancies until consensus was established about which code was

appropriate. Furthermore, the technique of triangulation was used, meaning that agreement and

discrepancies among different data sources and different types of data were examined and discussed

to see whether they led to the same categories (Willig, 2009). For example, our observations of actual

employment interviews provided particularly valuable insights into nonverbal and artifactual

interviewer IM behaviors that were not spontaneously reported by interviewers. These behaviors

were either confirmed when we directly asked interviewers about it (e.g., displaying application

documents on the interview table), or not confirmed and thus not integrated into our system of

categories (e.g., displaying one’s security pass).

In a third step, coders identified abstract categories or concepts at the end of each joint

meeting to enhance the conceptual structure of the categories. The aim was to ‘lift’ the data to a

conceptual level by comparing codes and ideas emerging from the data (Martin & Turner, 1986).

Coders remained attentive to how these abstract concepts were related to existing research, and how

existing research could be used to identify and name new categories (Locke, 2001). After these

meetings, any new categories (including descriptions and example quotes), and any category changes

were documented in the coding dictionary.

INTERVIEWER IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT 18

In a fourth step, to move further from a descriptive to a conceptual level, our analysis focused

mainly on how the categories were linked (Schilling, 2006), especially on links between interviewer

IM intentions, behaviors, and intended outcomes. For this purpose, one rater went back to the

transcripts and audio recordings of the in-depth interviews with interviewers to examine which

categories were reported together in terms of forming a common theme over the course of each in-

depth interview. All of the links that were identified were documented to gain an overview about

which categories were associated, which associations were the strongest, and which patterns of

associations emerged.

Interrater agreement. Given the emergent nature of our categories, it was not possible to

determine interrater agreement during the primary coding process described above. Therefore, we

engaged in a secondary coding process to test the reliability of our categories and to determine the fit

of the emergent categories with the data (Butterfield, Trevino, & Ball, 1996). Following Kreiner et al.

(2009), we gave two of the five coders mentioned above a final version of the coding dictionary that

had emerged as well as a representative transcript subsample of 60 pages (10 percent, following

Bluhm et al., 2011) containing 185 interview passages. The coders were instructed to assign each

interview passage to the category that they believed best represented the passage. The overall

percentage of agreement between the two coders was .91, and Cohen’s Kappa was .88, suggesting

very good agreement (Fleiss & Cohen, 1973).

Member checks. Finally, we conducted member checks (also known as participant checks,

informant feedback, communicative validation, or respondent validation) to give voice to our

participants (Bluhm et al., 2011) and to ensure that the categories derived in this study were indeed

grounded in the data (Yanow & Schwartz-Shea, 2006). Member checks imply that categories are

tested with members of those stakeholding groups from whom the data were originally collected

(Lincoln & Guba, 1985). We went back to the 30 participants in the in-depth interviews and asked for

INTERVIEWER IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT 19

their feedback on our categories. Three of these member checks were conducted by telephone, and 23

were conducted online (an 86.7 % overall response rate).

First, participants were introduced to all of the categories derived in this study. As we were

interested in in-depth feedback, participants were then allocated to one of four different groups. Each

group was given a different subsample of categories to focus on. Regarding this subsample of

categories, participants were asked to what extent they believed each single category was useful for

conceptualizing interviewer IM. Specifically, they were asked to indicate whether the behaviors

represented deliberate interviewer IM in terms of behaviors that are applied to create favorable

applicant impressions. Second, we asked participants whether any categories should be merged,

deleted, divided, or added, and whether they would change the categories’ structure. Third, we

analyzed participants’ ideas and commentaries, went back to our data for confirmation, and

integrated the results into our system of categories.

Results

Overview

The aim of this study was to investigate how interviewers try to create impressions on

applicants in terms of interviewer IM intentions and behaviors, and why they engage in these

behaviors in terms of intended IM outcomes. Regarding interviewer IM intentions, the data analysis

yielded five categories that we organized into two major themes (see Table 1): primary interviewer

IM intentions that refer to interviewers’ overriding goal of representing the organization, the job, and

themselves (i.e., signaling attractiveness and signaling authenticity), and secondary interviewer IM

intentions that refer to interviewers’ actual personal interactions with applicants (i.e., signaling

closeness, signaling distance in terms of professionalism, and signaling distance in terms of

superiority). In terms of interviewer IM behaviors, we found five different types of behavior: verbal,

paraverbal, nonverbal, artifactual, and administrative interviewer IM behaviors (see Table 2). With

INTERVIEWER IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT 20

regard to intended interviewer IM outcomes, we found three different types: outcomes related to the

interview’s recruitment function, related to the interview’s selection function, and related to

interviewers themselves (see Table 3). As can be seen in Tables 1 to 3, these types of IM intentions,

behaviors, and intended outcomes could each be further differentiated into higher-level (left column)

and lower-level categories (right column) based on our data. In addition, many of the emergent

categories were unanticipated by past IM research (indicated by italicized category names in Tables 1

to 3). Our conceptual model of interviewer IM is depicted in Figure 1 and displays how interviewer

IM intentions (square boxes), behaviors (round-edged cells), and intended outcomes (at the end of

arrows outside of boxes) are linked. Please note that the IM behaviors presented in Figure 1 are not

comprehensive, but constitute representative examples to demonstrate the main patterns of

relationships that we found between IM intentions, behaviors, and intended outcomes gleaned from

Tables 1 to 3.

How Interviewers Apply IM

What are interviewers’ IM intentions? To gain insights on how interviewers apply IM, we

analyzed interviewers’ underlying intentions. We found a broad spectrum of impressions that

interviewers intend to create on applicants, and that different aims or foci can be distinguished. We

found that interviewers try to influence applicant impressions not only regarding impressions of the

interviewers themselves, but also regarding impressions of the team, the job, and the organization as

a whole. For example, one interviewer said1 “The impression I create on the applicant concerning

myself as a person and concerning our company and our way of working, I think that’s the basis for

the whole [hiring] process that may start afterwards … What counts is the perception that the

1 For the sake of brevity, quotes supporting these categories are not presented for all categories but are available from the
first author upon request.

INTERVIEWER IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT 21

candidate gets of me and everything I’m representing” (Interviewer 62). Hence, compared to

applicant IM, interviewer IM may be considered as a more complex phenomenon because applicants’

major (and maybe only) aim is to enhance interviewer impressions of themselves (cf. Barrick et al.,

2009).

Furthermore, we noticed that early in the in-depth interviews, participants mainly told us

about the impressions applicants should receive regarding the organization, the job, and the

interviewer as a person. As these IM intentions have to do with the main goal of the interviewer (i.e.,

representing the company) and constitute very basic intentions, we called them “primary” (see Table

1). Data analysis suggested that interviewer IM serves two main purposes: signaling attractiveness

(IM intention 1) and signaling authenticity (IM intention 2).

While the intention of appearing attractive is in line with the dominant understanding of IM

(e.g., Jones & Pittman, 1982), the intention of appearing authentic adds an important new aspect. It

suggests that for interviewers, creating realistic images is important not only in terms of realistic job

previews and self-selection (Wanous, 1976), but also in terms of being perceived as sincere and taken

seriously by applicants.

Furthermore, participants told us about additional IM intentions that we called “secondary”

because in contrast to the two primary IM intentions, these intentions seemed to be more closely

related to interviewers’ personal interaction with the applicant and were usually mentioned later in

the in-depth interviews (see Table 1). Regarding secondary interviewer IM intentions, three major

categories emerged from what interviewers reported in the in-depth interviews: signaling closeness

(IM intention 3), signaling distance in terms of professionalism (IM intention 4), and signaling

2 Quotes are labeled with participant code numbers, which either start with “Interviewer” to indicate that an interviewer
was the source of information or “Applicant” to indicate that an applicant was the source of information. More detailed
information about any quotes presented in this article is available from the first author upon request.

INTERVIEWER IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT 22

distance in terms of superiority (IM intention 5). As can be seen in Table 1, these secondary

intentions could each be further differentiated into lower-level categories based on the data.

Interestingly, the secondary interviewer IM intention of distance in terms of superiority

indicates that interviewers do not always try to be friendly and build rapport with the applicant. In

some cases, interviewers might rather have the intention to signal their status and power (IM

intention 5a) or to convey a feeling of uncertainty to applicants about the likelihood of receiving a job

offer (IM intention 5c).

How are interviewers’ IM intentions interrelated? Data analyses revealed various

interrelations between interviewer IM intentions. For instance, the two primary interviewer IM

intentions of signaling attractiveness and signaling authenticity were found to constitute two separate

dimensions that often co-occur with each other (e.g., “It’s not only about a positive impression but

also about a realistic one,” Interviewer 15). In addition, these two intentions were reported by most

interviewers, which indicates that signaling attractiveness and signaling authenticity are both

fundamental for most interviewers.

Furthermore, our findings show that the secondary IM intentions differ regarding their

importance for interviewers. Whereas signaling closeness was reported in almost all of the in-depth

interviews and thus seems to be a universal and fundamental IM intention, signaling distance in terms

of professionalism and superiority was reported less often and may thus play an important role only

for some interviewers. Interestingly, those interviewers who reported the intention of signaling

distance always reported the intention of signaling closeness as well. This provides some indication

that interviewers can have both intentions simultaneously.

In addition, we found that all interviewers reported multiple primary and secondary IM

intentions, and some of these intentions seemed synergetic while others seemed rather incompatible.

This is also represented in the way the different kinds of impressions are arranged in Figure 1 in

INTERVIEWER IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT 23

terms of being located closer together vs. further apart. For example, interviewers with the intention

of creating an impression of authenticity often also reported the intention of creating an impression of

professionalism, such as “There may be companies … that only present the positive and try to

mislead people, but with us, that’s not the case … I don’t want to persuade [the applicant] of

something that’s not true. One should be truthful, open, transparent. I don’t think this is about putting

on a show” (Interviewer 3). In contrast, interviewers with the intention to signal distance in terms of

superiority rarely reported the intention of signaling attractiveness, indicating that these intentions

may be rather incompatible for interviewers.

What IM behaviors do interviewers apply? We found that interviewers apply a broad range

of different IM behaviors that do not only include verbal and paraverbal behaviors but also

nonverbal, artifactual, and administrative behaviors (see Table 2).

Verbal interviewer IM. Verbal interviewer IM means that interviewers use the content of

what they are saying to influence applicant impressions. As can be seen in Table 2, results suggest

that verbal interviewer IM behaviors can be divided into self-focused (i.e., interviewer-focused; IM

behavior 1), applicant-focused (IM behavior 2), fit-focused (IM behavior 3), job-, team-, or

organization-focused (IM behavior 4), and interview process-focused IM behavior (IM behavior 5).

Additionally, another form of verbal interviewer IM is modifying one’s style of communication (IM

behavior 6), such as modifying the applicants’ speech portion, adapting one’s vocabulary and dialect

to the applicant, and using verbal encouragers (e.g., “mmmh”, “ya”, “yeah”).

Analysis of our in-depth interviews with interviewers indicated that to place themselves, their

organization, and the job in a favorable light, interviewers are likely to present positive information

and express enthusiasm to the applicant (IM behavior 1e). We also found that to induce an

impression of authenticity, sometimes interviewers intentionally state negative aspects of the

company or the job such as, “To be authentic and honest, I indicate weaknesses of the company …,

INTERVIEWER IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT 24

indicate the positive but also weaknesses” (Interviewer 10; IM behavior 4c). Furthermore, we found

that to signal attractiveness despite negative aspects, interviewers often frame negative information in

a positive way (IM behavior 4d). For example, an interviewer reported, “I personally try to do this in

a frank way, in a straightforward way … There are negative aspects regarding the work load but, of

course, that results in a higher quality of our [services]. So negative aspects are justified in a positive

way” (Interviewer 8).

Paraverbal interviewer IM. Paraverbal interviewer IM refers to interviewers’ verbal

behaviors other than words that are applied to influence applicant impressions (cf. Barrick et al.,

2009; DeGroot & Motowidlo, 1999). As depicted in Table 2, we found three different categories of

how interviewers modulate their voice when communicating with applicants: speaking in an

empathetic way to signal closeness (IM behavior 7), speaking in an authoritative way to signal

distance in terms of superiority (IM behavior 8), and speaking in an unobstrusive, neutral way to

signal distance in terms of professionalism (IM behavior 9). The finding that interviewers may

intentionally talk in an authoritative way provides empirical support for propositions by Gilmore et

al. (1999) and Connerley and Rynes (1997), who suggested that interviewers might sometimes have

the goal of intimidating applicants.

Nonverbal interviewer IM. Nonverbal interviewer IM means that interviewers use their body

language to create impressions on the applicant. As shown in Table 2, we found that interviewers

may use nonverbal IM both to create an impression of closeness, for example by laughing (IM

behavior 10a) and making eye contact (IM behavior 10d). For example, an interviewer reported, “To

make sure it’s casual and comfortable, maybe chuckling with the candidates” (Interviewer 7). In

addition, data indicated that nonverbal interviewer IM can also be applied in the form of body

contact. This includes not only handshakes (IM behavior 10i), as suggested by applicant IM research

(e.g., McFarland et al., 2005), but also friendly backslaps (IM behavior 10j), for example at the end

INTERVIEWER IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT 25

of the interview. Furthermore, we found that interviewers apply elements of empathetic listening (cf.,

Bodie, 2011) to influence applicant impressions, such as mirroring the applicant’s posture (IM

behavior 10g) and nodding affirmatively (IM behavior 10c). Data also revealed that a lack of

empathetic listening may serve as IM (i.e., doing something unrelated to the conduct of the interview,

IM behavior 10k). To irritate applicants and convey superiority, some interviewers intentionally

avoided eye contact, for example, by paging through documents or looking out of the window while

applicants were talking. For example, an interviewer stated “Putting on a poker face, well, I try to

restrain myself” (Interviewer 7).

Artifactual interviewer IM. Artifactual interviewer IM refers to how interviewers use “an

object made by a person” (Hornby & Wehmeier, 2005, p. 72), such as manipulating professional,

status, and aesthetic cues to influence applicant impressions (Gardner & Martinko, 1988; Schneider,

1981). As can be seen in Table 2, we found that interviewers use four different kinds of artifacts to

create images: aspects of their appearance (IM behavior 12), premises appearance (IM behavior 13),

visual information displayed during the interview (IM behavior 14), and giveaways or promotional

items for applicants (IM behavior 15).

First, consistent with applicant IM taxonomies, interviewers reported that they modify their

clothing (IM behavior 12a) and accessories (IM behavior 12b) to influence impressions. However, in

contrast to applicants, interviewers were found to also consider the appearance of the interview

building (IM behavior 13a), interview room (IM behavior 13b), and the seating arrangement (IM

behavior 13g) as a very important IM tool. For instance, an interviewer said, “A conference room …

portraying the department, that certainly has a more positive impact than if one gets the impression

that it’s a chilly cubbyhole” (Interviewer 7; IM behavior 13b). Additionally, regarding the seating

arrangement, sitting kitty-corner may aim to create impressions of closeness (e.g., “then he [the

applicant] certainly doesn’t feel so exposed … not like being before the court,” Interviewer 8), while

INTERVIEWER IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT 26

sitting face-to-face may aim to signal superiority (e.g., “it’s always been face-to-face… a typical

exam situation,” Applicant 1).

Second, we found that interviewers provide applicants with visual information during the

interview to convey images. For instance, interviewers reported that they intentionally display

applicants’ application documents on the table (IM behavior 14b), sometimes marked in bright

colors, to create a professional image.

Finally, an aspect that has not been considered in past research is that interviewers may hand

out giveaways and promotional items to applicants to influence the impressions they gain, such as

informational material (IM behavior 15a), promotional gifts (IM behavior 15b), and business cards

(IM behavior 15c). These items can convey appreciation and help to stick in the applicant’s memory.

Administrative interviewer IM. While collecting and analyzing data, we noticed that many

interviewers were telling us about how they time their communication and provide services to

applicants to influence applicant impressions (see Table 2). We called this type of interviewer IM

“administrative” because it refers to behaviors connected with organizing the interview. Regarding

timing of communication (IM behavior 16), our study goes beyond existing work on pre-interview

communication (cf. Carless & Hetherington, 2011) by showing that interviewers may intentionally

ensure timeliness in order to create applicant impressions of closeness. For instance, one interviewer

said, “I think in a way it’s appreciation … So it’s fatal when somebody from the line management is

late for the interview” (Interviewer 8).

Concerning administrative interviewer IM by providing services to applicants (IM behaviors

16 to 19), our data suggest that many aspects of conducting interviews that have only been

understood as standard elements in previous research can actually constitute interviewer IM if these

behaviors are applied with the intention of creating impressions on applicants. For example,

interviewers reported sending confirmations of receipt of application documents to applicants (IM

INTERVIEWER IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT 27

behavior 17a) not only because it was part of the standard procedure, but also because they wanted to

convey appreciation, which makes it IM behavior.

In addition, interviewers seem to provide services for IM purposes not only during the

interview, but also beforehand and subsequently. For instance, to create an impression of closeness

before the actual interview, interviewers may call and invite applicants personally instead of asking

somebody else to extend an invitation (IM behavior 17c): “I prefer a personal telephone call. That

makes a completely different impression than an anonymous e-mail …When I talk to the person by

telephone, it seems much more significant” (Interviewer 11).

During the interview, offering drinks (IM behavior 18c), breaks (IM behavior 18d), site visits

(IM behavior 18f), and refund of travel expenses (IM behavior 18g) can be considered as IM, if these

service features are intended to serve as signals to the applicant (i.e., signals of professionalism). For

instance, one interviewer reported, “I offer something to drink. Often they [the applicants] don’t even

have the courage to pour the water themselves. Then I do that as well” (Interviewer 3). However,

interviewers may also intentionally choose not to offer certain drinks in order to signal

professionalism, such as “I don’t serve any coffee … I want to lay emphasis on professionalism

because to me, a selection interview is not an afternoon coffee party” (Interviewer 10).

After the interview, interviewers were found to intentionally influence applicant impressions

by modifying their way of giving feedback to applicants about interview results (e.g., by providing

feedback by telephone instead of by e-mail, IM behavior 19b). For example, an interviewer told us,

“Usually I do that orally. Communicating that we decided to choose somebody else, I try to do that

orally, if possible” (Interviewer 3).

When do interviewers apply which IM behaviors? Our analyses revealed that interviewers

apply different IM behaviors depending on their IM intentions. These links between interviewer IM

intentions and behaviors are depicted in Figure 1; behaviors (white, round-edged cells) are placed

INTERVIEWER IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT 28

within or touching intentions (light or dark gray, square boxes) to indicate association. First, we

found that most of the IM behaviors are used with a certain purpose, that is, there is a clear link

between each of these IM behaviors and a single IM intention. In Figure 1, this is visualized by cells

of behavioral examples that are located within each larger box representing an IM intention. For

example, expressing enthusiasm (IM behavior 1e) and decorating the interview room (IM behavior

13c) are often used with the intention to signal attractiveness (IM intention 1), whereas demonstrating

similarity (IM behavior 3b) is often used with the intention to signal closeness (IM intention 3).

Second, some IM behaviors are related to multiple IM intentions at the same time. In Figure 1, this is

visualized by cells of behavioral examples that are bridging the boxes of two different IM intentions.

For instance, positive framing (IM behavior 4d) may be used to signal both attractiveness (IM

intention 1) and authenticity (IM intention 2), and the IM behavior of incorporating future colleagues

(IM behavior 18e) may be used to signal both authenticity (IM intention 2) and superiority (IM

intention 5). It is noteworthy that we only found one IM behavior, challenging, with the goal of

creating a professional and superior image. Third, the remaining IM behaviors can be described as

being multipurpose, that is, they can be related to different IM intentions depending on how they are

applied. In Figure 1, these multipurpose IM behaviors are located in the center of the figure. For

example, interviewers can modify applicants’ speech portion (IM behavior 6c) in a way that the

portion is high to signal appreciation (IM intention 3b), or in a way that the portion is low to signal

status and power of decision (IM intention 5a).

As described above, we found that most of the variance regarding underlying IM intentions

lies within the lower-level categories of IM behaviors. However, we also found some indications

regarding how the five broad categories of IM behaviors (verbal, paraverbal, nonverbal, artifactual,

and administrative; see Table 2) might be linked to IM intentions (see Figure 1). For example,

paraverbal and nonverbal IM behaviors may play a particularly important role for signaling closeness

INTERVIEWER IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT 29

versus signaling distance. Paraverbal and nonverbal IM behaviors represent indirect ways of

communicating, which seems especially important regarding interviewers’ personal interaction with

applicants, that is, interviewers’ secondary IM intentions.

In addition, our data suggest that some interviewer IM behaviors are more prevalent than

others. Some IM behaviors were reported by almost all interviewers, which indicates that these

behaviors are rather universally applied and fundamental for interviewers (e.g., challenging,

modifying interview length, offering drinks). In contrast, some IM behaviors were reported only by a

few interviewers, which indicates that these behaviors are rather idiosyncratic (e.g., backslapping,

displaying test results, handing out promotional gifts).

Furthermore, our analyses revealed that those IM behaviors that are linked to the same IM

intention are most likely to be applied in combination. For instance, if an interviewer aims to signal

closeness (IM intention 3), IM behaviors such as demonstrating similarity (IM behavior 3b), referring

to the applicant by name (IM behavior 2a), and thanking (IM behavior 2f) tend to be combined. In

contrast, IM behaviors that are related to rather incompatible IM intentions are unlikely to be

combined.

Additionally, we found that that the use of IM behaviors might depend on the interviewer’s

industry sector. For instance, when we compared interviewers from the army with interviewers from

human health services, we found that those from the army reported more intentions to signal

authenticity and performance expectations to create a realistic image and enhance applicants’ self-

selection. This is in line with the army’s tough image and clear command structure. In contrast,

interviewers from the human health services such as hospitals put more emphasis on signaling

attractiveness by reinforcing the advantages of the job and their respective hospital (IM behavior 4a),

and put more emphasis on signaling closeness, for example, by stepping up to the applicant before

the interview (IM behavior 18a). As hospitals are service providers, these interviewers were also

INTERVIEWER IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT 30

much more concerned about applicants’ future consumer behavior (intended IM outcome 4c) in terms

of choosing their hospital if they require treatment. Thus, an interviewer’s industry sector is likely to

influence the specific set of IM intentions, behaviors, and intended outcomes that is applied.

Furthermore, we found that there are some interviewer IM behaviors that can only be applied

in certain interview settings such as panel interviews. Specifically, regarding nonverbal IM,

interviewers were found to intentionally smile at other interviewers (IM behavior 11a), nod in

response to other interviewers’ questions (IM behavior 11b), and mirror other interviewers’ body

postures (IM behavior 11c) to induce an impression of harmony and signal positive corporate

climate. These findings suggest that panel interviews may offer interviewers additional possibilities

for influencing applicant impressions.

What is more, interviewers may change their IM intentions and behaviors over the course of

the interview. For instance regarding paraverbal IM, interviewers and applicants reported that

interviewers tend to speak in an empathetic way (IM behavior 7) at the beginning and end of

interviews, and when asking delicate questions. In contrast, interviewers tend to speak in an

authoritative way (IM behavior 8) when asking challenging questions. For example, interviewers

reported, “I ask questions rather snappily” (Interviewer 7), and “When I want to hear an answer, then

I express myself in a very bald way, then I’m not welcoming anymore” (Interviewer 11). This

suggests that the way in which interviewers apply IM might depend on the timing in the interview

and on the content of the conversation.

Why Interviewers Apply IM

What are interviewers’ intended IM outcomes? To examine why interviewers apply IM,

we asked interviewers and applicants about their experiences and assumptions on intended IM

outcomes. As can be seen in Figure 1 and Table 3, our data revealed that interviewers try to influence

INTERVIEWER IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT 31

applicant impressions in order to enhance many different outcomes related to recruitment, selection,

and to interviewers themselves.

First, interviewer IM may be applied to improve the interview’s recruitment function such as

a strong organizational image and reputation on the side of the applicant (intended IM outcome 3c).

For instance, an interviewer reported, “Ideally, in the end the applicant says ‘They did not hire me,

but this is a GOOD company.’ That’s the goal” (Interviewer 12). In addition, interviewers reported

that they applied IM to ensure that applicants leave the interview room feeling good about themselves

(intended IM outcome 2), and react with positive attitudes (intended IM outcome 3), intentions, and

behaviors towards the organization (intended IM outcome 4). For instance, an interviewer reported,

“To give the applicant a positive feeling, even in situations where it’s clear that the candidate is not

qualified … So that the applicant gets an impression of the company, what we do, what we stand for,

particularly the positive we stand for, and has a positive attitude towards us” (Interviewer 7).

Second, we found that interviewers not only apply IM for recruitment purposes but also to

enhance the interview’s selection purpose. Specifically, we found that interviewers intend to increase

the amount of personal information applicants reveal during the interview (intended IM outcome 5a)

and the informative value of this information (intended IM outcome 5b) in terms of applicants being

honest and explicit. For example, one interviewer reported “When I find something in the CV where

I have experience myself … when the applicant can tell, aha, this person knows what I’ve

experienced … then he’s more relaxed, tells me more, and is more open towards me” (Interviewer 8).

Third, our interview data revealed that interviewers also apply IM to influence outcomes

related to themselves, such as a strong interviewer reputation (intended IM outcome 6a) and their

own career advancement (intended IM outcome 6b). So far, interview research has primarily focused

on outcomes related to the interview’s selection and recruitment purpose (Dipboye et al., 2012), so

these findings add a new aspect to interview research by stressing interviewers’ aims. Intended

INTERVIEWER IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT 32

interviewer IM outcomes such as interviewer reputation and career advancement indicate that

interviewers have certain self-centered motives and career goals in mind when they interact with

applicants.

When are interviewers’ intended IM outcomes likely to be reached? First, we found that

not all interviewers intend to achieve all of the outcomes presented in Table 3 and Figure 1. Some

intended outcomes were reported more than others in our in-depth interviews and thus seem to be

fundamental to interviewers, such as a strong organizational image and reputation (intended IM

outcome 3c), job choice as well as recommendation and reapplication intention and behavior

(intended IM outcomes 4a, 4b, and 4d). In contrast, some intended outcomes were reported only in a

few in-depth interviews and thus seem more idiosyncratic, such as influencing applicants’ self-

esteem (intended IM outcome 2b), preventing legal action (intended IM outcome 4e), promoting

strong interviewer reputation (intended IM outcome 6a), and improving interviewer career

advancement (intended IM outcome 6b).

Second, as can be seen in Figure 1, our results indicate that there is a pattern to which IM

behaviors and outcomes are most closely linked, that is, certain IM behaviors are more closely linked

to certain outcome components than to others. Interviewers’ IM intentions and behaviors seem to

differ for short-term versus long-term perspectives regarding their intended recruiting-related

outcomes. For example, we found that IM behaviors used to signal attractiveness are primarily linked

to the intended outcome of fast recruiting (filling the vacancy as quickly as possible), whereas IM

behaviors used to signal authenticity are primarily linked to sustainable recruiting (trying to achieve

high job tenure).

Third, the intended recruiting-related outcome of preventing legal action was found to be

primarily related to IM behaviors that are applied to signal distance in terms of professionalism. In

addition, selection-related outcomes such as retrieving a high amount of valid personal information

INTERVIEWER IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT 33

from applicants were found to be primarily associated with IM behaviors applied to signal closeness.

For example, as one interviewer put it “an emotional tie makes the applicant trust in me, so that he

communicates with me in a transparent way” (Interviewer 6).

Fourth, the interviewer-related outcome of strong interviewer reputation was found to be

mainly associated with IM behaviors applied to signal distance in terms of superiority. For instance,

an interviewer told us, “Well, I’m well known because of my reputation … I’m one of the most

ruthless ones in our HR department” (Interviewer 2).

Finally, we found indications that the different intended IM outcomes intertwine in a complex

pattern. For example, an organization’s strong image and reputation partly depend on how applicants

experience the interview process and spread the word, such as “When he goes home with positive

emotions then he’ll tell others about it, he’ll tell his friends and other people he knows, and hopefully

these others will apply, too” (Interviewer 7). Furthermore, the intended outcome of interviewers’

career advancement is not depicted in Figure 1 because we found that this component intertwined

with (and implicit in) other intended interviewer IM outcomes. For instance, if an interviewer

achieves good acceptance rates and gets positive feedback from applicants, colleagues, and

supervisors, this should have a favorable impact on the interviewer’s career.

Discussion

Previous research on IM in interviews has been fruitful, but this literature has lacked a

conceptual model to aid in understanding how and why interviewers try to make impressions on

applicants. Instead, previous work has been based on the assumption that interviewers use the same

IM behaviors as applicants without acknowledging what intentions and opportunities interviewers

actually have when they interact with applicants. Thus, as a response to repeated calls for research on

interviewer IM (e.g., Dipboye & Johnson, 2013; Gilmore et al., 1999; Macan, 2009), our study offers

a new perspective on the selection interview by systematically examining interviewer IM. Following

INTERVIEWER IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT 34

a grounded theory approach, we identified how interviewers apply IM in terms of what they intend to

signal to applicants (i.e., interviewer IM intentions) and which signals interviewers deliberately use

to create their intended impressions (i.e., interviewer IM behaviors). Furthermore, we examined why

interviewers apply IM in terms of the outcomes they want to achieve by deliberately sending signals

to applicants (i.e., intended interviewer IM outcomes).

We developed a conceptual model of interviewer IM that comprises interviewer IM

intentions, behaviors, and intended outcomes, which also shows patterns of relationships among these

elements. In addition to the model, we generated an extensive taxonomy of different interviewer IM

intentions, behaviors, and outcomes. Specifically, we found that interviewers’ primary intentions are

to signal attractiveness and authenticity, while their secondary intentions are to signal closeness and

distance (i.e., distance in terms of professionalism and in terms of superiority). Another finding was

that interviewer IM may have different aims – aims in terms of creating a certain impression of the

interviewer as a person, an impression of the job, of the team, and of the organization as a whole. In

order to create these impressions on applicants, interviewers may deliberately apply a broad spectrum

of signals such as verbal, nonverbal, paraverbal, artifactual, and administrative IM behaviors.

Additionally, we found that interviewers use IM behaviors in order to improve a wide range of

different outcomes related to recruitment, selection, and interviewers themselves.

Implications for Theory

This study makes at least three important contributions to the literature. First, this study

elaborates signaling theory (Bangerter et al., 2012; Spence, 1973) in the context of interviewer

behavior by presenting a conceptual model on the key elements of deliberate signaling processes on

the part of the interviewer. Notably, our model not only focuses on IM behaviors, but also includes

interviewer IM intentions, and intended outcomes, which are particularly important to understanding

the phenomenon of interviewer IM (Dipboye et al., 2012). In addition, as a response to calls to study

INTERVIEWER IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT 35

signals and incentives of signalers within their social context (Connelly et al., 2011), we present an

extensive taxonomy of the impressions that interviewers aim to create, the signals they deliberately

use to create these intended impressions, and the outcomes they want to achieve. As such, we found

that interviewers’ intentions and signals are very broad and complex, and we uncovered numerous

aspects that clearly go beyond those assumed by previous IM research (see Tables 1 to 3). Regarding

intended IM outcomes, interviewers deliberately use signaling behaviors not only to enhance

organizations’ recruitment success and the quality of selection decisions, but also to enhance

outcomes that are directly related to themselves such as their reputation as an interviewer.

Second, this study sheds light on how interviewers’ and applicants’ IM are similar and

distinct. Consistent with interdependence theory (Rusbult & Van Lange, 2003), the present findings

show that while applicant and interviewer IM share similarities, there is a broad range of differences.

Similarities can be found, for example, in categories of verbal IM (e.g., fit-focused IM), nonverbal

IM (e.g., smiling), and artifactual IM behaviors (e.g., modifying one’s appearance). However, in

contrast to assumptions in previous studies (e.g., Stevens et al., 1990), many interviewer IM

intentions and behaviors seem to be distinct from those of applicants. Unlike applicants, interviewers

may have multiple aims of IM (e.g., influencing applicant impressions of the job, the organization,

and themselves) and may have diverse IM intentions that go well beyond mere friendliness (e.g.,

signaling distance).

Another difference between interviewer and applicant IM is that, because interviewers are in a

more powerful position than applicants, they may apply IM behaviors such as applicant-depreciation

and challenging applicants to signal their superiority. Also, as another consequence of interviewers’

more powerful position, they have a greater freedom of action than applicants and are therefore able

to control and modify diverse artifactual (e.g., providing giveaways) and administrative aspects of the

interview (e.g., inviting the applicant personally) to favorably influence applicant impressions.

INTERVIEWER IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT 36

Therefore, because of these differences, interviewer IM should be considered a phenomenon that may

be related to, but is nevertheless quite distinct from applicant IM.

Finally, our results suggest a shift in the way that we think about interviewers in the

employment interview. For instance, our study draws attention to the social nature of the interview

and contributes to a more person-centric picture of the interviewer (following suggestions by Weiss

& Rupp, 2011). We found that interviewers are well aware that they may influence applicant

impressions and explicitly state their aims to do so. Interviewers know very well which specific

impressions they want applicants to form and intentionally use a broad range of different signals to

create these intended impressions. Our findings support efforts by other researchers to enhance the

theoretical understanding and the quality of the interview as an assessment tool by acknowledging

social exchange processes in the interview, such as interviewer IM (cf. Dipboye et al., 2012).

Potential Limitations

Although this study provides valuable insights into how and why interviewers intentionally

try to create impressions on applicants, it has its limitations. This study included a range of different

interview formats, which allowed us to capture a broad range of IM behaviors. However, by the same

token, we did not focus on one individual type of format (e.g., panel interviews), which would have

allowed for more extensive insights about IM behavior within a particular interview format.

However, we believe that the IM behaviors presented in this study that refer to specific interview

formats (e.g., IM behaviors applied in panel interviews) constitute important initial findings.

Another limitation is that even though the application of a qualitative approach can lead to

new research questions and new perspectives (Cassell & Symon, 2011), the generalizability of the

findings might be limited because of small sample sizes (Lee, Mitchell, & Sablynski, 1999).

Moreover, the present study was conducted in Germany and Switzerland. Interviewer IM intentions

and behaviors may vary between different national cultures, as it has been found for applicant IM

INTERVIEWER IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT 37

(e.g., König, Hafsteinsson, Jansen, & Stadelmann, 2011). Hence, more research on interviewer IM

with additional samples is clearly needed. However, the present study sampled a broad range of

interviewers and applicants, included different interview formats (face-to-face, telephone, video, one-

on-one, and panel interviews), and used multiple qualitative methods (in-depth interviews,

observations, memos, and analyses of informational material) to generate a comprehensive taxonomy

of interviewer IM, thus providing insights into associations between interviewer IM intentions,

behaviors, and intended outcomes. In addition, data were collected until theoretical saturation was

reached (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Taken together, the diversity of samples and methods and the

achievement of theoretical saturation suggest that these results should generalize to other interview

contexts.

Implications and Propositions for Future Research

The goal of our conceptual model is to provide a framework for future research on interviewer

IM, ultimately leading to practical recommendations to organizations and interviewers. Thus, we

believe that the initial qualitative findings presented in this paper should be bolstered by insightful

future research before such practical recommendations can be convincingly made. As can be seen in

Table 4, the conceptual model of interviewer IM presented in this study provides a promising

blueprint for future research in at least three different ways: 1) testing the conceptual model as it is

presented in this paper in terms of the elements and relationships within the model, 2) expanding the

conceptual model on the basis of this study, that is, integrating further factors and relationships that

were indicated by our data and mentioned in our results, and 3) expanding the conceptual model

beyond the scope of our study, that is, connecting the model to ongoing discussions in the literature.

In Table 4 and in the following sections, we point out promising paths for future research and provide

specific ideas for research propositions for each of these three research paths. It is important to note

INTERVIEWER IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT 38

that the research topics and propositions that we present are intended to be illustrative and stimulating

rather than all-inclusive.

On a first level, future research should focus on the elements and associations in our

conceptual model. Each relationship within the model constitutes an actionable proposition for future

research that could be tested using quantitative methods. Specifically, the model can be tested in

terms of the way the boxes of IM intentions are arranged (i.e., structure of IM intentions) and the way

the cells of IM behaviors are embedded within or are bridging boxes of IM intentions (i.e.,

relationships between IM intentions and IM behaviors). Accordingly, researchers could also examine

whether the model as developed from the qualitative methods in this study translates into a factor

structure as determined through quantitative research. In addition, each arrow in Figure 1 that points

from IM behaviors and their underlying intentions to intended IM outcomes might be tested (i.e.,

relationships between IM behaviors and intended IM outcomes).

As a second research path, future research should add additional aspects to the conceptual

model of interviewer IM that have been suggested by our data. One idea to expand the model would

be to integrate the higher-level category structure of IM behaviors that we found (see Table 2). It

would be worthwhile to examine how the five types of IM behaviors (i.e., verbal, paraverbal,

nonverbal, artifactual, and administrative) are linked to primary and secondary IM intentions. For

example, our data suggest that paraverbal and nonverbal IM behaviors may play a particularly

important role for expressing secondary IM intentions because they represent indirect ways of

communicating, which might be especially important for interviewers’ personal interactions with

applicants. Another example would be research on whether intentions as expressed by the interviewer

translate into behaviors as observed by the interviewee. Additional promising themes and

propositions for future research that are suggested by our data refer to the question of how

interviewer IM may depend on the industry sector (e.g., industry sector’s image and the types of

INTERVIEWER IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT 39

services provided), the timing in the interview (e.g., beginning or end of the interview), and the

content of the conversation (e.g., asking delicate vs. challenging questions).

As a third path, future research should connect the conceptual model of interviewer IM to

ongoing discussions in the literature, such as how IM relates to truthfulness in terms of honest vs.

deceptive IM and how the validity of interviews might be affected by IM. Regarding the discussion

on IM and truthfulness, we believe that it would be helpful to weave an additional conceptual layer

into our conceptual model in terms of honest versus deceptive interviewer IM. In line with recent

suggestions by Tsai and Huang (2014), we believe that interviewer IM can be honest or deceptive

depending on whether the signal being sent to an applicant relates to an existing attribute of the

interviewer, the job, or the organization instead of being misleading in terms of creating false

impressions. We see high potential in honest interviewer IM for increasing long-term outcomes that

are highly relevant for organizations and their employees. For example, our data indicate that honest

IM can stress positive attributes of the job and the organization while at the same time creating a

realistic image on the applicants’ minds. In contrast, we believe that there is a risk in deceptive

interviewer IM by leading to unrealistic expectations and psychological contract breach, which

should result in negative long-term consequences for organizations and their employees such as low

levels of job satisfaction, performance, and tenure.

Regarding the ongoing discussion on potential effects of IM on interview validity, one

possibility is that interviewers’ attempts to influence applicants’ impressions might prevent

interviewers from accurately assessing applicant performance (Dipboye et al., 2012). As such, Marr

and Cable (2014) found that interviewers’ selling orientation reduced the accuracy and predictive

validity of their judgments. However, our data indicate an additional possibility, namely that

interviewer IM may also facilitate the quality of selection decisions. Specifically, we found initial

evidence that interviewer IM behavior such as demonstrating empathy may facilitate effective

INTERVIEWER IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT 40

selection by enhancing feelings of trust and reciprocity, which may encourage applicants to open up

and provide not only more but also more honest personal information. This would provide

interviewers with a better basis for performance assessment and would thus enhance valid selection

decisions. We believe that these potential positive impacts on interview validity are well worth

further examination.

In sum, we hope that future research will provide further confirmation and refinement of the

qualitative insights gained in this study. Specifically, we suggest that future research should drill

down further in the direction of both the numerous potential risks and opportunities that are involved

in interviewer IM, hopefully inspired by the research propositions presented. If future research

follows these paths, our theoretical understanding of interviewer IM can be substantially enhanced.

Importantly, this future research will facilitate practical recommendations that will move interviewers

closer to successfully selecting and recruiting applicants.

INTERVIEWER IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT 41

References

Anderson, N. R. (1992). Eight decades of employment interview research: A retrospective meta-

review and prospective commentary. European Work and Organizational Psychologist, 2, 1-

32. doi:10.1080/09602009208408532

Bangerter, A., Roulin, N., & König, C. J. (2012). Personnel selection as a signaling game. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 97, 719–738. doi:10.1037/a0026078

Bansal, P., & Corley, K. (2011). The coming of age for qualitative research: Embracing the diversity

of qualitative methods. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 233-237.

doi:10.5465/AMJ.2011.60262792

Barrick, M. R., Shaffer, J. A., & DeGrassi, S. W. (2009). What you see may not be what you get:

Relationships among self-presentation tactics and ratings of interview and job performance.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1394-1411. doi:10.1037/A0016532

Bluhm, D. J., Harman, W., Lee, T. W., & Mitchell, T. R. (2011). Qualitative research in

management: A decade of progress. Journal of Management Studies, 48, 1866-1891.

doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00972.x

Bodie, G. D. (2011). The active-empathic listening scale (AELS): Conceptualization and evidence of

validity within the interpersonal domain. Communication Quarterly, 59, 277-295.

doi:10.1080/01463373.2011.583495

Bolino, M. C., Kacmar, K. M., Turnley, W. H., & Gilstrap, J. B. (2008). A multi-level review of

impression management motives and behaviors. Journal of Management, 34, 1080-1109.

doi:10.1177/0149206308324325

Butterfield, K. D., Trevino, L. K., & Ball, G. A. (1996). Punishment from the manager’s perspective:

A grounded investigation and inductive model. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1479-

1512. doi:10.2307/257066

INTERVIEWER IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT 42

Carless, S. A., & Hetherington, K. (2011). Understanding the applicant recruitment experience: Does

timeliness matter? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 19, 105-108.

doi:10.1111/j.1468-2389.2010.00538.x

Carless, S. A., & Imber, A. (2007). The influence of perceived interviewer and job and organizational

characteristics on applicant attraction and job choice intentions: The role of applicant anxiety.

International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 15, 359-371. doi:10.1111/j.1468-

2389.2007.00395.x

Cassell, C., & Symon, G. (2011). Assessing ‘good’ qualitative research in the work psychology field:

A narrative analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84, 633-650.

doi:10.1111/j.2044-8325.2011.02009.x

Celani, A., & Singh, P. (2011). Signaling theory and applicant attraction outcomes. Personnel

Review, 40, 222-238. doi:10.1108/00483481111106093

Chapman, D. S., Uggerslev, K. L., Carroll, S. A., Piasentin, K. A., & Jones, D. A. (2005). Applicant

attraction to organizations and job choice: A meta-analytic review of the correlates of

recruiting outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 928-944. doi:10.1037/0021-

9010.90.5.928

Connelly, B. L., Certo, S. T., Ireland, R. D., & Reutzel, C. R. (2011). Signaling theory: A review and

assessment. Journal of Management, 37, 39-67. doi:10.1177/0149206310388419

Connerley, M. L., & Rynes, S. L. (1997). The influence of recruiter characteristics and organizational

recruitment support on perceived recruiter effectiveness: Views from applicants and

recruiters. Human Relations, 50, 1563-1586. doi:10.1023/A:1016923732255

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. L. (2008). Basics of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

INTERVIEWER IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT 43

DeGroot, T., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1999). Why visual and vocal interview cues can affect interviewers’

judgments and predict job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 986-993.

doi:10.1037/0021-9010.84.6.986

Delery, J. E., & Kacmar, K. M. (1998). The influence of applicant and interviewer characteristics on

the use of impression management. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 1649-1669.

doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1998.tb01339.x

Derous, E. (2007). Investigating personnel selection from a counseling perspective: Do applicants’

and recruiters’ perceptions correspond? Journal of Employment Counseling, 44, 60-72.

doi:10.1002/j.2161-1920.2007.tb00025.x

Dipboye, R. L. (2005). The selection/recruitment interview: Core processes and contexts. In A.

Evers, N. Anderson & O. Voskuijl (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of personnel selection (pp.

121-142). Malden, CA:

Blackwell.

Dipboye, R. L., & Johnson, S. K. (2013). Understanding and improving employee selection

interviews. In K. F. Geisinger (Ed.), APA handbook of testing and assessment in psychology

(pp. 479-499). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Dipboye, R. L., Macan, T. H., & Shahani-Denning, C. (2012). The selection interview from the

interviewer and applicant perspectives: Can’t have one without the other. In N. Schmitt (Ed.),

The Oxford handbook of personnel assessment and selection (pp. 323-352). New York, NY:

Oxford University Press.

Earnest, D. R., Allen, D. G., & Landis, R. S. (2011). Mechanisms linking realistic job previews with

turnover: A meta-analytic path analysis. Personnel Psychology, 64, 865-897.

doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01230.x

Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and

challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 25-32. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2007.24160888

INTERVIEWER IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT 44

Ellis, A. P. J., West, B. J., Ryan, A. M., & DeShon, R. P. (2002). The use of impression management

tactics in structured interviews: A function of question type? Journal of Applied Psychology,

87, 1200-1208. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.6.1200

Fleiss, J. L., & Cohen, J. (1973). The equivalence of weighted kappa and the intraclass correlation

coefficient as measures of reliability. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 33, 613-

619. doi:10.1177/001316447303300309

Friese, S. (2011). User’s manual for ATLAS.ti 6. Berlin, Germany: Scientific Software Development.

Gardner, W. L., & Martinko, M. J. (1988). Impression management in organizations. Journal of

Management, 14, 321-338. doi:10.1177/014920638801400210

Gilmore, D. C., Stevens, C. K., Harrel-Cook, G., & Ferris, G. R. (1999). Impression management

tactics. In R. W. Eder & M. M. Harris (Eds.), The employment interview handbook (pp. 321-

336). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative

research. New York, NY: Aldine.

Grzywacz, J. G., Arcury, T. A., Marín, A., Carrillo, L., Burke, B., Coates, M. L., et al. (2007). Work-

family conflict: Experiences and health implications among immigrant Latinos. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 92, 1119-1130. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.1119

Hausknecht, J. P., Day, D. V., & Thomas, S. C. (2004). Applicant reactions to selection procedures:

An updated model and meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 57, 639-683.

doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2004.00003.x

Hornby, A. S., & Wehmeier, S. (2005). Oxford advanced learner’s dictionary of current English (7th

ed.). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Jones, E. E., & Pittman, T. S. (1982). Toward a general theory of strategic self-presentation. In J.

Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self (pp. 231-262). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

INTERVIEWER IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT 45

Kazdin, A. E. (1977). Artifact, bias, and complexity of assessment: The ABCs of reliability. Journal

of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 141-150. doi:10.1901/jaba.1977.10-141

König, C. J., Hafsteinsson, L. G., Jansen, A., & Stadelmann, E. H. (2011). Applicants’ self-

presentational behavior across cultures: Less self-presentation in Switzerland and Iceland than

in the United States. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 19, 331-339.

doi:10.1111/j.1468-2389.2011.00562.x

Koslowsky, M., & Pindek, S. (2011). Impression management: Influencing perceptions of self. In D.

Chadee (Ed.), Theories in social psychology (pp. 280-296). Chichester, England: Wiley-

Blackwell.

Kreiner, G. E., Hollensbe, E. C., & Sheep, M. L. (2009). Balancing borders and bridges: Negotiating

the work-home interface via boundary work tactics. Academy of Management Journal, 52,

704-730. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2009.43669916

Lee, T. W., Mitchell, T. R., & Sablynski, C. J. (1999). Qualitative research in organizational and

vocational psychology, 1979-1999. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 55, 161-187.

doi:10.1006/jvbe.1999.1707

Levashina, J., & Campion, M. A. (2007). Measuring faking in the employment interview:

Development and validation of an Interview Faking Behavior scale. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 92, 1638-1656. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1638

Levashina, J., Hartwell, C. J., Morgeson, F. P., & Campion, M. A. (2014). The structured

employment interview: Narrative and quantitative review of the research literature. Personnel

Psychology, 67, 241-293. doi:10.1111/peps.12052

Levine, S. P., & Feldman, R. S. (2002). Women and men’s nonverbal behavior and self-monitoring in

a job interview setting. Applied H.R.M. Research, 7, 1-14.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (Eds.). (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

INTERVIEWER IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT 46

Locke, K. (2001). Grounded theory in management research. London, England: Sage.

Macan, T. H. (2009). The employment interview: A review of current studies and directions for

future research. Human Resource Management Review, 19, 203-218.

doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.03.006

Marr, J. C., & Cable, D. M. (2014). Do interviewers sell themselves short? The effects of selling

orientation on interviewers’ judgements. Academy of Management Journal, 57, 624-651.

doi:10.5465/amj.2011.0504

Martin, P. Y., & Turner, B. A. (1986). Grounded theory and organizational research. Journal of

Applied Behavioral Science, 22, 141-157. doi:10.1177/002188638602200207

McFarland, L. A., Yun, G., Harold, C. M., Viera, L., Jr., & Moore, L. G. (2005). An examination of

impression management use and effectiveness across assessment center exercises: The role of

competency demands. Personnel Psychology, 58, 949-980. doi:10.1111/j.1744-

6570.2005.00374.x

Peeters, H., & Lievens, F. (2006). Verbal and nonverbal impression management tactics in behavior

description and situational interviews. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 14,

206-222. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2389.2006.00348.x

Rosenfeld, P. (1997). Impression management, fairness, and the employment interview. Journal of

Business Ethics, 16, 801-808. doi:10.1023/A:1017972627516

Rusbult, C. E., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2003). Interdependence, interaction, and relationships.

Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 351-375. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145059

Schilling, J. (2006). On the pragmatics of qualitative assessment: Designing the process for content

analysis. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 22, 28-37. doi:10.1027/1015-

5759.22.1.28

INTERVIEWER IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT 47

Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression Management: The self-concept, social identity, and

interpersonal relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole.

Schneider, D. J. (1981). Tactical self-presentations: Toward a broader conception. In J. T. Tedeschi

(Ed.), Impression management theory and social psychological research (pp. 23-40). New

York, NY: Academic Press.

Spence, M. (1973). Job market signaling. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87, 355-374.

doi:10.2307/1882010

Stevens, C. K., Mitchell, T. R., & Tripp, T. M. (1990). Order of presentation and verbal recruitment

strategy effectiveness. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 1076-1092.

doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1990.tb00391.x

Suddaby, R. (2006). From the editors: What grounded theory is not. Academy of Management

Journal, 49, 633-642. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2006.22083020

Tsai, W.-C., & Huang, T.-C. (2014). Impression Management during the Recruitment Process. In K.

Y. T. Yu & D. M. Cable (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of recruitment (pp. 314-334). New

York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Tullar, W. L. (1989). Relational control in the employment interview. Journal of Applied Psychology,

74, 971-977. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.74.6.971

Van Iddekinge, C. H., McFarland, L. A., & Raymark, P. H. (2007). Antecedents of impression

management use and effectiveness in a structured interview. Journal of Management, 33,

752-773. doi:10.1177/0149206307305563

Wanous, J. P. (1976). Organizational entry: From naive expectations to realistic beliefs. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 61, 22-29. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.61.1.22

INTERVIEWER IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT 48

Weiss, H. M., & Rupp, D. E. (2011). Experiencing work: An essay on a person-centric work

psychology. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 4, 83-97. doi:10.1111/j.1754-

9434.2010.01302.x

Willig, C. (2009) Introducing qualitative research in psychology: Adventures in theory and mehtod

(2nd ed.). Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.

Yanow, D., & Schwartz-Shea, P. (2006). Interpretation and method: Empirical research methods

and the interpretive turn. New York, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

INTERVIEWER IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT 49

Table 1

How Interviewers Apply IM: Structure of Interviewer IM Intentions

Higher-level categories Lower-level categories

Primary IM intentions: What do interviewers intend to signal to
applicants with regard to representing the organization?

1. Attractiveness

2. Authenticity

Secondary IM intentions: What do interviewers intend to signal
to applicants with regard to their personal interaction with the
applicant?

3. Closeness 3a. Building rapport
3b. Individuality and appreciation
3c. Trustworthiness

4. Distance in terms of professionalism 4a. Fairness
4b. Selection complexity and effort
4c. Straightforwardness

5. Distance in terms of superiority 5a. Status and power of decision
5b. Performance expectations
5c. Suspense

Note. Categories of interviewer IM intentions that are printed in italics are new in comparison to Barrick et al. (2009) and
Jones and Pittman (1982).

INTERVIEWER IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT 50

Table 2

How Interviewers Apply IM: Structure of Interviewer IM Behaviors

Higher-level categories Lower-level categories

Verbal IM behaviors: What do interviewers deliberately
say to influence applicant impressions?

1. Self-focused 1a. Self-enhancement
1b. Demonstrating job knowledge
1c. Demonstrating humor
1d. Telling personal stories
1e. Expressing enthusiasm

2. Applicant-focused 2a. Referring to applicant by name
2b. Demonstrating knowledge of the applicant
2c. Applicant-enhancement
2d. Goal setting for the applicant
2e. Demonstrating empathy
2f. Thanking
2g. Offering support
2h. Giving voice
2i. Challenging
2j. Applicant-depreciation

3. Fit-focused 3a. Fit enhancing
3b. Demonstrating similarity

4. Job-, team-, or organization-focused 4a. Enhancement of job, team, or organization
4b. Goal setting for the job, team, or

organization
4c. Confessing
4d. Positive framing

5. Interview process-focused 5a. Enhancement of the interview process
5b. Apologizing

6. Through style of communication 6a. Paraphrasing and summarizing
6b. Verbal encouragement
6c. Modifying applicant’s speech portion
6d. Modifying one’s detailedness of language
6e. Modifying one’s formality of language
6f. Adapting one’s vocabulary and dialect

Paraverbal IM behaviors: How do interviewers
deliberately use their voice to influence applicant
impressions?

7. Speaking in an empathetic way 7a. Speaking with low pace
7b. Speaking with low volume
7c. Speaking with high pitch

INTERVIEWER IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT 51

8. Speaking in an authoritative way 8a. Speaking with high pace
8b. Speaking with high volume
8c. Speaking with low pitch

9. Speaking in an unobtrusive 9a. Speaking with moderate pace
9b. Speaking with moderate volume
9c. Speaking with moderate pitch

Nonverbal IM behaviors: How do interviewers deliberately
use body language to influence applicant impressions?

10. Towards the applicant 10a. Laughing
10b. Smiling
10c. Nodding affirmatively
10d. Making eye contact

10e. Making hand gestures
10f. Leaning forward
10g. Mirroring
10h. Note taking
10i. Shaking hands
10j. Backslapping
10k. Doing something else

11. Towards other interviewers 11a. Smiling
11b. Nodding affirmatively
11c. Mirroring

Artifactual IM behaviors: How do interviewers
deliberately use appearance, visual information, and
promotional items to influence applicant impressions?

12. Through interviewer appearance 12a. Modifying one’s clothing
12b. Modifying one’s accessories

13. Through premises appearance 13a. Choosing the interview building
13b. Choosing the interview room
13c. Decorating the interview room
13d. Checking the light intensity
13e. Choosing the interview table
13f. Choosing the seating furniture
13g. Placement of seating furniture

14. Through visual information 14a. Showing printed information material
14b. Displaying application documents
14c. Displaying notes taken prior to the

interview
14d. Displaying test results

15. Through promotional items 15a. Handing out printed information material
15b. Handing out promotional gifts
15c. Handing out one’s business card

INTERVIEWER IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT 52

Administrative IM behaviors: How do interviewers
deliberately use timing of communication and provide
services to influence applicant impressions?

16. Through timing of communication 16a. Ensuring timeliness of pre-interview
communication

16b. Modifying timeliness of interview start
16c. Modifying interview length
16d. Ensuring timeliness of feedback
16e. Offering time to think the offer over

17. By providing services to applicants before the
interview

17a. Confirming receipt of application
17b. Giving directions
17c. Inviting the applicant personally
17d. Inviting the applicant by telephone
17e. Accommodating with the interview date
17f. Accommodating with the interview location
17g. Preventing interruptions
17h. Modifying the room temperature
17i. Airing the interview room

18. By providing services to applicants during the
interview

18a. Approaching the applicant
18b. Taking the applicant’s jacket
18c. Offering drinks
18d. Offering a break
18e. Incorporating future colleagues
18f. Offering a site visit
18g. Offering refund of travel expenses
18h. Escorting

19. By providing services to applicants after the interview 19a. Giving feedback personally
19b. Giving feedback orally
19c. Giving detailed feedback

Note. Categories of interviewer IM behaviors that are printed in italics are new in comparison to Barrick et al. (2009),
Bolino et al. (2008), DeGroot and Motowidlo (1999), Ellis et al. (2002), Levashina and Campion (2007), McFarland et al.
(2005), Peeters and Lievens (2006), and Schneider (1981).

INTERVIEWER IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT 53

Table 3

Why Interviewers Apply IM: Structure of Intended IM Outcomes

Higher-level categories Lower-level categories

Recruitment-related IM Outcomes: What outcomes in
terms of the interview’s recruitment function do
interviewers want to achieve by deliberately sending
signals to applicants?

1. Organizations’ recruiting success 1a. Fast recruiting
1b. Sustainable recruiting

2. Applicants’ positive emotions 2a. Positive affective state
2b. Self-esteem

3. Applicants’ positive attitudes towards the
organization

3a. Job-organization attraction
3b. Identification with the organization

3c. Strong organizational image and reputation

4. Applicants’ positive intentions and behaviors
towards the organization

4a. Job choice intention and behavior
4b. Recommendation intention and behavior

4c. Consumer intention and behavior
4d. Reapplication intention and behavior
4e. Prevention of legal action

Selection-related IM Outcomes: What outcomes in
terms of the interview’s selection function do
interviewers want to achieve by deliberately sending
signals to applicants?

5. Information disclosed by applicants 5a. Amount of personal information disclosed
5b. Informative value of personal information

Interviewer-related IM Outcomes: What outcomes in
terms of self-centered motives do interviewers want to
achieve by deliberately sending signals to applicants?

6. Interviewers’ career 6a. Strong interviewer reputation
6b. Interviewer career advancement

Note. Categories of intended interviewer IM outcomes that are printed in italics are new in comparison to Chapman et al.
(2005) and Hausknecht et al. (2004).

INTERVIEWER IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT 54

Table 4

Examples of Propositions for Future Research

Level 1: Testing relationships within the conceptual model of interviewer IM (see Figure 1)

Examples of research issues Examples of specific propositions
Structure of IM intentions P1-1 Five kinds of interviewer IM intentions can be distinguished,

which differ regarding their interrelations: intentions that are
located closer together in the figure co-occur more often than
intentions that are located further apart.

P1-2 There are two major themes of interviewer IM intentions: (a)
primary IM intentions that refer to interviewers’ goal of
representing the organization, the job, and themselves, and (b)
secondary IM intentions that refer to interviewers’ personal
interaction with the applicant.

Relationships between IM intentions and IM
behaviors

P1-3 There are three kinds of IM behaviors that differ in how they
are related to IM intentions: (a) behaviors that are most
strongly related to one single IM intention, (b) behaviors that
are most strongly related to two IM intentions, and (c)
behaviors that are multipurpose, that is, they are related to
different IM intentions depending on how they are applied.

Relationships between IM behaviors and
intended IM outcomes

P1-4 IM behaviors used to signal attractiveness are related to
intended short-term outcomes such as fast recruiting, whereas
IM behaviors used to signal authenticity are related to intended
long-term outcomes such as sustainable recruitment.

Level 2: Expanding the conceptual model of interviewer IM on the basis of this study

Relationships between the five types of IM
behavior and IM intentions

P2-1 Paraverbal and nonverbal IM behaviors are more strongly
related to secondary IM intentions than to primary IM
intentions, whereas verbal, artifactual, and administrative IM
behaviors are related to both primary and secondary IM
intentions.

Influence of industry sector P2-2 The specific set of IM intentions, behaviors, and intended
outcomes depends on the industry sector such as the industry
sector’s image and the types of services provided.

Influence of timing P2-3 The IM intention of signaling closeness is more predominant in
the beginning and at the end of interviews.

Influence of interview content P2-4 The IM intention of signaling closeness is more predominant
when interviewers ask delicate questions, whereas signaling
distance in terms of superiority is more predominant when
interviewers ask challenging questions.

Level 3: Expanding the conceptual model of interviewer IM beyond the scope of this study

Honest vs. deceptive IM P3-1 Deceptive interviewer IM decreases long-term outcomes such
as employees’ job satisfaction, job performance, and job tenure
through unrealistic job expectations and psychological contract
breach.

Interview validity P3-2 Interviewer IM of signaling closeness increases (a) the amount
and (b) the informative value of personal information provided
by applicants, which, in turn, positively influences interview
validity.

INTERVIEWER IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT 55

In
te
nd

ed
IM

O
ut
co
m
es

IM behaviors to create
an attractive image,
e.g.
• Expressing
enthusiasm

• Decorating the
interview room

Attractiveness

IM behaviors to create
an attractive and
authentic image, e.g.
• Positive framing
• Demonstrating job
knowledge

IM behaviors to create
a close relation image,
e.g.
• Demonstrating
similarity

• Laughing

Authenticity

Closeness Distance in terms of professionalism Distance in terms of superiority

IM behaviors to create
a professional image,
e.g.
• Displaying application
documents

• Note taking

IM behaviors to create
a superior image, e.g.
• Applicant‐
depreciation

• Speaking in an
authoritative way

IM behaviors to create
an authentic and
superior image, e.g.
• Giving voice
• Incorporating future
colleagues

IM behaviors to create
a professional and
authentic image, e.g.
• Goal setting for the
applicant

• Offering a site visit

IM behaviors to create
an attractive and
professional image, e.g.
• Demonstrating
knowledge of the
applicant

• Offering support

IM behaviors to create
an attractive and close
relation image, e.g.
• Demonstrating
humor

• Shaking hands

IM behaviors to create
a close relation and
professional image, e.g.
• Inviting the applicant
by telephone

• Making eye contact

IM behavior to create a
professional and
superior image
• Challenging

IM behaviors that can
be used in a
multipurposeway, e.g.
• Modifying applicants’
speech portion

• Placement of seating
furniture

IM behaviors to create
an authentic image, e.g.
• Confessing
• Mirroring

Pr
im

ar
y
IM

In
te
nt
io
ns

Se
co
nd

ar
y
IM

In
te
nt
io
ns

Amount of personal information
disclosed, informative value of personal
information disclosed

Applicants’ positive affective state,
applicants’ self‐esteem

Prevention of legal action Strong interviewer reputation

Fast recruiting
Job‐organization attraction
Job choice intention and behavior, recommendation intention and
behavior, consumer intention and behavior, reapplication intention
and behavior

Sustainable recruiting
Identification with the organization, strong
organizational image and reputation

Figure 1. Conceptual model of how interviewers apply impression management (IM) in terms of IM intentions (light and dark gray, square boxes) and IM behaviors
(white, round-edged cells), and why interviewers apply IM in terms of intended IM outcomes (at the end of arrows outside of boxes). Behaviors (cells) are within or
touching intentions (boxes) to indicate association. The IM behaviors presented in this figure are not comprehensive, but constitute representative examples of the
links that were found between IM intentions, behaviors, and intended outcomes gleaned from Tables 1 to 3 to demonstrate the main patterns of these links.

INTERVIEWER IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT 56

Appendix A

Interview guide for in-depth interviews with interviewers

Examples of questions asked throughout the whole research process

(a) In what ways are the kinds of impressions applicants form during your employment interviews important
to you?

(b) Could you please describe the specific types of impressions you want applicants to form during your
employment interviews?

(c) Would you please tell me how you behave during your employment interviews in order to create these
impressions on applicants?

(d) What outcomes can applicants’ impressions lead to?

Examples of questions that were added later in the research process based on prior in-depth interviews
and observations

 What kind of information about yourself do you present to create your intended impressions on
applicants?

 How do you welcome applicants to create your intended impressions?

 Could you please tell me how you present negative aspects of the job or the organization to create your
intended impressions on applicants?

 Would you please tell me how you interact with applicants after the interview to create your intended
impressions?

INTERVIEWER IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT 57

Appendix B

Interview guide for in-depth interviews with applicants

Examples of questions asked throughout the whole research process

(a) What kinds of impressions did you form during employment interviews you have recently participated in?

(b) What specific types of impressions do you think the interviewers might have wanted you to form?

(d) What outcomes can applicants’ impressions lead to?
Examples of questions that were added later in the research process based on prior in-depth interviews
and observations

 What kind of personal information did the interviewers reveal that might have been intended to influence
the impressions you formed?

 How did the interviewers welcome you?

 Could you tell me how the interviewers presented negative aspects of the job or the organization?

 What interviewer behaviors did you observe after the interview that might have been intended to influence
the impressions you formed?

INTERVIEWER IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT 58

Appendix C

Observation guide used to observe actual employment interviews

Instruction: Please write down any actions you see and statements and questions you hear that may be relevant
in terms of how and why interviewers apply IM. Please make sure to include specific examples (e.g.,
direct quotes). The following headings are meant to focus your attention on important aspects. However,
please add further observations wherever applicable.

Examples of aspects documented throughout the whole research process

 Date
 Location
 Number of interviewers
 Type of job vacancy
 Duration of the interview

(a) Observations prior to the employment interview

 Verbal, e.g. what interviewers say and ask
 Paraverbal, e.g., how interviewers talk to applicants
 Nonverbal, e.g. body language of interviewers
 Any other aspect that may be worth further exploration in future observations and in-depth interviews

(b) Observations during the employment interview

 Verbal, e.g. what interviewers say and ask
 Paraverbal, e.g., how interviewers talk to applicants
 Nonverbal, e.g. body language of interviewers
 Any other aspects that may be worth further exploration in future observations and in-depth interviews

Examples of additional aspects that observers were asked to consider and document later in the research
process (based on prior observations and in-depth interviews)

(a) Observations prior to the employment interview

 Administrative, e.g. timeliness of the interview start

(b) Observations during the employment interview

 Administrative, e.g. refreshments offered
 Artifactual, e.g. seating arrangement, objects visible on the interview table

 Administrative, e.g. feedback to applicants

View publication statsView publication stats

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279955332

Turn in your highest-quality paper
Get a qualified writer to help you with

“ Literature and Problem Statement ”

Get high-quality paper

NEW! AI matching with writer

Hire a Writer

Client Reviews

4.9

Sitejabber

4.6

Trustpilot

4.8

Our Guarantees

100% Confidentiality

Information about customers is confidential and never disclosed to third parties.

Original Writing

We complete all papers from scratch. You can get a plagiarism report.

Timely Delivery

No missed deadlines – 97% of assignments are completed in time.

Money Back

If you're confident that a writer didn't follow your order details, ask for a refund.

New to Your Trusted Assignment Help Service? Sign up & Save

Calculate the price of your order

Type of paper needed:

Pages:

You will get a personal manager and a discount.

Academic level:

We'll send you the first draft for approval by at

Total price:

$0.00

Power up Your Academic Success with the
Team of Professionals. We’ve Got Your Back.

Power up Your Study Success with Experts We’ve Got Your Back.

Order Now Order Now