How and why do interviewers try to make impressions on applicants? A qualitative study.

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 on applicants, what kinds of signals interviewers deliberately use to create their intended impressions, and what outcomes they pursue. Following a grounded theory approach, multiple raters analyzed in-depth interviews with interviewers and applicants. We also observed actual employment interviews and analyzed memos and image brochures to generate a conceptual model of interviewer IM. Results showed that the spectrum of interviewers' IM intentions goes well beyond what has been proposed in past research. Furthermore, interviewers apply a broad range of IM behaviors, including verbal and nonverbal as well as paraverbal, artifactual, and administrative behaviors. An extensive taxonomy of interviewer IM intentions, behaviors, and intended outcomes is developed, interrelationships between these elements are presented, and avenues for future research are derived.

Action planning intervention to identify how to improve selection processes for internships

“…During the morning session, and especially during the afternoon presentation, students were seen for the first time by their future employers. Bearing in mind that first impressions mark many of the decisions made during selection processes (Dougherty, Turban, & Callender, 1994;Nordstrom, Hall, & Bartels, 1998;Ren, Sun, Zhang, Chen, & Liu, 2015;Simons, 1995;Wilhelmy, Kleinmann, König, Melchers, & Truxillo, 2016;Zhao & Liden, 2011), several students were evidently not clear about the style to use to outline a professional image (some looked messy and others were too elegant as if they were going to a wedding or another similar social event). The content of the presentations and the way they were defended were also deficient; e.g., filling in slides with too many superfluous details with, for example, all the mathematical operations made to obtain the results in each option and, worse still, reading all these details (which were almost the same for the five groups as they all decided to solve the same case).…”

Journal Guidelines for Qualitative Research? A Balancing Act That Might Be Worth It

“…We want to see qualitative papers published that are reproducible and straightforward so that future research can build on the work presented (Bluhm et al, 2011); however, ironically, good qualitative research is characterized by also being creative and adaptive. For example, the original focus of the study can be narrowed or extended if new insights are gained as the study proceeds, and new data can be collected if it helps to better answer the research question (e.g., Wilhelmy et al, 2016). As Pratt and Bonaccio describe it, "qualitative researchers are often 'surprised' by what they find and often shift their research focus to better understand these new insights" (p. 707).…”

“…In my opinion, this challenge stresses the importance of training I-O researchers in qualitative research because it enables them to understand and address these complex, nuanced criteria for evaluating qualitative research. For example, one trick is to use a series of memos throughout the research process to constantly document what is done and changed, and for what reason (e.g., Wilhelmy et al, 2016). This documentation helps to provide rationales about the context and consequences of any adaptations and can actually help to realize that the research process needs to be adapted because, through the documentation routines, the researcher becomes more sensitive to the nuances of phenomenon under study.…”

“…Fortunately, the interest in and openness to qualitative research is slowly but steadily growing in our field, something that is reflected in small but increasing numbers of publications and best practice articles (Bluhm, Harman, Lee, & Mitchell, 2011;Smith, Madden, & Ashmos Plowman, 2015). To give an example, the Journal of Applied Psychology (JAP), a journal not well known for publishing qualitative research, has recently published a qualitative article written by my colleagues and me (Wilhelmy, Kleinmann, König, Melchers, & Truxillo, 2016).…”

Qualitative Researchers, Heal (and Help) Thyself Too

“…I believe that one of the reasons qualitative research has been less accepted in I-O journals is that qualitative researchers tend to ignore the practical side of our field. In general, qualitative researchers tend to avoid issues related to personnel selection and performance management, key issues within I-O psychology (for an exception see, Wilhelmy, Kleinmann, König, Melchers, & Truxillo, 2015). Also, qualitative research often is impractical for applied researchers.…”