Search results

1 – 3 of 3
Per page
102050
Citations:
Loading...
Access Restricted. View access options
Article
Publication date: 4 February 2014

Nicolas Roulin, Adrian Bangerter and Julia Levashina

Applicants often use impression management (IM) in employment interviews, and such tactics can considerably influence interviewers' evaluations of their performance. Yet, little…

8740

Abstract

Purpose

Applicants often use impression management (IM) in employment interviews, and such tactics can considerably influence interviewers' evaluations of their performance. Yet, little research has examined interviewers' perceptions of such behaviors. This paper aims to examine if interviewers' perceptions of various IM behaviors converge with applicants' self-reports and the impact of interviewers' IM perceptions on interview outcomes.

Design/methodology/approach

Findings are based on data from a field study of 164 real employment interviews, conducted in recruiting agencies in Switzerland.

Findings

Interviewers' perceptions do not converge with self-reported applicant IM. Interviewers' perceptions of self-promotion and perceived applicant transparency are positively related to interview evaluations, while perceptions of slight image creation tactics are negatively related to interview evaluations. Perceptions of deceptive ingratiation, image protection, and extensive image creation were not related to evaluations.

Practical implications

It may not be that easy for interviewers to identify when applicants use IM, partly because they may be prone to overconfidence in their judgments and may (wrongly) believe they can “see through the applicant”. Also, what may actually matter in interviews is not the impression applicants think they are making, but interviewers' perceptions of applicant IM.

Originality/value

This study investigates interviewers' perceptions in addition to applicants' self-reports of five types of IM in real employment interviews, and how such perceptions are related to interview outcome.

Details

Journal of Managerial Psychology, vol. 29 no. 2
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 0268-3946

Keywords

Access Restricted. View access options
Article
Publication date: 7 February 2020

Johannes M. Basch, Klaus G. Melchers, Julia Kegelmann and Leonie Lieb

Videoconference interviews and asynchronous interviews are increasingly used to select applicants. However, recent research has found that technology-mediated interviews are less…

2745

Abstract

Purpose

Videoconference interviews and asynchronous interviews are increasingly used to select applicants. However, recent research has found that technology-mediated interviews are less accepted by applicants compared to face-to-face (FTF) interviews. The reasons for these differences have not yet been clarified. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to take a closer look at potential reasons that have been suggested in previous research.

Design/methodology/approach

The present study surveyed 154 working individuals who answered questions concerning their perceptions of FTF, videoconference and asynchronous interviews in terms of perceived fairness, social presence and the potential use of impression management (IM) tactics. Furthermore, potential attitudinal and personality correlates were also measured.

Findings

Technology-mediated interviews were perceived as less fair than FTF interviews and this difference was stronger for asynchronous interviews than for videoconference interviews. The perceived social presence and the possible use of IM followed the same pattern. Furthermore, differences in fairness perceptions were mediated by perceived social presence and the possible use of IM tactics. Additionally, affinity for technology and core self-evaluations correlated positively with perceptions of videoconference interviews but not with those of FTF and asynchronous interviews.

Originality/value

This is the first study to compare fairness perceptions of FTF, videoconference and asynchronous interviews and to confirm previous assumptions that potential applicants perceive technology-mediated interviews as less favorable because of impairments in social presence and the potential use of IM.

Access Restricted. View access options
Article
Publication date: 9 May 2019

Jakari N. Griffith, Candalyn B. Rade and Kemi Salawu Anazodo

The purpose of this paper is to present a systematic review of research conducted over the past ten years (2008–2018) that examines the relationship between criminal record and…

1114

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to present a systematic review of research conducted over the past ten years (2008–2018) that examines the relationship between criminal record and work in the USA. Furthermore, a research agenda is presented that may help to better inform future investigations of the relationships shared between these variables.

Design/methodology/approach

The authors review 58 peer-reviewed research articles identified in four electronic article databases: Business Source Premier, PsycINFO, ProQuest Sociology Collection and ProQuest Criminology Collection.

Findings

Of the 58 articles fitting the final inclusion criteria, 37 evaluated employee specific related outcomes, whereas 24 took the perspective of the employer (including some overlap). Studies employed a variety of methodologies and techniques, with qualitative interviews, archival data and audit methods as the most prevalent. Few studies examined the relationships between criminal record and work in ways that demonstrated improved employment outcomes for both employer and the employed together.

Originality/value

This is one of the first papers to synthesize interdisciplinary literature related to criminal record and employment, including an assessment of the varying methodological treatments and perspectives used in research studies to assess this relationship. The authors believe the findings from this research effort will provide much needed research direction for investigators seeking to make contributions to improving employment outcomes.

Details

Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, vol. 38 no. 5
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 2040-7149

Keywords

1 – 3 of 3
Per page
102050