Differential Effectiveness of Applicant Impression Management Tactics on Employment Interview Decisions1

It has been a commonly held belief for some time that applicants attempt to manage impressions of interviewers in the employment interview process, but only recently have researchers begun to examine systematically the tactics applicants use, and how effective they are. The present study contrasted two sets of impression management tactics used by applicants and observed their effects on interviewer decisions in a controlled laboratory experiment. An applicant who employed self-focused-type impression management tactics was rated higher, received more recommendations for a job offer, and received fewer rejections from business students, who had just completed an interviewer training program, than when he used other-focused-type tactics. The implications of these results in terms of both theory and practice are discussed.

[1]  Lyman W. Porter,et al.  Organizational Politics: An Exploration of Managers' Perceptions , 1980 .

[2]  R. L. Dipboye,et al.  Reactions of College Recruiters to Interviewee Sex and Self-Presentation Style. , 1977 .

[3]  Robert A. Giacalone,et al.  Impression management in the resume and its cover letter , 1988 .

[4]  D. Vredenburgh,et al.  A Process Framework of Organizational Politics , 1984 .

[5]  T. Judge,et al.  Personnel/Human Resources Management: A Political Influence Perspective , 1991 .

[6]  W. Tullar,et al.  Relational control in the employment interview. , 1989 .

[7]  John Schopler,et al.  Role of attribution processes in mediating amount of reciprocity for a favor. , 1968 .

[8]  Gerald R. Ferris,et al.  The Effects of Applicant Impression Management Tactics on Interviewer Judgments , 1989 .

[9]  E. E. Jones,et al.  Some conditions affecting the evaluation of a conformist. , 1963, Journal of personality.

[10]  R. L. Dipboye,et al.  Reactions of Male Raters to Interviewee Self-Presentation Style and Sex: Extensions of Previous Research. , 1978 .

[11]  Patricia M. Fandt,et al.  The management of information and impressions: When employees behave opportunistically , 1990 .

[12]  Robert A. Giacalone,et al.  On Slipping When You Thought You Had Put Your Best Foot Forward: Self-Promotion, Self-Destruction, and Entitlements , 1985 .

[13]  J. M. Jellison,et al.  A Self-Presentation Interpretation of the Seeking of Social Approval , 1978 .

[14]  R. L. Dipboye,et al.  Research settings in industrial and organizational psychology: Are findings in the field more generalizable than in the laboratory? , 1979 .

[15]  Mark P. Zanna,et al.  Impression Management in the Job Interview , 1981 .

[16]  Robert A. Baron,et al.  Self-Presentation in Job Interviews: When There Can Be “Too Much of a Good Thing”1 , 1986 .

[17]  H M Rosenfeld,et al.  Instrumental affiliative functions of facial and gestural expressions. , 1966, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[18]  Jeffrey Gandz,et al.  The Experience of Workplace Politics , 1980 .

[19]  G. R. Ferris,et al.  Politics in human resources decisions: A walk on the dark side , 1991 .

[20]  K. Gergen,et al.  Social Expectancy and Self-Presentation in a Status Hierarchy. , 1969 .

[21]  John W. Boudreau,et al.  College Recruiting in Large Organizations: Practice, Evaluation, and Research Implications. , 1986 .

[22]  Edward E. Jones,et al.  Self-promotion is not ingratiating. , 1986, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[23]  C. N. Alexander,,et al.  Situated identities and social psychological experimentation. , 1971 .

[24]  H. Rosenfeld,et al.  Approval-seeking and approval-inducing functions of verbal and nonverbal responses in the dyad. , 1966 .

[25]  E. E. Jones,et al.  SOME CONDITIONS AFFECTING THE USE OF INGRATIATION TO INFLUENCE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION. , 1965, Journal of personality and social psychology.