23
This article was downloaded by: [University of East London] On: 27 March 2015, At: 11:17 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK The International Journal of Human Resource Management Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rijh20 The influence of cross-cultural differences on job interview selection decisions Laxmikant Manroop a , Janet A. Boekhorst a & Jennifer A. Harrison a a School of Human Resource Management, York University, Toronto, Canada Published online: 14 Apr 2013. To cite this article: Laxmikant Manroop, Janet A. Boekhorst & Jennifer A. Harrison (2013) The influence of cross-cultural differences on job interview selection decisions, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24:18, 3512-3533, DOI: 10.1080/09585192.2013.777675 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2013.777675 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms- and-conditions

The Influence of Cross Cultural Differences on Job Interview Selection Decisions (Manroom, L. Et Al. 2015)

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • This article was downloaded by: [University of East London]On: 27 March 2015, At: 11:17Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

    The International Journal of HumanResource ManagementPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rijh20

    The influence of cross-culturaldifferences on job interview selectiondecisionsLaxmikant Manroopa, Janet A. Boekhorsta & Jennifer A. Harrisonaa School of Human Resource Management, York University,Toronto, CanadaPublished online: 14 Apr 2013.

    To cite this article: Laxmikant Manroop, Janet A. Boekhorst & Jennifer A. Harrison (2013) Theinfluence of cross-cultural differences on job interview selection decisions, The InternationalJournal of Human Resource Management, 24:18, 3512-3533, DOI: 10.1080/09585192.2013.777675

    To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2013.777675

    PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

    Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (theContent) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

    This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

  • The influence of cross-cultural differences on job interview selectiondecisions

    Laxmikant Manroop*, Janet A. Boekhorst and Jennifer A. Harrison

    School of Human Resource Management, York University, Toronto, Canada

    How the interview process affects foreign-born job candidates has received scantattention in recent research literature (Huffcutt 2011), even though the issue should begrowing in importance given the massive influx of qualified migrants enteringdeveloped countries. This paper examines the job interview through the lens of nationalculture and argues that cross-cultural differences between interviewer and intervieweecan affect interview judgement and evaluation. Drawing upon the literatures in cross-cultural research and social psychology, this paper presents a model of cross-culturaldifferences on interview outcomes. In so doing, this conceptual study advances theorythat underpins the employment selection process of foreign-born job candidates, andalso provides a platform on which future empirical research may be based.

    Keywords: employment interview; foreign-born job candidates; national culture;unintentional discrimination

    Introduction

    Labour market conditions in many developed countries are rapidly changing in response to

    an open immigration policy that encourages skilled professional migrants from diverse

    cultural backgrounds to enter the labour force (Lipsmeyer and Zhu 2011).1 This emerging

    trend of immigration into developed countries has partially surfaced due to labour shortages

    arising from low national fertility rates (Whyman, Lemmon and Teachman 2012). In

    addition, jobs are becoming more internationally mobile as organizations expand into the

    global marketplace. In themidst of these changes, numerous opportunities exist for foreign-

    born professionals of diverse cultures to break into professions that have traditionally been

    dominated by their counterparts born in the host country (Hussey 2005). We use the term

    host country to refer to the country foreign-born job applicants seek to obtain employment.

    These opportunities notwithstanding, research shows that job applicants of diverse cultural

    backgrounds find greater difficulty finding employment despite their impressive skills and

    level of expertise compared to their host-country-born counterparts (e.g. Bauder 2003;

    Salaff and Greve 2006; Islam 2009).

    Scholars in the immigrant literature have highlighted this issue and have pointed to

    several factors, such as language barriers, foreign work experience, lack of credential

    recognition, cultural differences, discrimination and social networks, as potential barriers

    to hiring foreign-born job applicants (e.g. Turchick, Ingo Holzinger and Zikic 2010).

    While these barriers have been adequately dealt with in the literature, a fundamental

    and unresolved issue is not the barriers themselves, but whether the selection instruments

    (e.g. the employment interview) used by employers are deficient for evaluating a culturally

    q 2013 Taylor & Francis

    *Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

    The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 2013

    Vol. 24, No. 18, 35123533, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2013.777675

    Dow

    nloa

    ded

    by [U

    nivers

    ity of

    Eas

    t Lon

    don]

    at 11

    :17 27

    Marc

    h 201

    5

  • diverse applicant pool. In other words, can selection mechanisms, such as the employment

    interview, account for cultural differences of foreign-born job applicants? This issue has

    received surprisingly little attention in the research literature even though it should be

    growing in importance given the huge influx of qualified immigrants and other foreign

    nationals seeking employment in developed countries.

    During the recruitment process, employers increasingly rely upon appropriate selection

    tools to match qualified job applicants with specific jobs and work environments. Very

    often, the employment interview, as a selection tool, is the most popular and preferred

    method for selecting job applicants (Macan 2009; McCarthy, Iddekinge and Campion

    2010; Bye et al. 2011) and is given the most weight in hiring decisions (Gatewood, Field

    and Barrick 2008) despite widespread criticism of its subjectivity, unreliability and

    vulnerability to bias (for a comprehensive review, see Schmidt and Hunter 2004). The

    employment interview, therefore, serves as the gateway for foreign-born professionals to

    access jobs in many developed countries.

    Despite its widespread acceptance and use as a selection device, the question of how

    effective the employment interview is in dealing with cross-cultural differences or

    intercultural dynamics when a host-country interviewer interacts with a foreign-born job

    applicant has received scant attention in recent research literature. In a recent review of

    the employment interview literature, Macan (2009) has called for more research

    examining how cross-cultural differences affect interview judgement and evaluation. The

    author specifically writes that we know very little about the use and effectiveness of

    employment interviews across cultures, and that additional research will advance our

    understanding of employment interviews both theoretically and practically (Macan

    2009, p. 215). More recently, a similar call has been made by Huffcutt (2011) who notes

    that cultural issues in the employment interview have been addressed only tangentially

    or not at all (p. 75). This paper, in part, seeks to address this gap in the research

    literature.

    While a number of studies have examined how the interview process affects certain

    minority groups, such as women and ethnic minorities (e.g. McDonald and Hakel 1985;

    Campion, Pursell and Brown 1988; Hitt and Barr 1989; Pinar, McCuddy, Eser and Trapp

    2009), older workers (e.g. Morgeson, Reider, Campion and Bull 2008) and disabled

    individuals (e.g. Reilly, Bocketti, Maser and Wennet 2006), the findings are surprisingly

    mixed (e.g. Campion and Arvey 1989; Arvey and Faley 1992; Morgeson et al. 2008).

    In addition, these findings cannot be generalized to foreign-born job applicants who have to

    grapple with cultural differences that make them vulnerable to subtle interpersonal

    dynamics (cf. Roberts and Campbell 2006). Moreover, foreign-born job applicants come to

    the job market with foreign work experience and credentials, as well as different levels of

    English language proficiency all of which pose challenges not common to other minority

    groups born in the host country (Reitz 2005; Kovessy 2008). Thus, the difficulties foreign-

    born job applicants face in the job interview merit further study. Drawing on the theoretical

    insights from Hofstedes cultural framework, this paper examines the employment

    interview through the lens of national culture and how it can unintentionally discriminate

    against foreign-born job applicants. In so doing, this paper contributes to the literature in

    several ways.

    First, although researchers have examined the potential employment barriers (e.g. non-

    recognition of foreign work experience and credentials, weak language skills,

    occupational gatekeeping, limited financial assistance for retraining or licensing, differing

    workplace practices, weak employment-related social networks) that immigrants face

    on the job market (e.g. Salaff, Greve and Ping 2002; Coombs-Thorne and Warren 2007;

    The International Journal of Human Resource Management 3513

    Dow

    nloa

    ded

    by [U

    nivers

    ity of

    Eas

    t Lon

    don]

    at 11

    :17 27

    Marc

    h 201

    5

  • Reitz 2007), little attention, if any, has been devoted to cultural differences of foreign-born

    job candidates and how these differences might affect their performance in the interview.

    Indeed, Celani, Deutsch-Salamon and Singh (2008) have called for more research on the

    role of culture in the selection process. This paper makes a notable contribution to both

    the employment interview and the diversity literatures by exploring this understudied

    relationship.

    Second, Silvester and Chapman (1996) have long suggested that very little is known

    about the effectiveness of the employment interview as a valid selection technique for

    evaluating a culturally diverse applicant pool. Thus, this paper contributes to the literature

    by looking at the interview through the lens of national culture to examine its usefulness as

    a selection tool for evaluating a culturally diverse applicant pool. In so doing, this con-

    ceptual study advances theory that underpins the employment selection process of foreign-

    born job candidates, and also provides a platform on which future empirical research may

    be based.

    Third, Dietz and Pugh (2004) note that migrant professionals are rarely studied in work

    discrimination research. Yet, unemployment rates are higher in this group than among

    nationals, suggesting that this group faces some sort of discrimination (Beck, Reitz and

    Weiner 2002). Thus, this study also contributes to the literature by improving our

    conceptual understanding of the conditions under which foreign-born job candidates might

    be affected in the job interview.

    Fourth, studying the influence of cross-cultural differences on interview judgement

    can help both researchers and practitioners to understand how foreign-born job candidates

    might be unintentionally affected. With such understanding comes knowledge that

    researchers can share and practitioners can use to improve the employment interview

    mechanism to facilitate better cross-cultural interaction between interviewers and

    interviewees. In addition, this could further help employers to better interpret the results of

    job interviews, particularly in a diverse labour market. In particular, through this improved

    understanding, employers can avoid the costly mistake of rejecting viable job candidates

    simply arising from cross-cultural misunderstandings. Moreover, such findings could also

    provide insight into how cross-cultural interactions may be enhanced in the workplace

    more broadly after hiring decisions are made.

    This paper is divided into five main parts. First, we propose a conceptual model of how

    cross-cultural differences can affect interview judgement and evaluation within the

    context of Hofstedes cultural framework. The second part of this paper provides an

    overview of Hofstedes cultural dimensions that serve as the framework within which the

    effects of culture on interview outcomes are discussed. Hofstedes framework is an

    interesting approach to understanding cultural differences as it relates to peoples

    perception, attitudes and behaviour in social interactions, such as the employment

    interview (Erez and Gati 2004; Huffcutt 2011). The third section of this paper reviews the

    literature on the employment interview to provide clarity on what we know about

    the interview to date. Overall, the review is intended to provide a theoretical framework of

    the processes involved in the interview, and show how cross-cultural differences may exist

    as a missing variable, which could influence these processes when evaluating a diverse

    applicant pool. The fourth part of this paper builds upon the previous sections to consider

    how the employment interview can unintentionally discriminate against foreign-born job

    candidates when cultural differences are ignored. In building the case, the paper draws

    upon theories in cross-cultural research and social psychology to advance propositions

    concerning the influence of cross-cultural differences on job interview selection decisions.

    L. Manroop et al.3514

    Dow

    nloa

    ded

    by [U

    nivers

    ity of

    Eas

    t Lon

    don]

    at 11

    :17 27

    Marc

    h 201

    5

  • The final part of the article synthesizes the major issues of the preceding theoretical debate

    and concludes with suggestions for future research.

    A model of cross-cultural differences on interview outcomes

    The conceptual model presented in Figure 1 illustrates how cross-cultural differences

    between interviewers and interviewees can influence job selection interview decisions. As a

    form of social interaction, the employment interview involves verbal and non-verbal

    behaviours between interviewers and interviewees. It is well established in the extant

    literature that interview judgement and evaluative processes are influenced by applicants

    verbal and non-verbal behaviours, as well as self-promotion behaviours (see review by

    Posthuma, Morgeson and Campion 2002). Our model, however, extends current

    understanding by showing how cross-cultural differences or intercultural dynamics in

    verbal and non-behaviours can impact interview outcome, particularly when an interviewer

    born in the host country interacts with a foreign-born job applicant. In addition, the model

    suggests that the extent to which job applicants are willing to influence interviewer

    judgement through self-promotion behaviours depends on their cultural backgrounds.

    The following section expands the basic conceptual model in order to more completely

    describe each variable and its associated relationship with other variables in the model.

    First, we begin with a discussion of Hofstedes cultural framework.

    P4a P4b

    Non-Verbal Behaviour

    P3a P3b

    P2

    Verbal Behaviour

    P1a

    P1b

    EmploymentInterview

    SelfPromotion

    BehaviouralMirroring

    InterviewerNon-verbalExpectation

    ConversationalFrame

    InterviewerCultural

    Expectation

    Interview Judgmentand Evaluation

    (Applicant Ratings)

    CollectivisticCulture

    IndividualisticCulture

    PsychologicalStress

    Figure 1. A model of cross-cultural differences on interview outcomes.

    The International Journal of Human Resource Management 3515

    Dow

    nloa

    ded

    by [U

    nivers

    ity of

    Eas

    t Lon

    don]

    at 11

    :17 27

    Marc

    h 201

    5

  • Cultural framework

    Culture consists of systems of values, attitudes, beliefs and behavioural meanings shared

    by members of a society (Leung, Bhagat, Buchan, Erez and Gibson 2005). Hofstede

    (1980) defines culture as the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the

    members of one human group from another (p. 13). He asserts that culture determines the

    identity of a human group in the same way as personality determines the identity of an

    individual (p. 26). Each individual belongs to a specific national culture (Hofstede 2001),

    but his/her behaviour is influenced by several levels of culture (Karahanna, Evaristo and

    Srite 2005). For example, an individual may have a religious orientation, a professional

    degree and may belong to a specific ethnic or linguistic group, each of which is represented

    by different subculture groups. While some researchers have defined culture in terms of

    these individual characteristics (e.g. Triandis 1995; Forstenlechner and Al-Waqfi 2010),

    others have conceptualized culture in terms of reference group orientations, such as

    dimensions of national culture (Hofstede 1980, 2001). In this paper, we choose the more

    parsimonious approach by conceptualizing culture in terms of a reference group while

    recognizing the potential importance of other individual characteristics. Thus, our

    discussion will be limited to the effects of the collective cultural profile of foreign-born

    job seekers as a distinct group as opposed to other groups, based on the categories of

    individualism/collectivism and power distance. Consistent with this conceptualization,

    therefore, Hofstedes model is the preferred framework to place our discussion because it

    examines culture at the group or national (cross-cultural) level.

    Hofstede (1980, 1984, 2001) conceives of culture in terms of five dimensions

    (individualism/collectivism, power distance, masculinity/femininity, uncertainty avoid-

    ance and long-term/short-term orientation). First, individualism/collectivism refers to the

    extent to which individuals are connected to their social groups. Members of individualistic

    cultures are largely concerned with themselves and their immediate family, whereas those

    of collectivistic cultures extend their concern and loyalty towards larger social groups (e.g.

    extended family, work-related individuals). Second, power distance refers to the extent to

    which societal members view power inequality as acceptable. Third, masculinity/femi-

    ninity represents the extent to which aggression, assertiveness and competitiveness are

    valued in comparison to modesty and concern for others, respectively. Fourth, uncertainty

    avoidance refers to the extent to which members are intolerant and feel threatened by

    ambiguous and uncertain situations, while also seeking to avoid such situations. The fifth

    dimension, long-term/short-term orientation, which was later added to Hofstedes initial

    cultural framework, refers to the extent to which values are future-oriented (e.g.

    perseverance, thrift) rather than past- or present-oriented (e.g. tradition; Hofstede and Bond

    1988). Interestingly, the importance of these dimensions is reflected in theGLOBE research

    program whereby similar dimensions (i.e. collectivism I & II, power distance, gender

    egalitarianism, uncertainty avoidance and future orientation) also surfaced as important

    cultural dimensions in that line of work (House et al. 1999; House, Javidan, Hanges and

    Dorfman 2002).

    However, we choose to limit our discussion to the much used and agreed upon

    dimensions of individualism/collectivism, and high power distance/low power distance, as

    done so by other scholars (e.g. Dash, Bruning and Acharva 2009) for comparing human

    attributes (Gouveia and Ros 2000; Basabe and Ros 2005). The rationale for selecting these

    dimensions is that there appears to be general agreement among research scholars on the

    attributes of individualism/collectivism, and power distance as the most dominant cultural

    profiles around the world (Markus and Kitayama 1991; Triandis 1995). Furthermore, these

    L. Manroop et al.3516

    Dow

    nloa

    ded

    by [U

    nivers

    ity of

    Eas

    t Lon

    don]

    at 11

    :17 27

    Marc

    h 201

    5

  • dimensions take into account two very different and important social dimensions prevalent

    in the context of interviews, such that individualism/collectivism takes into account the

    role of the self and personality, whereas power distance refers to the inherent differences in

    power between the interviewee and interviewer (Delerue and Simon 2009). In addition,

    there is some evidence to suggest that the cultural values, such as individualism/collecti-

    vism and power distance, may lead foreign-born job candidates to focus on providing

    different types of responses as being more or less culturally valuable and acceptable,

    which could have an impact on interview outcomes (i.e. applicant ratings; Huffcutt 2011).

    Moreover, according to Hofstede (1980, 2001), power distance is strongly correlated with

    individualism versus collectivism. For example, Western cultures (e.g. the USA and

    Canada) high on individualism also emphasize equality among people (low power

    distance), whereas non-Western cultures (e.g. Middle East) high on collectivism also tend

    to accept inequality among people (high power distance). Thus, we curtail our discussion

    only to the dimensions of individualism versus collectivism, and power distance based

    upon their universality and general agreement on their attributes among researchers,

    without discounting the potential importance of the other dimensions.

    Individualism versus collectivism

    Hofstede identified Western societies (e.g. North America) as being individualistic and

    non-Western societies (e.g. Asia, Middle East, West Indies, South and Central Americas)

    as being collectivistic. Societies that tend towards individualism emphasize autonomy,

    independence and personal goals (Markus and Kitayama 1991; Hofstede 2001). People

    think of themselves as I and thus distinct from other people (Kim 1996). The ties

    between individuals are loose as everyone is expected to look after himself or herself, and

    his or her immediate family (Hofstede 1980, 2001). These characteristics are said to

    represent Western values. In contrast, societies that tend towards collectivism, mostly non-

    Western, emphasize relatedness, interdependence and social obligations (Church and

    Lonner 1998). People tend to think of themselves as we (Kim 1996) where ties between

    individuals are strong from birth onwards in which people are integrated into strong,

    cohesive in-groups, which throughout their lifetime continue to protect them in exchange

    for unquestioning loyalty (Hofstede 1980, 2001). These characteristics are said to

    represent non-Western values. Moreover, while individualists value freedom and equality,

    collectivists value social order, harmony, honouring of parents and elders and self-

    discipline (Schwartz and Bilsky 1990; Hofstede 2001).

    Power distance

    Power distance refers to the extent to which society accepts that power in institutions and

    organizations is distributed unequally (Hofstede 1980, 2001). This notion describes the

    extent to which subordinates accept that superiors have more power than they have. In

    high power-distance cultures (such as non-Western societies), employees accept and

    follow the authority and power that their managers hold. These employees expect to be

    told what to do from their superiors because they consider each other as unequal. In

    contrast, low power-distance cultures (such as Western societies) are characterized by

    interdependence between managers and their subordinates, and unequal treatment is

    reduced to a low level (Hofstede 1980, 2001). In addition, employees share in decision-

    making responsibilities and often call their superiors by their first names something

    unheard of in high power-distance cultures.

    The International Journal of Human Resource Management 3517

    Dow

    nloa

    ded

    by [U

    nivers

    ity of

    Eas

    t Lon

    don]

    at 11

    :17 27

    Marc

    h 201

    5

  • Framework of the processes involved in the employment interview

    The employment interview has received more attention than any other selection device,

    amassing in excess of 500 separate studies over the past 100 years (Gatewood et al. 2008).

    This considerable body of research attests not only to the long-standing appeal of the

    interview to researchers, but also to its continued popularity as a selection mechanism

    among employers (Topor, Colarelli and Han 2007; McCarthy et al. 2010). The

    employment interview also appeals to job applicants, as many prospective job seekers

    believe that obtaining a job interview is essential to job seeking success (Saks 2006). Thus,

    job applicants expect to be interviewed as part of the selection process (Lievens, de Corte

    and Brysse 2003).

    Studies have shown that structure improves the reliability and validity of the

    selection interview (Huffcutt and Woehr 1999; Judge, Higgins and Cable 2000; Dipboye,

    Wooten and Halverson 2004) and increases its legal defensibility (Hackett, Lapierre and

    Gardiner 2004). Thus, structured interviews are preferable to unstructured interviews (see

    Macan 2009 for a review). Although there is some variability among researchers with

    regards to what constitutes structure in an interview, there is general consensus that the

    following components in interview design and structure are necessary to enhance its

    psychometric properties: (a) basing interview questions on job analysis; (b) asking each

    interviewee the exact same questions and in the same order; (c) limiting any prompting,

    follow-up or elaboration of questions; (d) discouraging interviewee to ask questions until

    after the interview is completed; (e) rating each answer; (f) taking detailed notes; (g) using

    detailed anchored rating scales; (h) using the same interviewer(s) for all interviewees; (i)

    avoiding discussion of interviewees answers between interviews; and (j) providing

    extensive interview training (Campion, Palmer and Campion 1997). These components

    have been summarized by Dipboye et al. (2004) into a three-dimensional model of

    interview structure to include: (a) job relatedness of the interview; (b) standardization of

    the process; and (c) structured use of the data to evaluate interviewees.

    In addition to the psychometric properties of the interview structure, a number of studies

    over the years have sought to determine the constructs measured in the interview. In a recent

    review of the interview construct literature, Huffcutt (2011) identifies a host of constructs

    that have been examined in the employment interview to date, namely, cognitive ability,

    personality, job knowledge, job experience, education and training, situational judgement,

    social skills, emotional intelligence, self-discipline, interpersonal presentation, teamwork,

    and personal and demographic characteristics. The extent to which the interview can

    accurately measure some of these constructs, however, is yet to be validated in the

    employment literature. Yet, a few studies have shown that interviews that are specifically

    designed and developed to measure a particular construct show greater evidence of validity

    and reliability (Macan 2009). That being said, nonetheless, there are concerns that some of

    the constructs are not job related (e.g. personal and demographic characteristics) and,

    therefore, should not be used to assess candidates suitability for a given job. A number of

    researchers (e.g. DeGroot and Gooty 2009; Macan 2009; Mast, Bangerter, Bulliard and

    Aerni 2011) have addressed these concerns, leading Huffcutt (2011) to conduct a

    comprehensive review of the literature to assert that ratings across interviews should

    attempt to capture constructs, such as mental ability and conscientiousness, since these

    characteristics are important for virtually all jobs.

    However, even if interviews were to accurately measure specific job-related constructs,

    cultural differences of the interviewer and interviewee can still influence interview

    selection decisions an issue that seems to be ignored in the employment interview

    L. Manroop et al.3518

    Dow

    nloa

    ded

    by [U

    nivers

    ity of

    Eas

    t Lon

    don]

    at 11

    :17 27

    Marc

    h 201

    5

  • literature (Macan 2009; Huffcutt 2011). For example, studies have shown that ones

    cultural background may shape many areas of their social and work orientations (e.g.

    Fulkerson and Tucker 1999; Erez and Gati 2004), andmay, therefore, influence interviewer

    ratings (Huffcutt 2011). This has implications for the employment prospect of foreign-born

    job applicants in the global labour market. To understand how cultural differences can

    influence interview judgement and evaluation, it is necessary to examine the dynamics of

    the interview and what it entails, including the roles of both interviewer and interviewee.

    The employment interview constitutes a meeting between participants (interviewer

    and interviewee) of unequal status who are often unknown to each other but come together

    at an agreed upon place, date and time for the mutual purpose of engaging in a series of

    questions and answers selected and evaluated by the interviewer in order to assess the

    interviewee suitability for employment (Demo 2006). Several things are worth noting here

    about this definition.

    First, the meeting between participants is a form of social interaction consisting of

    three parts: (1) preparation or introduction; (2) central question and answer phase; and (3)

    closing. According to Demo (2006), the introduction phase is the initial meeting and

    greeting exchange between the parties in which the first impression is formed, thus

    setting the stage for the rest of the interview. The central question and answer phase is

    geared to assess the interviewees suitability for the job. How well the interviewee

    responds to questions and meets the interviewers expectations will determine the ratings

    she/he receives. The final phase ends with some form of leave-taking exchange between

    the parties and culminates with an offer of employment or rejection based on the

    interviewees performance during the interview.

    Second, Demo (2006) notes the unequal relationship status between the parties: the

    interviewer represents the employer who controls the process by choosing the topics and

    questions that are used to evaluate the interviewee. The interviewee, on the other hand, is

    expected to talk about her/himself and must usually wait for permission to ask questions at

    the end of the interview. According to Demo (2006), the entire process represents a

    mismatch between the parties in which differences in discourse norms and expectations

    are clearly spelt out for the interviewee (p. 41). This can become problematic because the

    structure and unequal status inherent in the interview process limit clarification or feedback

    that may lead to misinterpretation of intent either in the applicants understanding of the

    question, resulting in an inappropriate response, or a misinterpretation of the applicants

    response by the interviewer (p. 41). In the case of foreign-born job applicants, the problem

    is compounded by differences in cultural schema, expectations and relational cues between

    the parties. According to Peppas and Yu (2005), the cultural factor adds a new dimension to

    the interview that makes it even more prone to misunderstandings between parties, thus

    limiting the job seeking success of foreign-born candidates seeking employment outside of

    their home country, whereby differences in culture and language are on the rise, given

    increasing trends towards globalization and career mobility. In fact, House et al. (2002)

    offer support for these contentions as they assert that cultural values and norms

    meaningfully influence organizational practices and policies.

    Based upon what is known about the interview process thus far, it is logical to describe

    the process as a culturally specific speech event (Demo 2006, p. 46), suggesting, therefore,

    that it may be unresponsive to cultural differences and relational cues between interviewers

    and interviewees of culturally diverse backgrounds. The result is a misunderstanding,

    followed by a negative evaluation and, therefore, unintentional discrimination against

    foreign-born job candidates. To understand how this might happen, we need to examine

    how different types of interviewees behaviours could influence interviewer ratings.

    The International Journal of Human Resource Management 3519

    Dow

    nloa

    ded

    by [U

    nivers

    ity of

    Eas

    t Lon

    don]

    at 11

    :17 27

    Marc

    h 201

    5

  • A number of studies have shown that interview judgement and evaluative processes

    are influenced by applicants verbal and non-verbal behaviours, and self-promotion

    behaviours among others (see Posthuma et al. 2002 for a comprehensive review). For

    example, it has been found that speech content and fluency, and the proper use of pauses

    during the interview significantly influence interviewers decisions (Sigelman, Elias and

    Danker 1980; Parsons and Liden 1984). In particular, it has been found that job candidates

    with foreign accents tend to receive less favourable ratings regarding their performance in

    the interview in comparison to locals (Roberts and Campbell 2006). In another study,

    Imada and Hakel (1977) found that non-verbal ratings accounted for 43% of the variance in

    interviewers ratings, and that candidates displaying greater eye contact, frequent smiling

    and an attentive posture were rated more favourably. Similar findings have been reported

    by DeGroot and Gooty (2009) who conclude that [no] matter how much an interview is

    structured, nonverbal cues cause interviewers to make attributions about candidates

    (p. 179). These studies clearly indicate that applicants verbal and non-behaviours can

    sway interviewers ratings.

    Research on interviewer cognitive behaviour also reveals dysfunctions in the

    interviewer decision-making process (Posthuma et al. 2002). Interviewers with a positive

    first impression of applicants are inclined to use a more positive style, provide more

    information and increase the frequency of recruiting behaviours in the hope of getting the

    applicant to accept the job in comparison to those who do not portray a positive first

    impression (Dougherty and Turban 1999; Barrick, Swider and Stewart 2010; Huffcutt

    2011). Similarly, interviewers often hold distinct stereotypes and expectancies of good

    candidates and attempt to match applicants with stereotypes (Rynes and Gerhart 1990; van

    Vianen and Willemsen 1992). These biases could potentially result in discrimination

    against foreign-born job candidates who might be negatively rated on factors that are

    culturally dissimilar to the expectations of interviewers who are born in the host country.

    In summarizing what we know about the employment interview to date, a number of

    themes are evident: (1) imposed structure makes it difficult to provide or seek clarification

    and feedback about the quality of interviewees response, thus making it prone to

    misinterpretation of questions by the interviewee, or their response by the interviewer; and

    (2) the interview, though structured, is nonetheless governed by a set of unspoken rules in

    which the applicants verbal and non-verbal behaviours, and individual characteristics are

    interpreted in terms of the interviewers expectations and attributions instead of the

    applicants suitability for the job.

    Based on the research, and for the purpose of providing clear examples of the

    propositions given in the following section, we focus on the elements of verbal and non-

    verbal behaviours, and applicants self-promotion behaviours.

    Verbal behaviours and cultural norms

    The interview is a form of social interaction between the interviewers and the interviewees

    consisting of talk which forms the bulk of the evidence upon which hiring decisions are

    made (Posthuma et al. 2002). Candidates are judged based on how well they respond to

    questions and how clearly and consistently they voice their responses (Roberts and

    Campbell 2006). Research has shown that interviewers tend to judge candidates based on

    their own cultural assumptions and communicative style (Roberts and Campbell 2006).

    Thus, a candidate with a different communicative style that does not fit the cultural mould

    of the interviewer is likely to be judged negatively both in terms of his/her ability and

    personality. These differences lead to misunderstandings which, in the case of foreign-

    L. Manroop et al.3520

    Dow

    nloa

    ded

    by [U

    nivers

    ity of

    Eas

    t Lon

    don]

    at 11

    :17 27

    Marc

    h 201

    5

  • born job candidates, occur more frequently since they are expected to express and present

    themselves according to interview norms and styles of the country from which they are

    seeking employment (cf. Roberts and Campbell 2006).

    According to Gumperzs (1992, 1999) interactional sociolinguistic (IS) theory, people

    express different aspects of their identity and negotiate relationships with others in talk.

    However, small initial differences in social interaction between two or more people of

    different cultural backgrounds, and with different cultural understandings, can account for

    or aggravate social inequality, discrimination and cross-cultural stereotyping (Gumperz

    1992, 1999).

    It therefore seems plausible that cultural differences in the job interview can lead to

    interactional problems and miscommunication (and frustration; Gumperz 1992, 1999). Job

    candidates with cultural communicative styles which are at variance with that of their

    interviewers are more likely to encounter interactional problems and are more likely to be

    judged poorly by interviewers than job candidates with communicative styles that are

    similar to interviewers (cf. Roberts and Campbell 2006). By the same token, interviewers

    who use metaphors, proverbs and colloquialisms that are contextualized in institutional

    norms are more likely to be misunderstood by foreign-born job candidates than locally

    born job candidates.

    Furthermore, IS research shows that people from diverse cultures usually struggle to

    get their respective points across through conflicting frames, differing stances and lack of

    alignment with the other party. Based on the IS literature, therefore, it can be argued that

    talk or social interaction in the interview could be a difficult task for both the foreign job

    candidate and the local-born interviewer(s). This problem is compounded, on the one hand,

    by candidates often lack of linguistic ability, mispronunciation of words and numerous

    pauses, and, on the other hand, by interviewers repeated expressions, and empathic

    stresses on words and phrases all of which signal conflicting conversational frames

    (Tannen 1993) and areas of communicative breakdowns as the parties attempt to make

    sense of each other. Interviewees may also differ in terms of how they present themselves

    in the interview context, such that variations may surface in term of how personal or

    impersonal they appear, what is stressed and what is played down, the extent of self-

    presentation behaviours and themanner in which responses are structured and sequenced in

    an attempt to appear favourably (Michaels 1981; Akinnaso and Ajirotutu 1982; Longmire

    1992). Since both parties attempt to understand each other according to their own

    conventions, incorrect judgements about the interviewees intention, personality, ability

    and attitude can be formed (Gumperz 1982, 1992, 1996; Birkner 2004). These erroneous

    judgements and evaluations arise because each person sees the other from conflicting

    conversational frames, and so uncomfortable moments and irrelevant and incoherent

    responses on the part of the interviewees are often seen as failures in competence or attitude

    (Roberts and Campbell 2006). Common conversational frames and shared expectations

    help to ensure smooth, synchronous conversational exchanges (Gumperz 1982), whereas

    uncommon frames and variations in communicative styles tend to lead to a lack of

    conversational synchronization and participant misalignment.

    In summary, the interview is a form of social interaction, where candidates are judged

    based on how well they respond to questions and how clearly and consistently they voice

    their responses. When interviewers and interviewees differ in cultural understanding and

    conversational frames, they often misunderstand each other. As a result, interviewers tend

    to interpret and judge interviewees according to their own conventions, which can lead to

    inaccurate judgements, cross-cultural stereotyping and discrimination regarding the

    candidates personality, ability and attitude. Thus, the following proposition is offered:

    The International Journal of Human Resource Management 3521

    Dow

    nloa

    ded

    by [U

    nivers

    ity of

    Eas

    t Lon

    don]

    at 11

    :17 27

    Marc

    h 201

    5

  • Proposition 1a: When interviewers and interviewees differ in cultural understanding and

    conversational frames, there is a greater likelihood that interviewers will

    generate inaccurate judgement and evaluation about the interviewees.

    Taking the concept of cultural understanding one step further, attribution theory can

    provide important insights into the difficulty that foreign-born job candidates encounter in

    the employment interview. The interview is a rule-governed social interaction with clearly

    defined reciprocal roles of both parties (Harriot 1981) that rely heavily on cultural

    expectations (Laroche 2008). There is always the possibility that parties to the interview

    may have conflicting expectations (Harriot 1981). For example, it is considered acceptable

    for North American-born interviewers to begin the interview by asking a candidate to tell

    me about yourself. Interviewers expect the candidate to respond by talking about his/her

    job experience and career objectives (Laroche 2008). However, according to non-Western

    cultures high in collectivism (Hofstede 1980), it is the norm for an interviewee to respond

    with a description of their family background and history. This unexpected response is

    typically deemed unprofessional and strange to some interviewers (e.g. North American),

    potentially resulting in the formation of incorrect judgement regarding the candidates

    suitability for the job (Laroche 2008).

    Attribution theorists provide some account of how interviewers may form negative

    impression of job candidates. Correspondence inference principle states that an action

    which is contrary to expectations will cause the observer of that action to infer its causes

    (Jones and Davis 1965). Application of this principle to the interview suggests that

    dispositional attributions will be made when an interviewee responds in an unusual

    manner, as illustrated in the example above. Thus, for example, an interviewer who makes

    a dispositional attribution might assume that a job candidates behaviour is the result of

    his/her disposition (e.g. internal characteristics) rather than the unexpected and unfamiliar

    interview situation itself (Reeder, Vonk, Ronk, Ham and Lawrence 2004) and might deem

    him/her unsuitable for the job. The discounting and augmentation principles of Kelly

    (1972) provide a clear illustration of this point. The discounting principle predicts that

    there will be fewer attributions made to the actor when she/he behaves according to

    expectations, whereas the augmentation principle states that there will be more attributions

    made to the actor when she/he behaves contrary to expectations. These two principles

    applied together in an interview setting suggest that interviewers are more likely to make

    negative attributions about candidates who respond to questions contrary to cultural

    expectations than those candidates who respond to questions according to cultural

    expectations. Accordingly, foreign-born job candidates will receive lower ratings in the

    employment interview when their responses to questions do not conform to the cultural

    norms of the country from which they are seeking employment. Based on the research, the

    following proposition is offered:

    Proposition 1b: Interviewers are more likely to make negative judgement about job

    candidateswho respond to questions contrary to cultural expectations than

    candidates who respond to questions according to cultural expectations.

    Non-verbal behaviour and cultural norms

    Research on the power of first impressions or the thin-slice effect has shown that

    strangers can form accurate perceptions of others within 30 seconds or less of random

    exposure to a persons behaviour (Ambady and Rosenthal 1993). The thin-slice effect has

    L. Manroop et al.3522

    Dow

    nloa

    ded

    by [U

    nivers

    ity of

    Eas

    t Lon

    don]

    at 11

    :17 27

    Marc

    h 201

    5

  • since been applied to the employment interview setting. There is now a small but growing

    body of literature, which suggests that interviewers first impression (30 seconds or less) of

    applicants during the interview can heavily influence their hiring recommendation

    (Schmidt 2007). Studies have shown that interviewers use applicants non-verbal

    behaviours to arrive at these recommendations (Posthuma et al. 2002). For example, in a

    recent experimental study, Schmidt (2007) found that applicants who appeared confident,

    assertive and optimistic in the interview were more likely to receive positive hiring

    recommendations than those that failed to display these characteristics.

    In an earlier experimental study, Howard and Ferris (1996) found that interviewees

    non-verbal behaviours such as direct eye contact, frequent smiling and nodding influenced

    the perceived competence of the interviewee (r 0.14), which in turn was highlycorrelated with job suitability (r 0.74). More recently, Stewart, Dustin, Barrick andDarnold (2008) found that a firm handshake has a critical influence on impressions formed

    during the interview. The authors concluded that a quality handshake conveys something

    meaningful about the interviewee that is also reflected in the rating of employment

    suitability (p. 1144). However, it should be recognized that the aforementioned studies

    are steeped within the Western culture.

    Clearly, these studies demonstrate that applicants non-verbal behaviours do influence

    interviewers judgement and evaluation in a number of ways. DeGroot and Motowidlo

    (1999) suggest that interviewers react to non-verbal cues to the extent that they believe the

    applicants as future employees will assist them, accept their suggestions, and cooperate

    with them (p. 991). Extending this argument further, Schmidt (2007) asserts that

    interviewees who are able to elicit such favourable personal reactions from their

    interviewers [through non-verbal] cues are more likely to be hired (p. 8). In summary,

    research indicates that non-verbal cues do influence hiring decisions.

    However, many of these non-verbal cues are, in part, culturally defined and, therefore,

    interviewers assessment of these behaviours could be confounded by cultural differences

    (Moss and Tilly 1996). For example, in high power-distance cultures (Hofstede 1980),

    interactions between people of low and high power may be restricted, thus limiting the

    amount of non-verbal interaction (Neuliep 2008). By this reasoning, interviewees from

    high power-distance cultures will likely avert direct eye contact with interviewers as a sign

    of respect because the interviewers are perceived to be in superior roles (Neuliep 2008).

    Similarly, Aboriginals tend to avoid eye contact when conversing with authority Figures

    (Latham and Budworth 2006). By the same token, a firm handshake is regarded as rude by

    interviewees from high power-distance cultures (Demo 2006). Likewise, to Koreans,

    smiling at strangers or authority figures is seen as being rude and intrusive (Thiederman

    1991). These examples illustrate the prevalence of non-verbal cues in daily interactions

    and, therefore, it is logical to contend that these cues will surface in the employment

    interview resulting in a potential influence on the assessment of the candidate.

    According to non-verbal expectancy violations theory (Burgoon 1978), people hold

    expectancies about the appropriateness of the non-verbal behaviours of others, which

    are learned and culturally driven. For example, North American interviewers expect

    handshakes to be firm and warm when greeting interviewees (Stewart et al. 2008).

    However, when non-verbal expectations are violated, the recipient may evaluate the

    violation and the violator negatively (Burgoon 1978). Thus, in the North American

    employment interview setting, when an interviewees handshake is weak, that interviewee

    may be evaluated negatively. Similarly, when interviewees fail tomake eye contact or smile

    during their interaction with interviewers, they are likely to receive negative evaluation.

    Based on the research, the following proposition is offered:

    The International Journal of Human Resource Management 3523

    Dow

    nloa

    ded

    by [U

    nivers

    ity of

    Eas

    t Lon

    don]

    at 11

    :17 27

    Marc

    h 201

    5

  • Proposition 2: Job candidates who violate non-verbal expectations in the employment

    interview will receive lower interview evaluation.

    The social interaction in an interview is influenced by the rapport between interviewers

    and interviewees, which can potentially influence the interview results. Studies suggest

    that if an interviewer and an interviewee did not experience any connection during the

    interview, then this lack of rapport would be a source of cognitive stress for the

    interviewee and could adversely affect his/her performance in the interview (Leary, Haupt,

    Strausser and Chokel 1998; Sanchez-Burks, Bartel and Blount 2009). Research in social

    psychological studies reveals that the experience of interpersonal rapport is shared as

    people unconsciously mirror each others verbal and non-verbal gestures during

    interaction (e.g. Chartrand and Bargh 1999; Lakin and Chartrand 2003). Thus, people who

    experience a social connection with each other tend to mirror each others behaviour, and

    it is through this process of behavioural mirroring that rapport is communicated to the

    other person (Sanchez-Burks et al. 2009). In line with this reasoning, therefore, a high

    level of behavioural mirroring from one party is an indication of high rapport, whereas a

    low level of behavioural mirroring is an indication of low rapport. Taken in the context of

    the employment interview, an interviewers low level of behavioural mirroring may send

    negative signals to the interviewee, which can hinder the interviewees ability to

    accurately exhibit his/her job-related skills and the interviewers ability to accurately

    assess those skills (Sanchez-Burks et al. 2009). These effects are non-verbal and

    unconscious without either party realizing it.

    While the effects of behavioural mirroring can be problematic for all applicants, cross-

    cultural research suggests that foreign-born candidates are affected the most because they

    differ in terms of their attention to relational cues and mirroring effects (Sanchez-Burks

    et al. 2009). For example, people in individualistic, independent cultures (also referred to as

    low-context by Gudykunst 2000; Hall 1976), such as North America, are less attentive to

    relational cues and engage in less behavioural mirroring (cf. van Baaren, Holland, Steenaert

    and van Knippenberg 2003; Sanchez-Burks 2002). In contrast, people in collectivistic,

    interdependent cultures (also referred to as high-context by Gudykunst 2000; Hall 1976),

    such asAsia, theMiddle East, Africa, andCentral and SouthAmericas, aremore sensitive to

    relational cues and engage in more behavioural mirroring (cf. Triandis 1995; Lindsley and

    Braithwaite 1996). These differences suggest that the performance of foreign-born job

    applicants in the employment interview might be influenced by the dynamics of

    interpersonal rapport (Sanchez-Burks et al. 2009). Thus, when foreign-born job candidates

    from collectivistic cultures perceive an absence of behavioural mirroring on the part of the

    interviewers, they may infer a lack of rapport, and hence become anxious and experience

    psychological stress, which may, in turn, hinder their performance in the interview. Given

    the above, it can be argued that cultural differences in relational focus could influence actual

    differences in interview performance, which could affect hiring decisions of foreign-born

    job candidates even in the absence of an explicit or implicit bias (Sanchez-Burks et al.

    2009). Accordingly, the following proposition is offered:

    Proposition 3a: Job candidates who perceive low levels of behavioural mirroring from

    interviewers will infer lack of rapport and hence experience

    psychological stress during the interview.

    L. Manroop et al.3524

    Dow

    nloa

    ded

    by [U

    nivers

    ity of

    Eas

    t Lon

    don]

    at 11

    :17 27

    Marc

    h 201

    5

  • Proposition 3b: Psychological stress will adversely affect job candidates performance

    during the interview.

    Self-promotion behaviours and cultural norms

    Research studies based within a Western context have shown that interviewers tend to be

    impressed when candidates promote themselves in the interview by confidently discussing

    goals and accomplishments (Posthuma et al. 2002; Macan 2009; Huffcutt 2011). In a

    survey of 617 employers, Wong and Phooi-Ching (2000) found that interviewers

    impression of job candidates was most influenced by the candidates level of confidence.

    Other laboratory studies found that self-promotion tactics in the interview were related to

    higher ratings, more job offers and fewer rejections (Barrick, Shaffer and DeGrassi 2009;

    Kleinmann and Klehe 2011).

    Indeed, it may be quite easy for job applicants born in the host country to grasp and

    master these interpersonal skills, which are congruent with Western individualistic and

    fairly masculine cultural norms (cf. Weiner 1986). However, it becomes a complicated

    issue for candidates from a diverse applicant pool who possess different cultural

    assumptions regarding how they should present themselves in the interview. For example,

    assertiveness and self- promotion behaviours are associated with boasting in most eastern

    cultures (Hu and Grove 1999), which are collectivistic, and which also score fairly high in

    feminine orientation (Hofstede 1984). Thus, candidates from these cultural backgrounds

    are likely to behave in a modest manner and are more likely to undersell themselves in the

    interview since this behaviour conforms to the behavioural expectations of their culture.

    According to research, this tendency is also shared by the Dutch and Maoris. The

    Dutch are very careful not to be seen as braggarts when writing resumes (Hofstede 1997).

    Similarly, in New Zealand, a Maori is permitted to bring anyone to the interview who can

    speak on his/her behalf because the applicant may be shy to speak assertively of oneself

    (Wong and Phooi-Ching 2000). These examples illustrate that cultural factors may

    moderate the extent to which a foreign-born interviewee will be motivated to promote

    oneself in the employment interview.

    The literature on cross-cultural research, and in particular Hofstedes theory on

    national cultures (Hofstede 1980, 1984), provides insight into how applicants from certain

    cultural backgrounds may be affected in the interview. In individualistic cultures that are

    fairly high in masculine orientation, such as North America, people tend to value personal

    goals and attribute success to individual performance (Markus and Kitayama 1991).

    Individuals are expected to be competitive, assertive, ambitious and risk takers in order to

    achieve their goals (Vance and Paik 2006). In collectivistic cultures that are fairly high in

    feminine orientation, such as Scandinavian countries, people are generally modest, value

    goals shared with others and attribute success to group performance (Markus and

    Kitayama 1991; Vance and Paik 2006).

    In the context of an employment interview, candidates from an individualistic and

    fairly masculine culture who engage in self-serving presentational bias by attributing

    past performance to personal responsibility and initiative are expected to be evaluated

    favourably if interviewed in aWestern context. In contrast, candidates from a collectivistic

    and fairly feminine culture who adopt a modesty bias by minimizing oneself and

    attributing success more generally to group performance are expected to be evaluated less

    favourably when interviewing in a Western context. Taken together, the following

    proposition is offered:

    The International Journal of Human Resource Management 3525

    Dow

    nloa

    ded

    by [U

    nivers

    ity of

    Eas

    t Lon

    don]

    at 11

    :17 27

    Marc

    h 201

    5

  • Proposition 4a: Cultural differences will moderate the extent to which candidates are

    motivated to promote themselves in the interview, such that candidates

    from collectivistic and feminine-oriented cultures are more likely to

    downplay their accomplishments and tend to receive lower ratings.

    Proposition 4b: Candidates from individualistic and masculine-oriented cultures are more

    likely to highlight their accomplishments and tend to receive higher

    ratings.

    Discussion and concluding remarks

    This paper highlights the problems inherent in the employment interview when dealing

    with a culturally diverse applicant pool. Specifically, we show that cultural differences

    between interviewers and interviewees can lead to misunderstandings and, subsequently,

    poor applicant ratings. Misunderstandings and misinterpretations in the interview should

    not be attributed to one party but to all parties involved in the exchange since the

    interactions are co-constructed and the roles are complementary (Demo 2006, p. 159).

    The communication difficulties (verbal and non-verbal), therefore, are perhaps intrinsic in

    the process itself and how it is executed rather than in the instrument as a selection tool.

    This raises questions about what should be done to enhance the validity and reliability of

    the interview and how to minimize selection bias when interviewing foreign-born job

    applicants. Several researchers have weighed in on this issue and have offered suggestions

    that might be useful for employers.

    First, while the onus is on interviewees to overcome cultural barriers in order to

    become more competitive with those born in the host country, organizations have an

    equally important responsibility to provide cross-cultural training to their interviewers

    regarding how to appropriately manage interactions with foreign-born job candidates. In

    fact, Cohen and Levinthals (1990) firm-level construct of absorptive capacity is a useful

    construct to enhance our understanding of how cross-cultural training can help overcome

    cross-cultural barriers experienced between host-country interviewers and foreign-born

    job applicants. Absorptive capacity (Cohen and Levinthal 1990) explains how providing

    cross-cultural training to local hiring managers and foreign job candidates can facilitate

    stronger social interactions (verbal and non-verbal) leading to increased receptivity and a

    more accurate understanding of each others behaviour. This occurs through a knowledge

    transfer process whereby individuals absorb cross-cultural knowledge through training

    that is then transferred or applied to subsequent social interactions with others from

    different cultural backgrounds. In support of this viewpoint, Tarique and Caligiuri (2009)

    coined the term cross-cultural absorptive capacity to explain how prior accumulated

    knowledge can influence how well an individual acquires and applies new cultural

    knowledge and skills to unfamiliar cultural settings.

    Towards this end, organizations can curtail misunderstandings in the employment

    interview by redesigning how the interview is conducted to account for cultural

    differences (Roberts and Campbell 2006). This alteration would give interviewers the

    latitude to rephrase questions and provide clarifications to minimize cultural

    misunderstandings. For example, with a re-engineered structured interview, the tell

    me about yourself question, which is prone to cultural misunderstanding, could be

    reworded so that the candidate is asked to tell me about your job-related experience and

    career objectives, which provides more clarity of how the candidate should respond.

    Second, human resource professionals and recruiters need to be more open to the influence

    L. Manroop et al.3526

    Dow

    nloa

    ded

    by [U

    nivers

    ity of

    Eas

    t Lon

    don]

    at 11

    :17 27

    Marc

    h 201

    5

  • of cultural factors during an interview. For this to happen, organizations must provide

    relevant cross-cultural training that would enable interviewers to differentiate between

    skills, personality and culturally based behaviours of interviewees. In addition, Lim,

    Winter and Chan (2006) suggest that organizations can diversify the interview panel

    and/or use a composite assessment methodology, of which the interview is only one part.

    For example, the use of general intelligence test, cognitive ability test and work sample,

    which are less prone to cultural bias, can be combined with the employment interview

    when recruiting from a diverse applicant pool. Doing so may generate significant benefits

    for organizations in terms of selecting the best candidate that might otherwise be screened

    out of the recruitment process. At the same time, prospective job applicants should engage

    in some self-initiated activities to learn about the cultural norms of the host country in

    terms of what is required to be competitive with that particular labour market. This

    involves reading the popular literature on how to do well on the employment interviews

    with titles such as Mastering the Job Interview (Chernev 2009), Sell Yourself: Master the

    Job Interview Process (Williams 2004), Get the Job You Really Want (Cann 2011) and

    Acting the Interview: How to Ask and Answer the Questions That Will Get You the Job

    (Beshara 2008).

    It should also be noted that not all foreign-born job applicants are affected by cultural

    differences in the employment interview because there is individual variation within

    cultures (Sanchez-Burks et al. 2009). Indeed, it should not be surprising to find some

    foreign-born job applicants more attuned to verbal and non-verbal cues, or self-promotion

    behaviours that are specific to the context from which they seek employment in

    comparison to some of those born within the same context.

    A review of the extant literature and the model proposed in this paper shed light on

    several promising avenues for future research. First, scholars should seek to empirically

    investigate the propositions advanced in this paper to determine whether cultural

    differences in the interview indeed lead to some form of discrimination, albeit

    unintentional, against foreign-born job candidates. Second, the extant literature has yet to

    consider whether there are variations in the cultural profiles of countries considered

    collectivist or high in power distance that might influence interview outcomes. Triandis,

    McCusker and Hui (1990) have argued that different layers of cultures within a specific

    culture can shape peoples behaviours. In this regard, they suggest level-specific terms

    such as idiocentric and allocentric to describe individuals who embrace individualistic and

    collectivistic cultures, respectively. In the light of this evidence, future research should

    examine the extent to which cultural influences at the individual level of analysis would

    influence interview selection decisions. Third, telephone and other web-based interviews

    are becoming increasingly popular among employers (e.g. Straus, Miles and Levesque

    2001; Chapman and Rowe 2002; Chapman, Uggerslev and Webster 2003). Thus, it would

    be important for researchers to examine the extent to which these newer forms of

    interviews are more effective than face-to-face interviews at reducing the incidence of

    discrimination against a culturally diverse applicant pool. Researchers should consider

    integrating an intercultural communication theory such as Halls (1976) notion of high-

    context versus low-context styles of communication when examining cultural influences

    on preferred communication methods. In short, high-context cultures (e.g. China, Brazil)

    value communication styles high in media richness (e.g. face-to-face interviews) because

    there is greater dependence upon the context of the environmental setting and non-verbal

    methods of communication to understand the meaning of the messages (Ardichvili,

    Maurer, Li, Wentling and Stuedemann 2006). In contrast, low-context cultures (e.g. the

    USA) prefer communication styles low in media richness (e.g. written text) as there is

    The International Journal of Human Resource Management 3527

    Dow

    nloa

    ded

    by [U

    nivers

    ity of

    Eas

    t Lon

    don]

    at 11

    :17 27

    Marc

    h 201

    5

  • much less dependence upon the context to understand the meaning of the message

    (Ardichvili et al. 2006). Finally, researchers should also seek to empirically investigate the

    extent to which cross-cultural differences affect the reliability and validity of the interview

    process.

    In summary, the goal of this paper was to examine the employment interview through

    the lens of national culture to identify conditions under which foreign-born job candidates

    might be affected. Towards this end, we proposed a model to illustrate how cross-cultural

    differences can influence interview outcomes using Hofstedes cultural dimensions as the

    overarching theoretical framework. Specifically, we show how cultural differences

    between foreign-born job applicants and host-country-born interviewers can lead to

    unintentional discrimination (low applicant ratings) because of misunderstanding and

    misinterpretation between the parties in the social exchange. We reviewed the literature in

    cross-cultural research and social psychology to delineate the conditions under which job

    candidates could be disadvantaged, and have provided some propositions that could be

    tested in future research. We also suggest some future research possibilities that flowed

    directly from the ideas presented in this paper. Our hope is to generate interest in this issue

    among researchers.

    Note

    1. Consistent with Boyd and Thomas (2001), we define skilled professional migrants as thosepersons who take up permanent residence in a new country during prime working age and havecompleted at least 16 years of schooling in their home country. The rationale for selecting thisgroup is that they have been programmed in the values of their home-country culture, whichwould continue to govern and influence their social life in the new country of residence(Hofstede 1984) until such time that they are acculturated.

    References

    Akinnaso, F., and Ajirotutu, C. (1982), Performance and Ethnic Style in Job Interviews, inLanguage and Social Identity, ed. J.J. Gumperz, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,pp. 119144.

    Ambady, N., and Rosenthal, R. (1993), Half a Minute: Predicting Teacher Evaluations From ThinSlices of Nonverbal Behaviour and Physical Attractiveness, Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 64, 431441.

    Ardichvili, A., Maurer, M., Li, W., Wentling, T., and Stuedemann, R. (2006), Cultural Influences onKnowledge Sharing Through Online Communities of Practice, Journal of KnowledgeManagement, 10, 94107.

    Arvey, R.D., and Faley, R.H. (1992), Fairness in Selecting Employees (2nd ed.), Reading,MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Barrick, M.R., Shaffer, J.A., and DeGrassi, S.W. (2009), What You See May Not BeWhat You Get:Relationships Among Self-Presentation Tactics and Ratings of Interview and Job Performance,Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 13941411.

    Barrick, M.R., Swider, B.W., and Stewart, G.L. (2010), Initial Evaluation in the Interview:Relationships With Subsequent Interviewer Evaluations and Employment Offers, Journal ofApplied Psychology, 95, 11631172.

    Basabe, N., and Ros, M. (2005), Cultural Dimensions and Social Behavior Correlates:Individualism-Collectivism and Power Distance, Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale,18, 1, 189225.

    Bauder, H. (2003), Brain Abuse, or the Devaluation of Immigrant Labour in Canada, Antipode,35, 4, 699717.

    Beck, J.H., Reitz, J.G., and Weiner, N. (2002), Addressing Systemic Racial Discrimination inEmployment: The Health Canada Case and Implications of Legislative Change, CanadianPublic Policy, 28, 373394.

    L. Manroop et al.3528

    Dow

    nloa

    ded

    by [U

    nivers

    ity of

    Eas

    t Lon

    don]

    at 11

    :17 27

    Marc

    h 201

    5

  • Beshara, T. (2008), Acting the Interview: How to Ask and Answer the Questions That Will Get Youthe Job, New York: AMACOM.

    Birkner, K. (2004), Hegemonic Struggles or Transfer of Knowledge? East andWest Germans in JobInterviews, Journal of Language and Politics, 3, 2, 293322.

    Boyd, M., and Thomas, D. (2001), Match or Mismatch? The Labour Market Performances ofForeign-Born Engineers, Population Research and Policy Review, 20, 107133.

    Burgoon, J.K. (1978), A Communication Model of Personal Space Violations: Explication and anInitial Test, Human Communications Research, 4, 129142.

    Bye, H.H., Sandal, G.M., Vijver, F.J.R., Sam, D.L., Cakar, N.D., and Franke, G.H. (2011), PersonalValues and Intended Self-Presentation During Job Interviews: A Cross-Cultural Comparison,Applied Psychology: An International Review, 60, 160182.

    Campion, J.E., and Arvey, R.D. (1989), Unfair Discrimination in the Employment Interview, inThe Employment Interview: Theory, Research and Practice, eds. R.W. Eder and G.R. Ferris,Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp. 6173.

    Campion, M.A., Palmer, D.K., and Campion, J.E. (1997), A Review of Structure in the SelectionInterview, Personnel Psychology, 50, 655701.

    Campion, M.A., Pursell, E.D., and Brown, B.K. (1988), Structured Interviewing: Raising thePsychometric Properties of the Employment Interview, Personal Psychology, 41, 2542.

    Cann, J. (2011), Get the Job You Really Want, London, England: Penguin Group.Celani, A., Deutsch-Salamon, S., and Singh, P. (2008), In Justice We Trust: A Model of the Role of

    Trust in the Organization in Applicant Reactions to the Selection Process, Human ResourceManagement Review, 18, 6376.

    Chapman, D.S., and Rowe, P.M. (2002), The Influencing of Videoconferencing Technology andInterview Structure on the Recruiting Function of the Employment Interview: A FieldExperiment, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10, 185197.

    Chapman, D.S., Uggerslev, K.L., and Webster, J. (2003), Applicant Reactions to Face-to-Face andTechnology-Mediated Interviews: A Field Investigation, Journal of Applied Psychology, 88,944953.

    Chartrand, T.L., and Bargh, J. (1999), The Chameleon Effect: The Perception-Behaviour Link andSocial Interaction, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 893910.

    Chernev, A. (2009), Mastering the Job Interview (6th ed.), Broken Arrow, OK: Brightstar Media.Church, A.T., and Lonner, W.J. (1998), The Cross-Cultural Perspective in the Study of Personality

    Rationale and Current Research, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 3262.Cohen, W.M., and Levinthal, D.A. (1990), Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning

    and Innovation, Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128152.Coombs-Thorne, H., and Warren, M. (2007), Connect, Accept, Recognize, Empower: The

    Integration of Immigrants Into the Newfoundland and Labrador Workforce, St. Johns, NL:Association for New Canadians.

    Dash, S., Bruning, E., and Acharva, M. (2009), The Effect of Power Distance and Individualism onService Quality Expectations in Banking: A Two-Country Individual- and National-CulturalComparison, International Journal of Bank Marketing, 27, 5, 336358.

    DeGroot, T., and Gooty, J. (2009), Can Nonverbal Cues be Used to Make Meaningful PersonalityAttributions in Employment Interviews, Journal of Business Psychology, 24, 179192.

    DeGroot, T., and Motowidlo, S.J. (1999), Why Visual and Vocal Interview Cues Can AffectInterviewers Judgments and Predict Job Performance, Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 6,986993.

    Delerue, H., and Simon, E. (2009), National Cultural Values and the Perceived Relational Risk inBiotechnology Alliance Relationships, International Business Review, 18, 1425.

    Demo, D.A. (2006), Interactional Competence in Gatekeeping Encounters: A Discourse Analysis ofCross-Cultural Employment Interviews, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Georgetown University,Washington, DC.

    Dietz, J., and Pugh, S.D. (2004), I Say Tomato and You Say Domate: Differential Reactions toEnglish-Only Workplace Policies by Persons From Immigrant and Non-Immigrant Families,Journal of Business Ethics, 52, 4, 365379.

    Dipboye, R.L., Wooten, K., and Halverson, S.K. (2004), Behavioral and Situational Interviews, inHandbook of Psychological Assessment, Industrial and Organizational Assessment (4), ed. J.C.Thomas, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 297316.

    The International Journal of Human Resource Management 3529

    Dow

    nloa

    ded

    by [U

    nivers

    ity of

    Eas

    t Lon

    don]

    at 11

    :17 27

    Marc

    h 201

    5

  • Dougherty, T.W., and Turban, D.B. (1999), Behavioural Confirmation of InterviewerExpectancies, in The Employment Interview Handbook, eds. R.W. Eder and M.M. Harris,Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 217288.

    Erez, M.A., and Gati, E. (2004), A Dynamic, Multi-Level Model of Culture: From the Micro Levelof the Individual to the Macro Level of a Global Culture, Applied Psychology: An InternationalReview, 53, 583598.

    Forstenlechner, I., and Al-Waqfi, M.A. (2010), A Job Interview for Mo, but None for Mohammed:Religious Discrimination Against Immigrants in Austria and Germany, Personnel Review, 39,6, 767784.

    Fulkerson, J.R., and Tucker, M.E. (1999), Diversity: Lessons From Global Human ResourcePractices, in Evolving Practices in Human Resource Management, eds. A.I. Kraut and A.K.Korman, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp. 249274.

    Gatewood, R.D., Feild, H.S., and Barrick, M.R. (2008), Human Resource Selection (6th ed.), Mason,OH: Thomson South-Western.

    Gouveia, V.V., and Ros, M. (2000), Hofstede and Schwartzs Models for Classifying Individualismat the Cultural Level: Their Relation to Macro-Social and Macro-Economic Variables,Psicothema, 12, 2533.

    Gudykunst, W.B. (2000), Asian American Ethnicity and Communication, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Gumperz, J. (1982), Language and Social Identity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Gumperz, J. (1992), Contextualisation Revisited, in The Contextualisation of Language, eds. P.

    Auer and A. Di Luzio, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 3953.Gumperz, J. (1996), The Linguistic and Cultural Relativity of Conversational Inference, in

    Rethinking Linguistic Relativity, eds. J. Gumperz and S. Levinson, Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, pp. 374406.

    Gumperz, J. (1999), On Interactional Sociolinguistic Method, in Talk, Work and InstitutionalOrder: Discourse in Medical, Mediation and Management Settings, eds. C. Roberts and S.Sarangi, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 453471.

    Hackett, R.D., Lapierre, L.M., and Gardiner, H.P. (2004), A Review of Canadian Human RightsCases Involving the Employment Interview, Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences,21, 2, 215228.

    Hall, E.T. (1976), Beyond Culture, New York: Anchor Press-Doubleday.Harriot, P. (1981), Towards an Attribution Theory of the Selection Interview, Journal of

    Organizational Psychology, 54, 165173.Hitt, M.A., and Barr, S.H. (1989), Managerial Selection Decision Models: Examination of

    Configural Cue Processing, Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 5361.Hofstede, G. (1980), Cultures Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values,

    Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Hofstede, G. (1984), Cultures Consequences, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Hofstede, G. (1997), Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, London: McGraw-Hill.Hofstede, G. (2001), Cultures Consequences (2nd ed.), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Hofstede, G., and Bond, M.H. (1988), The Confucius Connection: From Cultural Roots to

    Economic Growth, Organizational Dynamics, 16, 4, 521.House, R., Javidan, M., Hanges, P., and Dorfman, P. (2002), Understanding Cultures and Implicit

    Leadership Theories Across the Globe: An Introduction to Project GLOBE, Journal of WorldBusiness, 37, 310.

    House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S.A., Dorfman, P.W., Javidan, M., Dickson, M., Gupta,V., GLOBE (1999), Cultural Influences on Leadership and Organizations, in Advances inGlobal Leadership, eds. W.H. Mobley, M.J. Gessner and V. Arnold, Stanford, CT: JAI Press,pp. 171233.

    Howard, J.L., and Ferris, G.R. (1996), The Employment Interview Context: Social and SituationalInfluences on Interviewer Decisions, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 2, 112136.

    Hu, W., and Grove, C. (1999), Encountering the Chinese: A Guide for Americans, Yarmouth, ME:Intercultural Press.

    Huffcutt, A.I. (2011), An Empirical Review of the Employment Interview Construct Literature,International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 19, 6281.

    Huffcutt, A.I., and Woehr, D.J. (1999), Further Analysis of Employment Interview Validity:A Quantitative Evaluation of Interviewer-Related Structuring Methods, Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, 20, 549560.

    L. Manroop et al.3530

    Dow

    nloa

    ded

    by [U

    nivers

    ity of

    Eas

    t Lon

    don]

    at 11

    :17 27

    Marc

    h 201

    5

  • Hussey, P.S. (2005), International Migration of Physicians and Nurses to the United States,unpublished Ph.D. doctoral thesis, John Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD.

    Imada, A.S., and Hakel, M.D. (1977), Influence of Nonverbal Communication and Rater Decisionsin Simulated Employment Interviews, Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 295300.

    Islam, A. (2009), The Substitutability of Labour Between Immigrants and Natives in the CanadianLabour Market, Journal of Population Economics, 22, 199217.

    Jones, E.E., and Davis, K.E. (1965), From Acts to Dispositions: The Attribution Process in PersonPerception, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 219266.

    Judge, T.A., Higgins, C.A., and Cable, D.M. (2000), The Employment Interview: A Review ofRecent Research and Recommendations for Future Research, Human Resource ManagementReview, 10, 4, 383406.

    Karahanna, E., Evaristo, J., and Srite, M. (2005), Levels of Culture and Individual Behaviour:An Integrative Perspective, Journal of Global Information Management, 13, 2, 120.

    Kelly, H.H. (1972), Attribution in Social Interaction, in Attribution: Perceiving the Causes ofBehaviour, eds. E.E. Jones, D.E. Kanouse, H.H. Kelley, R.E. Nisbett, S. Valins and B. Weiner,Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press, pp. 126.

    Kim, M. (1996), Individual vs. Culture Level Dimensions of Individualism and Collectivism:Effects on Preferred Conversational Styles, Communication Monographs, 63, 2949.

    Kleinmann, M., and Klehe, U. (2011), Selling Oneself: Construct and Criterion-Related Validity ofImpression Management in Structured Interviews, Human Performance, 24, 2946.

    Kovessy, P. (2008), Immigrant Workers Face Uphill Battle, Ottawa Business Journal, May 5.Lakin, J.L., and Chartrand, T.L. (2003), Using Non-Conscious Behaviour Mimicry to Create

    Affiliation and Rapport, Psychological Sciences, 14, 334340.Laroche, L. (2008), Culture Shouldnt Get in the Way of Hiring Good Candidates, Canadian HR

    Reporter, 21, 6, 3033.Latham, G.P., and Budworth, M.H. (2006), The Effect of Training in Verbal Self-Guidance on the

    Self Efficacy and Performance of Native North Americans in the Selection Interview, Journalof Vocational Behavior, 68, 516523.

    Leary, M.R., Haupt, A.L., Strausser, K.S., and Chokel, J.T. (1998), Calibrating the Sociometer:The Relationship Between Interpersonal Appraisals and State Self-Esteem, Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 74, 12901299.

    Leung, K., Bhagat, R.S., Buchan, N.R., Erez, M., and Gibson, C.B. (2005), Culture andInternational Business: Recent Advances and Their Implications for Future Research, Journalof International Business Studies, 36, 4, 357378.

    Lievens, F., de Corte, W., and Brysse, K. (2003), Applicant Perceptions of Selection Procedures:The Role of Selection Information, Belief in Tests, and Comparative Anxiety, InternationalJournal of Selection and Assessment, 11, 6777.

    Lim, C., Winter, R., and Chan, C. (2006), Cross-Cultural Interviewing in the Hiring Process:Challenges and Strategies, Career Development Quarterly, 54, 265268.

    Lindsley, S.L., and Braithwaite, C.A. (1996), You Should Wear a Mask: Facework Norms inCultural and Intercultural Conflict in Maquilandoras, International Journal of InterculturalRelations, 20, 199255.

    Lipsmeyer, C.S., and Zhu, L. (2011), Immigration, Globalization, and Unemployment Benefits inDeveloped EU States, American Journal of Political Science, 55, 647664.

    Longmire, J. (1992), Communicating Social Identity in a Job Interview in a Cambodian-AmericanCommunity, Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 3, 1, 4958.

    Macan, T. (2009), The Employment Interview: A Review of Current Studies and Directions forFuture Research, Human Resource Management Review, 19, 203218.

    Markus, H.R., and Kitayama, H. (1991), Culture and the Self: Implications for Cognition, Emotion,and Motivation, Psychological Review, 98, 92, 224253.

    Mast, M.S., Bangerter, A., Bulliard, C., and Aerni, G. (2011), How Accurate are Recruiters FirstImpressions of Applicants in Employment Interviews, International Journal of Selection andAssessment, 19, 198208.

    McCarthy, J.M., Iddekinge, C.H.V., and Campion, M.A. (2010), Are Highly Structured JobInterviews Resistant to Demographic Similarity Effects? Personnel Psychology, 63, 325359.

    McDonald, T., and Hakel, M.D. (1985), Effects of Applicant Race, Sex, Suitability, and Answers onInterviewers Questioning Strategy and Ratings, Personnel Psychology, 38, 321334.

    The International Journal of Human Resource Management 3531

    Dow

    nloa

    ded

    by [U

    nivers

    ity of

    Eas

    t Lon

    don]

    at 11

    :17 27

    Marc

    h 201

    5

  • Michaels, S. (1981), Sharing Time: Childrens Narrative Styles and Differential Access toLiteracy, Language in Society, 10, 423442.

    Morgeson, F.P., Reider, M.H., Campion, M.A., and Bull, R.A. (2008), Review of Research on AgeDiscrimination in the Employment Interview, Journal of Business and Psychology, 22,223233.

    Moss, P., and Tilly, C. (1996), Soft Skills and Race, Work and Occupation, 23, 3, 252276.Neuliep, J.W. (2008), Intercultural Communication: A Contextual Approach (4th ed.), Thousand

    Oaks, CA: Sage.Parsons, C.K., and Linden, R.C. (1984), Interviewer Perceptions of Applicant Qualifications:

    A Multivariate Field Study of Demographic Characteristics and Nonverbal Cues, Journal ofApplied Psychology, 69, 557568.

    Peppas, S.C., and Yu, T.-L. (2005), Job Candidates Attributes: A Comparison of Chinese and USEmployer Evaluations and the Perceptions of Chinese Students, Cross Cultural Management,12, 4, 7893.

    Pinar, M., McCuddy, M.K., Eser, Z., and Trapp, P. (2009), Do Recruiter Gender, Applicant Gender,and Target Market Gender Impact the Recruiting Outcome? Perceptions of Turkish Recruiters,The Business Review, 12, 301308.

    Posthuma, R.A., Morgeson, F.P., and Campion, M.A. (2002), Beyond Employment InterviewValidity: A Comprehensive Narrative Review of Recent Research and Trends Over Time,Personnel Psychology, 55, 181.

    Reeder, G.D., Vonk, R., Ronk, M.J., Ham, J., and Lawrence, M. (2004), Dispositional Attribution:Multiple Inferences About Motive-Related Trait, Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 86, 530544.

    Reilly, P.N., Bocketti, S.P., Maser, S.A., and Wennet, C.L. (2006), Benchmarks Affect Perceptionsof Prior Disability in a Structured Interview, Journal of B