Impression Management, Fairness, and the Employment Interview

Author(s): Paul Rosenfeld

Source: Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 16, No. 8 (Jun., 1997), pp. 801-808
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25072943
Accessed: 18-09-2015 10:45 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Business Ethics.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 39.55.66.235 on Fri, 18 Sep 2015 10:45:16 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Impression
Fairness,

Management,
and the

Interview*

Employment

This
is not

ABSTRACT.

contends
that impression
a
to fairness in
threat
inherendy
interviews. Rather,
regarding impression

management
employment
of

paper

as unfair

management
view

Paul Rosenfeld

impression

is based

on

an outdated,
as conscious,

management

narrow

Researchers

manip

ulative, and deceptive. A broader, expansive model

sees
is described which
of impression management
as falling on a continuum
these behaviors
from
on the one hand,
to
and manipulative
on
and
the
While
beneficial
other!
positive
the
organizations may want to eliminate or discount
con
of
the
aspect
negative
impression management
the ability to positively "sell" oneself is often
tinuum,
a desirable attribute both in the employment
inter
view and in later on-the-job
This
settings.
expansive
deceptive
accurate,

view

of

organizations

impression
can make

management
employment

contends
interviews

that
more

of candidate
settings and increasing the verifiability
on
a candidate's
the
interview
responses by focusing
identities
and
rather than
long-term
accomplishments
short-term,

please

spur-of-the-moment

attempts

to

the interviewer.

sciences

attention

to

revolves

around

1992) and Improving Organizational

1993).

Surveys

(Sage,

theoretical

framework

concerns

the

of

and

and orga
increased
which
for

individuals

man

others.

impressions
Impression
that people
agement refers to the many ways
try
to control
the impressions
others have of them:
their
and
motivations,
behavior,
morality,
like
attributes
personal
dependability,
intelligence,
and

future

Rosenfeld,
The
outside
others

and
Giacalone
(cf.
potential
et al., 1994b).
1989, 1991; Rosenfeld

management
impression
perspective
that a basic motive,
inside
and
both
of organizations,
is to be viewed
by
manner
in a favorable
and avoid being

seen negatively.

This perspective
views much
of
as
an
to
behavior
organizational
analogous
on behalf of a commercial
campaign
advertising
act as amateur
Individuals
product.
publicity
agents conducting
their own
behalf,

1991;

in the
and coeditied Impression Management
and Applied
Organization
(Erlbaum,
1989)
Impression Management
(Sage, 1991). Dr. Rosenfeld
is also coeditor of Hispanics
in theWorkplace
(Sage,

the management
been devoting

making

while

"spin

control"

on

campaigns

highlighting
strengths
in "damage
control"

and

engaging
deficiencies

minimize

1985)

fairness,

have

on

virtues

Paul Rosenfeld
is a personnel research psychologist at the
Navy Personnel Research and Development Center in
San Diego, CA. Dr. Rosenfeld
has previously co
to Social Psychology
authored Introduction
(West,

within

nizational

assumes

as a skill and
fair by: viewing
impression management
not a deficit,
to
interviewers
be wary of
training
and
manipulative
deceptive
impression management,
of interview
reducing the ambiguity and uncertainty

their

management,
Impression
the employment
interview

Tedeschi

to

and Giacalone,
(Rosenfeld
1985, chapter 3).
has
management
increasingly
et al.,

Impression
a
become
of organizational
part
recognized
to areas
behavior
It has been
research.
applied
such as employment
interviews,
performance
assessment
business
centers,
evaluation,
ethics,
communica
surveys,
organizational
and
issues (cf.
tion, feedback,
leadership,
diversity
Giacalone
and Rosenfeld,
Rosenfeld
1989, 1991;
et al, 1994b).
computer

While
occur

impression
management
phenomena
in many
social and organizational
situa

1997.
Journal of Business Ethics 16: 801-808,
? 1997 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in theNetherlands.
This content downloaded from 39.55.66.235 on Fri, 18 Sep 2015 10:45:16 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

802 Paul Rosenfeld

the "high
stakes" nature of the employ
interview
it a setting
makes
particularly
In a
for
behaviors.
ripe
impression management
both
the candidate
(who
typical job interview,

tions,
ment

wants

and

and Rosenfeld,

to manage
attempting
positive
achieve
desired outcomes.

ment

Because

impression
been
previously

have

as nefarious,
manipulative,
and Giacalone,
Rosenfeld

and

(cf.
deceptive
their use by
1991)
interviews
has been

in employment

applicants
seen as
the "fairness" of
potentially
undermining
the selection
and
Renz,
process
1992).
(Arvey
The present paper considers
the fairness
issue
as

it

to

relates

and

management
impression
A review
interviews.
of previous
employment
research is presented which
indicates
that impres
sion management
tactics can positively
impact

of applicants
but can
perceptions
An expansive model
if used excessively.
is presented
that
management
impression

interviewer
backfire
of

contends

that some

sion management
interviews.
Within
suggestions
interviews

but not

impede
the context

Although

management

fairness

Because

is relatively
the
applicant
aware that
the
interviewer
be
may
powerless
much
of the applicant's
behavior
represents
style
over substance,
the impression management
task
and

of

is not always easy. To be suc

applicant
a "fine
must walk
the applicant
line"

the

cessful,

sycophantic,
or manic,

of impres
in employment
of this model,
in employment

the employment

conceptualized
tion processing,

employment
as a form
or

of
a

as

each

other

management.

through
near
The

interview

has been

cognitive
selection

informa

the use

of

impression
of
the

universality
and
interview
the
importance
employment
to it in both the popular and professional
ascribed
literature

occurrence
particularly
employment

have made

it fertile

for

the

territory
is
This
management.
impression
true for the applicant
for whom
the
is often a very ambiguous
interview

of

but not
brash, polite
not
and interested
but
voluble

lively

nervous
an
to show
sufficiently
of the importance
of the occasion

appreciation
but not visibly
anxious
(Fletcher,
throughout".
has similarly
found
that
1989, p. 273) Research
can
while
management
impression
positively
influence
interviewer
of the appli
perceptions
cant,

its overuse

on

Research

employment

Von

technique
civil
and
(cf. Eder
rights implications
legal
having
a type
can
as
it
also
be
viewed
and Ferris,
1989),
et
where
interaction
of social
al., 1993)
(Liden
and interviewer
the applicant
both
try to influ
ence

not

but

"confident

being

can backfire.

Baeyer

their
was

in the
management
impression
on
interview
has typically
focused
of the applicant.
In an early study,
et al. (1981) found
that female
job

tailored

interviewer.

nonverbal

their

to match

the views

and

of women

the male

When

to hold

known

and

impression management
interviews
on

applicants
behaviors
the

manage
impression
and uncertain
situations.

studies
analyses and empirical
on the impression
manage
of applicants
rather than inter

behaviors

Research

and

that

conceptual
focused more

have

employment
the behavior
Impression
interview

1991) has found

all forms

fairness

for increasing
are presented.

Both

Organizational
(cf., Giacalone

research

in more

engage
in ambiguous

viewers.

behaviors
management
some
viewed
theorists
by

situation.

1989,

individuals
ment

to

social

management

impression

to get hired) and interviewer

(who wants
to attract the best candidates)
in a recip
engage
rocal impression management
both
process with
impressions

uncertain

verbal
held

by

interviewer

with
the
congruent
traditional
female
female
stereotype,
applicants
to
traditional
gave more
responses
questions
about family and relationships,
time
spent more
on

their

and
appearance
physical
in their verbal and nonverbal

assertive
than when
attitudes.
applicants
interview
(1989)
behaviors

views

the

interviewer
this

While

study

in interview
Baron
expect

less

indicated

study
their
behaviors

modify
a
beliefs,
found
that

terproductive.
interviewers

held

were

reported

impression
situations
contends

applicants

This content downloaded from 39.55.66.235 on Fri, 18 Sep 2015 10:45:16 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

less

behaviors
traditional
that

job
to match
by

Baron

management
can be coun
that

to use

because
impression

and Employment

Impression Management
use
excessive
management,
In his study, male
backfire.
conducted

The

applicant.

an
seeking
entry-level
in a standard fashion

tactics may
students
a female
with
was

female

applicant
and she responded

position
to questions

The

interviewers.

such

interviews

employment

confederate

of

and female

by the
a number

applicant
of positive
nonverbal
behaviors
such as smiling
non
and leaning forward or emitted few positive
verbal cues. She also either wore or did not wear

Baron's
results
the notion
perfume.
supported
that too much
in an
management
impression
can
a
interview
have
employment
negative
interviewers
rated the female appli
impact. Male
cant as being more
and viewed
her as
intelligent
success
if
for
she
emitted
having greater potential
or wore
nonverbals
positive
her lower
if she used both
behaviors.
management
was
not found when
were

but

perfume,
sets of

rated

impression
this effect

Interestingly,
the interviewer

subjects

female.
Barons

While

demonstrated

study

that

tactics

could

management
impression
multiple
be too much
of a good thing, Gilmore
and Ferris
an
that
showed
(1989a)
impression management
if skillfully
influence
could
tactic,
executed,
more
interviewer
than
information
perceptions
about

the applicant's
actual qualifications.
a field
62
experiment
using
a
interviewers
from
The
public
utility.

conducted
viewers

viewed

They
actual
inter

a female
in which
videotape
in impression
management

applicant

engaged
interviewer,
(e.g., complemented
smiled) or did
not. She was also portrayed
as being
highly qual
ified for a customer
representative
job or less
The
that
results
indicated
evaluations
qualified.
were
of the applicant
influenced
by impression
but

not

credentials.
The
applicant
as
in the
better
applicant
perceived
doing
more
interview
to be
and was
slightly
likely
recommended
for hiring when
she used impres

management

al. (1992). They

sion management

than
management
her credentials
However,
interviewer

One
Gilmore

when
had

not.

did

little

on

impact

implication of the Baron

and Ferris

(1989a)

studies

management
impression
in employment
equally effective
demonstrated

more

directly

(1989) and
is that not

work

or

interviews.
by Kacmar

the

all
are

This
et

"self-focused"

on

(e.g.,
com

(e.g.,
found
that job

interview).
They
used
impression

who
applicants
tactics
that focused

themselves

management
were
rated

man
whose
applicants
impression
on the interviewer.
tactics focused

than

higher
agement

in the employment

Using
impression management
interview: is itfair?

At first glance,
applicant
impression management
such as those described
in the studies
tactics,
to
reviewed
would
In
be unfair.
above,
appear
their discussion
of fairness
in employee
selection,
and Renz
that one criterion
Arvey
(1992) note
of fairness
is that the processes
and procedures
are
used
across
and
consistent
all
objective
applicants.
considered
Selection
'good',
criteria

behaviors

Subjective,
manipulative
less fair. "Information

and distorted

faked

procedures
their
distort
for

regarded
and the

which

so as to meet
the
responses
more
and
otherwise
easily,
are generally
impressions

their
as less fair

than

those wherein

is less

like

are

is easily
is considered
relatively unfair.
can fake
wherein
applicants

selection

manipulate

achieved"

faking
(Arvey and

likely
Renz,
1992, p. 335). Anderson
(1991) similarly
sees impression management
as a form of
decep
tion

that

least

candidates
personal
outcome

"represents

source

potent

of

. . . Interviewers

interviewer
at

take

judgments.
into account

the

in

should

that
possibility
their
inter
biasing
to secure a favorable

intentionally
in order
behaviors
from

error

the

are

It is presently

interaction"

argued

(p. 414).1
some
that while

of

forms

in employment
that involve honestly,

used

impression management
are unfair, forms
interviews
and accurately
and highlighting
one's
presenting
are both
attributes
fair and desirable
applicant

behaviors.

ratings.

tactics

was

she

that were

applicant
impres
the employment

or "other-focused"

self-promotions)

was

sion

803

distinguished
in
tactics

as those

interview

plementing

asked
used

either

Interviews

behaviors

Viewing
management
impression
as
unfair
is, from this per
inherently
stems
excessive.
It likely
from
the

spective,
remnants

of a narrower

psychology

during

impression

management

the

model,

in social
popular
that considered

1970s,
as
being

This content downloaded from 39.55.66.235 on Fri, 18 Sep 2015 10:45:16 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

synonymous

804 Paul Rosenfeld

and deceptive
conscious,
manipulative,
and
behaviors
Giacalone,
1991). A
(Rosenfeld
sees
some
more
view
impression
expansive
as fair
in
interviews
management
employment
with

some

and

as unfair.
to

viewer
impression
the unfair

It is the

the fair
encourage
and detect and minimize

management

The

component.
of impression
recommendations

impression

management

impression

management

narrow

expan
are detailed
"fair"

restrictive and expansive

employment
other forms

it as synonymous
with
deceptive
In
fact,
management
impression
manipulation.
a major
transformation
has undergone
theory
on
two
decades
from
the
past
focusing
during

image. The
to eliminate

sees

behaviors

to its current
nizational

(e.g., lying, exaggeration)

as a general model
of orga
and
Rosenfled,
(Giacalone

status

behavior
review

of

and

management
and Weigold
restrictive and expan

impression
Schlenker

research,
between
(1992) distinguish
of
sive views
management.
impression
sees impression
view
restrictive
management
theory

a generally
iors aimed

negative
at illicitly
It stems

approval.
sion management

often

deceptive
social
gaining
from the old view

(i.e.,
psychological
view
The expansive
hension).
sees impression
management
interactions.
of
social
aspect
expansivist
nefarious

view,
or

there

as

and
power
of impres
of

evaluation
on

The

set of behav

as a contaminant
research

the other

social
appre
hand

as a fundamental
to the

"According
is nothing
inherently
man
about
impression

superficial
in
information
It
involves
agement.
packaging
a
to
to
lead
audiences
ways
particular
designed
. . . From
to ask
this perspective,
conclusion.
in self-presentation
when
engage
during
people
social

interaction

is like asking when

people

analyses

of impres
interviews.

In Fletcher's

p. 364).

impression
interviews
may

in

management
be manipulative

may be
management
impression
an
that
the
is,
"authentic",
presents
applicant
or
his
her self
that closely matches
identity

create

of

task therefore

for

interviewers

management,
impression
where
manipulative
is less likely to occur.

situations

management
The
expansive
ment

1989, 1991).
In a recent

has been

distinction

employment
notes
that while

(1992,

deception"
some
while

tactics in
that impression management
are inherently
unfair
interviews
employment
a
model
of
utilizes
impression
organizational
narrow
that may be excessively
management
view

"extreme"

and Weigold,

to think of it as
it may be more
useful
behavior,
a continuum
of strategic
impression management
extreme
involve
the most
of which
behaviors,
conscious

one which

and

goals

impres
occurs
in
management
employment
not all of it is inherently
interviews,
deceptive
or manipulative.
to interview
In relation
"...

view,
The

1992)

actor's

sion

"unfair"

and maximizing
are offered.

in

its character

but

on,

1992, p. 137).2
The
restrictive-expansive
in previous
made
implicitly

interaction.

social

during

going
ont he
change depending
circumstances"
(Schlenker

may
the

sion management
Fletcher
(1989,

and

management
for minimizing

management:

Impression
views

inter

the

and

recognize

sive views
and

task of

in cognition
engage
The process
is always

view

also fits with

is not
to

but
impression

of

manage
impression
and Ferris'
(1989b)
is expected
management

Gilmore

that impression
insight
inter
in employment
and implicitly
encouraged
views.
"sell" him or
candidate
often must
The
in order to get a job offer. Someone
who
herself
him or her self positively
present
to
not
be
appears
trying to) may be perceived
not really desiring
the position.
Furthermore,
not

does

skilled

use

of authentic
impression
context
in an interview

displayed
useful
indicator

that the candidate

(or
as
the

management
be
might
will

be able to

when
utilize
impression management
successfully
in future job settings. As Lautenschlager
needed
"...
the ability
and Flaherty
(1990, p. 313) note,
to manage
as

one's

a variable

impression may be quite valuable

in
in its own
especially
right,
or con
influence
social
either

contexts

where

formity

is important,

such

will

This content downloaded from 39.55.66.235 on Fri, 18 Sep 2015 10:45:16 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

as in sales

settings".

them more

in employment
interviews:
Increasing fairness
an impression management perspective

their

to the expansive
it is not simply
view,
According
in
of impression
the occurrence
management

occurs.

that

interviews

employment
is the type

of

that

management

impression

it

fairness,

impacts

impression management
a legitimate
involves
packaging
seem
to be fair particu
traits would

of positive
larly since

a reciprocal
is also occurring:
process
is impression
the
interviewer
the
managing
It is the deceptive,
candidate.
manipulative,
to
that needs
insincere
management
impression

be

might

How

and discounted.

minimized,

detected,

of

in

them

process".3

ambiguity and uncertainty of the employ

interview situation. As Baker and Spier (1990,
the case with
this is very
p. 86) note,
likely
interviews
where
unstructured
employment
3. Reduce

lack of

the

attention
diverting
recommend
They
view

structure

interviewees

those

using

board

suggests
using
assessment
centers

their
more

into

the hands
or

obfuscating

qualifications".
inter
structured

Fletcher
(1989)
Similarly
or panel
interviews
and
to

management

impression

plays
on

bent
from

procedures.

reduce

manipulative

by applicants.4

this be done?
interviewers

4. Train
as a skill not as a

1. View

impression management
is little doubt
deficit. There
common
is
very
management

that

impression
in employment
this behavior,
Instead of discounting
interviews.
the employ
recommends
Fletcher
using
(1989)
are
to assess how good candidates
ment
interview
at

take account

ment

of

and

is authentic

805

and

readily

decision-making

"...

which

Candidate

Interviews

and Employment

Impression Management

impression

rather

Thus,

management.

than

in the employ
it might
be better

viewing
impression management
as an obstacle
ment
interview

source of valuable
seen as a potential
information
to
an applicant's
the job.
do
ability

about

as a valuable
impression management
Regarding
as inherently
than
skill
rather
dysfunctional
success
of organizational
much
that
recognizes
politics"

the ability to master

"organizational
and Ferris,
1989b).
(Gilmore

2. Train

interviewers

to recognize

various

applicant

management.
interview
employment

Some

depends

previous
viewed

on

impression

applicant

"noise",
counted.

impression
interview
"...
writes,
interviewers
management
the effects

of

"bad". Thus,
the positive
management
training. As

and

the

aspects
added

of

Fletcher

(1990,
to
possible
kinds

that
so that

dis

of

knowledge

negative
could
be

as

impres
and not

complex

some

it might
be
to the different
strategies
they have,

considers

of
the
has

literature

management
impression
to be detected
and

something
view
The
expansive
more
to
be
sion management

inherently
nature
of

kinds

to

p. 747)
sensitize

of

impression
use and
candidates
they

can

identify

on

tofocus

strategic rather than

A central theme of

tactical impression management.

that not all impression man
this paper has been
in employment
is
unfair
agement
inherently
that impression management
interviews.
Rather,

should be
and manipulative
one way
to increase
Thus,
it more
is to make
fairness
likely that candidates
more
in
sincere
will
forms of impression
engage
more
to encourage
A way
sincere
management.
which

is deceitful

considered

unfair.

is to increase
the verifi
management
the information
Impression
sought.
research
1980) has
management
(cf. Schlenker,
act in self-enhancing
found
that individuals will
impression
ability of

to please
in the
audiences
ways
significant
when
of a "reality
check".
absence
However,
an
exists which
could
information
repudiate
will
individuals
claim,
present
overly
positive
one that
accurate
in a more
themselves
fashion,
is closer to what
they really believe. As Schlenker
it is
"The more
difficult
(1980, p. 188) notes,
a
to
of
self
the veracity
for the audience
check
more
are
to
the
self
presentation
likely people
in discussing
Similarly,
employment
aggrandize".
"...
Fletcher
interviews,
(1989, p. 275) notes,
individuals moderate
their self-assessments
when
they know
they will
external
checking".
It would

seem

be

subject

therefore

to
that

subsequent
to

increase

should

in employment
interviews
the discussion
on verifiable
be focused
information
that

is less

likely

fairness

manipulation.

prone
One

to distortion,
to do
way

This content downloaded from 39.55.66.235 on Fri, 18 Sep 2015 10:45:16 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

deception
this is to

and
train

806 Paul Rosenfeld

to distinguish

interviewers

between

tactical

and

behaviors

management
impression
et al.,
and Ferris,
Tedeschi
1989b;
(Gilmore
1985,
manage
3). Tactical
impression
chapter
at making
ment
to behaviors
aimed
refers
strategic

impressions
like the applicant).
as comple
such

the interviewer

(e.g., making
would
Examples

be

goal

tactical

management
impression
a quick,
is to make
short-term

applicant

on

impression
sion management
goals;
term

the

an

by

positive

interviewer.

Strategic
impres
have more
behaviors
long-term
tied to better
established,
long
a
involving
credibility,
person's

they are
identities

(smiles, complements)
positively
viewer
of an applicant
but
perceptions
tion about credentials
and qualifications

* The

or

identities,

available

resume)

(i.e.,
to the

or

blank

application
interviewer

is typically

data

management
(Gilmore
impression
strategic
the
and Ferris,
Furthermore,
1989b,
p. 202)".
has
interviewer
this
that
the
knows
applicant
of this
is aware
that much
and
information
is verifiable

information
accuracy).
individual

Crowne)

can be checked
reduces

Since

verifiability
scales
differences

for
on

scores

that assess conscious,

management
(e.g., Marlowe

impression
but not on

strategic

(i.e.,

deceptive

scales

impression
a
believes
that
person
truly
management
seem
et
it
would
that
al., 1994a),
(Rosenfeld
on
interview
the employment
aspects of
focusing
a candidate's
his/her
compe
identity
strategic
achievements
tence,
credibility,
long-term
than

rather
behaviors
would
more

short-term
aimed

management
impression
at pleasing
the interviewer,
in less distortion
and
result

ultimately
fairness. Training

accomplishments
long-term
term "slickness"
be
may
previously,

Gilmore

to focus

interviewers
rather
needed.

and Ferris

than
As

(1989a)

on

short

discussed
found

that

Navy

Department.

raising

fairness.

seem

does

vision

of training

what

are

they

dealing

when

and

candidates,
int

confidence

undermine

in

effect

of

of the veracity
even

told,

being

pro

impres

a wider

doubtful

honest

with

the

deceitful

have

might

interviewers

that

danger

that facilitates

management

making

some

to be

There

sion

as

tactics

management

impression
of

issues

he

are

they

in so doing

selection

as

process

a whole.

Other

forceful

restrictive

the

Tetlock
"Although
sion

of

reason

chological
be

either

why

or

conscious

control.

of highly

functions

original

of

Similarly,
forgotten.
long
"It is
(1990, p. 827) write,

that

argue

psy
must

management

the

scripts,

have
which
people
Schlenker
and Weigold,
to

self-conscious
compelling

may be the product

Impression management
habits

the

is no

impression
or under

duplicitous

overlearned

to

refer

. . . there

others

against

management.

impression

note,
pp. 61-62)
(1985,
have used the term impres

to

management
of

have been made

arguments
view

and Manstead
some writers

deception

myopic

that assess

the U.S.

of

(1992, p. 362) also sees courses, seminars

to use
and popular books
that train job applicants

is gen
As
interviews.

identity.
this
terminology,

management

information

prior

did not.

Fletcher

(i.e. strategic)

long-term

views

the

represent

this

long-term
erally not true for employment
and Ferris (1989b) note, an interviewer
Gilmore
relevant
has a great deal of information
usually
to a applicant's
"In impression

informa

opinions
expressed herein are those of the
are
not
official and do not necessarily
they

author,

in many
While
and trustworthiness.
competence,
a person may have a
social interactions,
informal
about
someone's
level
of knowledge
similar
short-term

inter

influenced

Notes

things
with
the
the
interviewer,
agreeing
menting
statements
and positive
nonverbal
interviewer's
The
such as smiling
and eye-contact.
behaviors
of

behaviors

management

impression

favorable

immediate

short-term,

tactical

primarily

self-presentation

or illegitimacy.
Self
pretense,
deception,
self-identifi
involves
desired
presentation
packaging
involves

so

cations
.

that

. There

is

readable,

edit

concise

packaging.
information

fashion,

so must

Training

managers

to

recognize

or

superficial,

Just as a textbook
to present
it in a
edit

people

in everyday
mation
about themselves
the "best" description
possible".
3

conclusion.

preferred

nefarious,

nothing

about

Machiavellian
writer must

draw

audiences

various

and defend

infor

life to provide
impression

management
against being
techniques
recom
by them has been previously
manipulated
not
has
but
mended
1989)
(Giacalone,
apparently
and Ferris
carried out. Gilmore
been systematically

This content downloaded from 39.55.66.235 on Fri, 18 Sep 2015 10:45:16 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

and Employment

Impression Management
(1989, p. 564) see the task being one of training inter
to distinguish
viewers
from
substance.
style
on infor
that
focuses
"Interpersonal
skill-building
mation
solicitation
and exchange
and that helps to
in the distinction
educate
interviewers
between
substantive content and merely opportunistic behavior
on the part of the applicant should be an important
to

addition

such

programs."

and uncer
way of reducing ambiguity
recommended
Fletcher
tainty
(1990, p. 747) is "by
by
a
a
all
for
candidates
post
giving
briefing on how they
were expected to present themselves in the interview.
Another

This would
tations

to establish

help

about

what

a common

set of expec

is appropriate."

behavior

References
N. R.:
'Decision Making
in the
Anderson,
1991,
Graduate
Selection
Interview: An Experimental
Investigation', Human Relations 44, 403?417.
1992, 'Fairness in the
Arvey, R. D. and G L. Renz:
Selection
of Employees',
Journal of Business Ethics
11, 331-340.
H. G
and M.
S. Spier:
'The
Barker,
1990,
Interview: Guaranteed
Employment
Improvement
in Reliability',
Public Personnel Management
19,
85-90.

R. A.: 1989,
'Impression Management
by
Interviews: The
Applicants
During
Employment
"Too Much
of a Good Thing" Effect',
in R. W.
Eder and G R.
Ferris (eds.), The Employment
Interview: Theory, Research, Practice (Sage, Newbury
Park, CA), pp. 204-215.
and G R.
Ferris (eds.): 1989, The
Elder, R. W.
Interview: Theory, Research,
Practice
Employment
Baron,

Selection

Interview',

Rosenfeld

A.

and

Giacalone

(eds.), Impression Management

(Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale,

Organization
pp. 269-281.
C:
Fletcher,
Candidate

in R.

in the
P.

in the
NJ),

1990,
Personality,

'The Relationship
Self-Presentation

between
strategies,

Interviewer
in
Assessments
Selection
An
Interviews:
Empirical Study', Human Relations
43, 739-749.
C:
1992, 'Ethical Issues in the Selection
Interview', Journal of Business Ethics 11, 361-367.
R. A.: 1989 May,
The
Giacalone,
'Image Control:
Fletcher,

of

Impression

Management',

Personnel,

52-55.

Giacalone,

R.

CA).
Gilmore, D. C. and G. R. Ferris: 1989a, 'The Effects
of Applicant
Tactics on
Impression Management
Interviewer Judgments', Journal ofManagement
15,
557-564.
Gilmore, D. C. and G. R. Ferris: 1989b, 'The Politics
of the Employment
in R. W. Eder and
Interview',
G R. Ferris, eds., 1989, The Employment Interview:
Park,
Theory, Research, Practice (Sage, Newbury
CA), pp. 195-203.
and G. R. Ferris: 1992,
Kacmar, K. M., J. E. Delery
'Differential Effectiveness
of Applicant
Impression
Tactics on Employment
Interview
Management
Social
Decisions',
Journal of Applied
Psychology 22,
1250-1272.
G
L. and V L. Flaherty:
1990,
Lautenschlager,
of Questions:
More
'Computer Administration
or More
Desirable
Social Desirability?',
Journal of
Applied Psychology 75, 310-314.
and C. K. Parson: 1993,
Liden, R. C, C. L. Martin,
'Interviewer and Applicant
in Employ
Behaviors
ment
Interviews', Academy ofManagement Journal
36, 372-386.
P.

Rosenfeld,

Extreme

R.

and

A.

Giacalone:

to the Mainstream:
in

Management

Organizations',

1991,

Impression

Applied
in R.

'From

A.

Giacalone

P.

and

Rosenfeld
(eds.), Applied
Impression
Management: How Image Making Affects Managerial
Decision Making
Park, CA), pp.
(Sage, Newbury
3-11.
Rosenfeld,

P.,

S. Booth-Kewley,

L. Alderton:

J. E.

Edwards

and

and

1994a,

'Linking Diversity
A Study of Hispanic,
Impression Management:
and White
American
Black,
Recruits',
Navy
Behavioral Scientist 37, 672-681.

Rosenfeld,

P., R.

A.

Giacalone,

and

C.

A.

Riordan:

and
'Impression Management
Theory
Lessons for Organizational
Behavior',
Diversity:
American Behavioral Scientist 37, 601?604.
The
Schlenker, B. R.:
1980, Impression Management:
Social
and
Self-Concept,
Identity,
Interpersonal
Relations
(Brooks/Cole,
CA).
Monterey,
B. R. and M. F.Weigold:
'Self
Schlenker,
1990,
1994b,

and

Strategies

807

in theOrganization
ImpressionManagement
(Lawrence
Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ).
R. A. and P. Rosenfeld
Giacalone,
(eds.): 1991,
Applied Impression Management: How Image Making
Park,
Affects Managerial Decisions
(Sage, Newbury

D.

Park, CA).
(Sage, Newbury
Fletcher, C:
1989, 'Impression Management

Interviews

A.

and P. Rosenfeld

(eds.):

1989,

Consciousness
Autonomous

and
Versus

Self-Presentation:
Appearing

Being

Autonomous',

and Social Psychology

Journal
59,
of Personality
820-828.
B. R.
and M.
F. Weigold:
Schlenker,
1992,

This content downloaded from 39.55.66.235 on Fri, 18 Sep 2015 10:45:16 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

808 Paul Rosenfeld

'Interpersonal

Processes

Involving

Impression

Annual Review of
and Management',
Regulation
133-168.
Psychology 43,
and P. Rosenfeld:
1985,
Tedeschi, J. T., S. Lindskold,
Introduction to Social Psychology
(West, St. Paul,
MN).
Tetlock,

P. E.

'Impression
Explanations
Dichotomy?',

and A.

S. R.

Manstead:

1985,

Versus
Intrapsychic
A Useful
Psychology:
Psychological Review 92, 59-77.

Management
in Social

Von Baeyer, C. L., D. I. Sherk and M. P. Zanna: 1981,

in the Job Interview',
'Impression Management
Social
and
Psychology Bulletin 7, 45-51.
Personality

(Code 12),
Navy

Personnel

Research

& Development

Center,

53335 Ryne Road,

San Diego, CA 92152-7250,

This content downloaded from 39.55.66.235 on Fri, 18 Sep 2015 10:45:16 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

U.S.A.