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

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
a
Laxmikant Manroop , Janet A. Boekhorst & Jennifer A. Harrison
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/termsand-conditions
The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 2013

Vol. 24, No. 18, 35123533, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2013.777675
The influence of cross-cultural differences on job interview selection

decisions
Laxmikant Manroop*, Janet A. Boekhorst and Jennifer A. Harrison
Downloaded by [University of East London] at 11:17 27 March 2015
School of Human Resource Management, York University, Toronto, Canada

How the interview process affects foreign-born job candidates has received scant
attention in recent research literature (Huffcutt 2011), even though the issue should be
growing in importance given the massive influx of qualified migrants entering
developed countries. This paper examines the job interview through the lens of national
culture and argues that cross-cultural differences between interviewer and interviewee
can affect interview judgement and evaluation. Drawing upon the literatures in crosscultural research and social psychology, this paper presents a model of cross-cultural
differences on interview outcomes. In so doing, this conceptual 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.
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 the midst of these changes, numerous opportunities exist for foreignborn 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
*Corresponding author. Email: lmanroop@yorku.ca

q 2013 Taylor & Francis
The International Journal of Human Resource Management
3513
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 foreignborn 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. nonrecognition 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;
3514
L. Manroop et al.
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 conceptual study advances theory that underpins the employment selection process of foreignborn 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.
3515
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.
Collectivistic
Culture
Individualistic
Culture
P4a
P4b
Self
Promotion
Non-Verbal Behaviour
Employment
Interview
Behavioural
Mirroring
Interviewer
Non-verbal
Expectation
P3a
Psychological
Stress
P3b
P2
Verbal Behaviour
Conversational
Frame
Interviewer
Cultural
Expectation
P1a
P1b
Figure 1. A model of cross-cultural differences on interview outcomes.
Interview Judgment
and Evaluation
(Applicant Ratings)
3516
L. Manroop et al.
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 avoidance 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/femininity 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 the GLOBE 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
3517
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/collectivism 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 nonWestern, 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 selfdiscipline (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 decisionmaking responsibilities and often call their superiors by their first names something
unheard of in high power-distance cultures.
3518
L. Manroop et al.
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
3519
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), and may, 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.
3520
L. Manroop et al.
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 nonverbal 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-
3521
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 selfpresentation behaviours and the manner 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:
3522
L. Manroop et al.
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
candidates who 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
3523
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 highly
correlated with job suitability (r 0.74). More recently, Stewart, Dustin, Barrick and
Darnold (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 to make 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:
3524
L. Manroop et al.
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, crosscultural 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 as Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and Central and South Americas, are more 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.
3525
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 a Western 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:
3526
L. Manroop et al.
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
3527
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 highcontext 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
3528
L. Manroop et al.
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 those
persons who take up permanent residence in a new country during prime working age and have
completed at least 16 years of schooling in their home country. The rationale for selecting this
group is that they have been programmed in the values of their home-country culture, which
would 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, in
Language and Social Identity, ed. J.J. Gumperz, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
pp. 119 144.
Ambady, N., and Rosenthal, R. (1993), Half a Minute: Predicting Teacher Evaluations From Thin
Slices of Nonverbal Behaviour and Physical Attractiveness, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 64, 431 441.
Ardichvili, A., Maurer, M., Li, W., Wentling, T., and Stuedemann, R. (2006), Cultural Influences on
Knowledge Sharing Through Online Communities of Practice, Journal of Knowledge
Management, 10, 94 107.
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 Be What You Get:
Relationships Among Self-Presentation Tactics and Ratings of Interview and Job Performance,
Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1394 1411.
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 of
Applied Psychology, 95, 1163 1172.
Basabe, N., and Ros, M. (2005), Cultural Dimensions and Social Behavior Correlates:
Individualism-Collectivism and Power Distance, Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale,
18, 1, 189 225.
Bauder, H. (2003), Brain Abuse, or the Devaluation of Immigrant Labour in Canada, Antipode,
35, 4, 699 717.
Beck, J.H., Reitz, J.G., and Weiner, N. (2002), Addressing Systemic Racial Discrimination in
Employment: The Health Canada Case and Implications of Legislative Change, Canadian
Public Policy, 28, 373394.
3529
Beshara, T. (2008), Acting the Interview: How to Ask and Answer the Questions That Will Get You
the Job, New York: AMACOM.
Birkner, K. (2004), Hegemonic Struggles or Transfer of Knowledge? East and West Germans in Job
Interviews, Journal of Language and Politics, 3, 2, 293 322.
Boyd, M., and Thomas, D. (2001), Match or Mismatch? The Labour Market Performances of
Foreign-Born Engineers, Population Research and Policy Review, 20, 107 133.
Burgoon, J.K. (1978), A Communication Model of Personal Space Violations: Explication and an
Initial Test, Human Communications Research, 4, 129 142.
Bye, H.H., Sandal, G.M., Vijver, F.J.R., Sam, D.L., Cakar, N.D., and Franke, G.H. (2011), Personal
Values and Intended Self-Presentation During Job Interviews: A Cross-Cultural Comparison,
Applied Psychology: An International Review, 60, 160 182.
Campion, J.E., and Arvey, R.D. (1989), Unfair Discrimination in the Employment Interview, in
The Employment Interview: Theory, Research and Practice, eds. R.W. Eder and G.R. Ferris,
Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp. 61 73.
Campion, M.A., Palmer, D.K., and Campion, J.E. (1997), A Review of Structure in the Selection
Interview, Personnel Psychology, 50, 655 701.
Campion, M.A., Pursell, E.D., and Brown, B.K. (1988), Structured Interviewing: Raising the
Psychometric Properties of the Employment Interview, Personal Psychology, 41, 25 42.
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 Resource
Management Review, 18, 63 76.
Chapman, D.S., and Rowe, P.M. (2002), The Influencing of Videoconferencing Technology and
Interview Structure on the Recruiting Function of the Employment Interview: A Field
Experiment, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10, 185 197.
Chapman, D.S., Uggerslev, K.L., and Webster, J. (2003), Applicant Reactions to Face-to-Face and
Technology-Mediated Interviews: A Field Investigation, Journal of Applied Psychology, 88,
944 953.
Chartrand, T.L., and Bargh, J. (1999), The Chameleon Effect: The Perception-Behaviour Link and
Social Interaction, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 893 910.
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, 32 62.
Cohen, W.M., and Levinthal, D.A. (1990), Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning
and Innovation, Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128 152.
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 on
Service Quality Expectations in Banking: A Two-Country Individual- and National-Cultural
Comparison, International Journal of Bank Marketing, 27, 5, 336 358.
DeGroot, T., and Gooty, J. (2009), Can Nonverbal Cues be Used to Make Meaningful Personality
Attributions in Employment Interviews, Journal of Business Psychology, 24, 179 192.
DeGroot, T., and Motowidlo, S.J. (1999), Why Visual and Vocal Interview Cues Can Affect
Interviewers Judgments and Predict Job Performance, Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 6,
986 993.
Delerue, H., and Simon, E. (2009), National Cultural Values and the Perceived Relational Risk in
Biotechnology Alliance Relationships, International Business Review, 18, 14 25.
Demo, D.A. (2006), Interactional Competence in Gatekeeping Encounters: A Discourse Analysis of
Cross-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 to
English-Only Workplace Policies by Persons From Immigrant and Non-Immigrant Families,
Journal of Business Ethics, 52, 4, 365 379.
Dipboye, R.L., Wooten, K., and Halverson, S.K. (2004), Behavioral and Situational Interviews, in
Handbook of Psychological Assessment, Industrial and Organizational Assessment (4), ed. J.C.
Thomas, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 297 316.
3530
L. Manroop et al.
Dougherty, T.W., and Turban, D.B. (1999), Behavioural Confirmation of Interviewer

Expectancies, in The Employment Interview Handbook, eds. R.W. Eder and M.M. Harris,
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 217 288.
Erez, M.A., and Gati, E. (2004), A Dynamic, Multi-Level Model of Culture: From the Micro Level
of the Individual to the Macro Level of a Global Culture, Applied Psychology: An International
Review, 53, 583 598.
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, 767 784.
Fulkerson, J.R., and Tucker, M.E. (1999), Diversity: Lessons From Global Human Resource
Practices, in Evolving Practices in Human Resource Management, eds. A.I. Kraut and A.K.
Korman, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp. 249 274.
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 Individualism
at the Cultural Level: Their Relation to Macro-Social and Macro-Economic Variables,
Psicothema, 12, 25 33.
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. 39 53.
Gumperz, J. (1996), The Linguistic and Cultural Relativity of Conversational Inference, in
Rethinking Linguistic Relativity, eds. J. Gumperz and S. Levinson, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, pp. 374 406.
Gumperz, J. (1999), On Interactional Sociolinguistic Method, in Talk, Work and Institutional
Order: Discourse in Medical, Mediation and Management Settings, eds. C. Roberts and S.
Sarangi, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 453 471.
Hackett, R.D., Lapierre, L.M., and Gardiner, H.P. (2004), A Review of Canadian Human Rights
Cases Involving the Employment Interview, Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences,
21, 2, 215 228.
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, 165 173.
Hitt, M.A., and Barr, S.H. (1989), Managerial Selection Decision Models: Examination of
Configural Cue Processing, Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 53 61.
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, 5 21.
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 World
Business, 37, 3 10.
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 in
Global Leadership, eds. W.H. Mobley, M.J. Gessner and V. Arnold, Stanford, CT: JAI Press,
pp. 171 233.
Howard, J.L., and Ferris, G.R. (1996), The Employment Interview Context: Social and Situational
Influences on Interviewer Decisions, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 2, 112 136.
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, 62 81.
Huffcutt, A.I., and Woehr, D.J. (1999), Further Analysis of Employment Interview Validity:
A Quantitative Evaluation of Interviewer-Related Structuring Methods, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 20, 549 560.
3531
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 Decisions
in Simulated Employment Interviews, Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 295 300.
Islam, A. (2009), The Substitutability of Labour Between Immigrants and Natives in the Canadian
Labour Market, Journal of Population Economics, 22, 199217.
Jones, E.E., and Davis, K.E. (1965), From Acts to Dispositions: The Attribution Process in Person
Perception, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 219 266.
Judge, T.A., Higgins, C.A., and Cable, D.M. (2000), The Employment Interview: A Review of
Recent Research and Recommendations for Future Research, Human Resource Management
Review, 10, 4, 383 406.
Karahanna, E., Evaristo, J., and Srite, M. (2005), Levels of Culture and Individual Behaviour:
An Integrative Perspective, Journal of Global Information Management, 13, 2, 1 20.
Kelly, H.H. (1972), Attribution in Social Interaction, in Attribution: Perceiving the Causes of
Behaviour, eds. E.E. Jones, D.E. Kanouse, H.H. Kelley, R.E. Nisbett, S. Valins and B. Weiner,
Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press, pp. 1 26.
Kim, M. (1996), Individual vs. Culture Level Dimensions of Individualism and Collectivism:
Effects on Preferred Conversational Styles, Communication Monographs, 63, 29 49.
Kleinmann, M., and Klehe, U. (2011), Selling Oneself: Construct and Criterion-Related Validity of
Impression Management in Structured Interviews, Human Performance, 24, 29 46.
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, 334 340.
Laroche, L. (2008), Culture Shouldnt Get in the Way of Hiring Good Candidates, Canadian HR
Reporter, 21, 6, 30 33.
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, Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 68, 516 523.
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 of
Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1290 1299.
Leung, K., Bhagat, R.S., Buchan, N.R., Erez, M., and Gibson, C.B. (2005), Culture and
International Business: Recent Advances and Their Implications for Future Research, Journal
of International Business Studies, 36, 4, 357 378.
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, International
Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11, 67 77.
Lim, C., Winter, R., and Chan, C. (2006), Cross-Cultural Interviewing in the Hiring Process:
Challenges and Strategies, Career Development Quarterly, 54, 265 268.
Lindsley, S.L., and Braithwaite, C.A. (1996), You Should Wear a Mask: Facework Norms in
Cultural and Intercultural Conflict in Maquilandoras, International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 20, 199 255.
Lipsmeyer, C.S., and Zhu, L. (2011), Immigration, Globalization, and Unemployment Benefits in
Developed EU States, American Journal of Political Science, 55, 647664.
Longmire, J. (1992), Communicating Social Identity in a Job Interview in a Cambodian-American
Community, Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 3, 1, 49 58.
Macan, T. (2009), The Employment Interview: A Review of Current Studies and Directions for
Future Research, Human Resource Management Review, 19, 203 218.
Markus, H.R., and Kitayama, H. (1991), Culture and the Self: Implications for Cognition, Emotion,
and Motivation, Psychological Review, 98, 92, 224 253.
Mast, M.S., Bangerter, A., Bulliard, C., and Aerni, G. (2011), How Accurate are Recruiters First
Impressions of Applicants in Employment Interviews, International Journal of Selection and
Assessment, 19, 198 208.
McCarthy, J.M., Iddekinge, C.H.V., and Campion, M.A. (2010), Are Highly Structured Job
Interviews Resistant to Demographic Similarity Effects? Personnel Psychology, 63, 325359.
McDonald, T., and Hakel, M.D. (1985), Effects of Applicant Race, Sex, Suitability, and Answers on
Interviewers Questioning Strategy and Ratings, Personnel Psychology, 38, 321 334.
3532
L. Manroop et al.
Michaels, S. (1981), Sharing Time: Childrens Narrative Styles and Differential Access to
Literacy, Language in Society, 10, 423 442.
Morgeson, F.P., Reider, M.H., Campion, M.A., and Bull, R.A. (2008), Review of Research on Age
Discrimination in the Employment Interview, Journal of Business and Psychology, 22,
223 233.
Moss, P., and Tilly, C. (1996), Soft Skills and Race, Work and Occupation, 23, 3, 252 276.
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 of
Applied Psychology, 69, 557 568.
Peppas, S.C., and Yu, T.-L. (2005), Job Candidates Attributes: A Comparison of Chinese and US
Employer Evaluations and the Perceptions of Chinese Students, Cross Cultural Management,
12, 4, 78 93.
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, 301 308.
Posthuma, R.A., Morgeson, F.P., and Campion, M.A. (2002), Beyond Employment Interview
Validity: A Comprehensive Narrative Review of Recent Research and Trends Over Time,
Personnel Psychology, 55, 1 81.
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 Social
Psychology, 86, 530 544.
Reilly, P.N., Bocketti, S.P., Maser, S.A., and Wennet, C.L. (2006), Benchmarks Affect Perceptions
of Prior Disability in a Structured Interview, Journal of Business and Psychology, 20, 489500.
Reitz, J.G. (2005), Tapping Immigrants Skills: New Directions for Canadian Immigration Policy in
the Knowledge Economy, Law and Business Review of the Americas, 11, 409 433.
Reitz, J.G. (2007), Immigrant Employment Success in Canada, Part II: Understanding the Decline,
Journal of International Migration and Integration, 8, 1, 37 62.
Roberts, C., and Campbell, S. (2006), Talk on Trial: Job Interviews, Language and Ethnicity,
Research Report No. 344, Department for Work and Pensions, London.
Rynes, S.L., and Gerhart, B. (1990), Interviewer Assessments of Applicant Fit: An Exploratory
Investigation, Personnel Psychology, 43, 13 35.
Saks, A.M. (2006), Multiple Predictors and Criteria of Job Search Success, Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 68, 400415.
Salaff, J., and Greve, A. (2006), Why Do Skilled Women and Men Emigrating From China to
Canada Get Bad Jobs, in Women, Migration and Citizenship: Making Local, National and
Tansnational Connection, eds. E. Tastsoglou and A. Dobrowolsky, Aldershot, Hants, England:
Ashgate Press, pp. 85 104.
Salaff, J., Greve, A., and Ping, L.X.L. (2002), Paths Into the Economy: Structural Barriers and the
Job Hunt for Skilled PRC Migrants in Canada, International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 13, 3, 450 464.
Sanchez-Burks, J. (2002), Protestant Relational Ideology and (In)Attention to Relational Cues in
Work Settings, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 4, 919 929.
Sanchez-Burks, J., Bartel, C., and Blount, S. (2009), Fluidity and Performance in Intercultural
Workplace Interactions: The Role of Behavioral Mirroring and Social Sensitivity, Journal of
Applied Psychology, 94, 1, 216 223.
Schmidt, F.L., and Hunter, J. (2004), General Mental Ability in the World of Work: Occupational
Attainment and Job Performance, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 1,
162 173.
Schmidt, G.F. (2007), The Effect of Thin-Slicing on Structured Interview Decisions, unpublished
Masters thesis, University of South Florida.
Schwartz, S.H., and Bilsky, W. (1990), Towards a Theory of the Universal Content and Structure of
Values: Extensions and Cross-Cultural Replications, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 58, 5, 878891.
Sigelman, C.K., Elias, S.F., and Danker, P. (1980), Interview Behaviours of Mentally Retarded
Adults as Predictors of Employability, Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 67 73.
3533
Silvester, J., and Chapman, A.J. (1996), Unfair Discrimination in the Selection Interview:
An Attribution Account, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 4, 2, 63 70.
Stewart, G.L., Dustin, S.L., Barrick, M.R., and Darnold, T.C. (2008), Exploring the Handshake in
the Employment Interview, Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 5, 1139 1146.
Straus, S., Miles, J., and Levesque, L. (2001), The Effects of Videoconferencing, Telephone, and
Face-to-Face Media on Interviewer and Applicant Judgments in Employment Interviews,
Journal of Management, 27, 363 382.
Tannen, D. (1993), Framing in Discourse, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tarique, I., and Caligiuri, P. (2009), The Role of Cross-Cultural Absorptive Capacity in the
Effectiveness of In-Country Cross-Cultural Training, International Journal of Training and
Development, 13, 3, 148 164.
Thiederman, S. (1991), Profiting in Americas Multicultural Marketplace: How to Do Business
Across Cultural Lines, New York: Lexington.
Topor, D.J., Colarelli, S.M., and Han, K. (2007), Influences of Traits and Assessment Methods on
Human Resource Practitioners Evaluations of Job Applicants, Journal of Business and
Psychology, 21, 3, 361376.
Triandis, H.C. (1995), Individualism and Collectivism, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Triandis, H.C., McCusker, C., and Hui, C.H. (1990), Multimethod Probes of Individualism and
Collectivism, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 5, 1006 1020.
Turchick, L., Ingo Holzinger, H., and Zikic, J. (2010), Barriers and Paths to Success: Latin
American MBAs Views of Employment in Canada, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25, 2,
159 176.
van Baaren, R., Holland, R., Steenaert, B., and van Knippenberg, A. (2003), Mimicry for Money:
Behavioural Consequences of Imitation, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 4,
393 398.
van Vianen, A.E., and Willemsen, T.M. (1992), The Employment Interview: The Role of Sex
Stereotypes in the Evaluation of Male and Female Job Applicants in the Netherlands, Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 22, 471 491.
Vance, C.M., and Paik, Y. (2006), Managing a Global Workforce: Challenges and Opportunities in
International Human Resource Management, Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe.
Weiner, I.B. (1986), Conceptual and Empirical Perspectives on the Rorschach Assessment of
Psychopathology, Journal of Personality Assessment, 50, 472 479.
Williams, J. (2004), Sell Yourself: Master the Job Interview Process, Arllington, TX: Principle
Publications.
Whyman, M., Lemmon, M., and Teachman, J. (2012), Fertility Change in North America, 1950
2000, in The End of Children? Changing Trends in Childbearing and Childhood, eds. N.
Lauster and G. Allan, Vancouver, BC: UBC Press.
Wong, I., and Phooi-Ching, L. (2000), Chinese Cultural Values and Performance at Job Interviews:
A Singapore Perspective, Business Communication Quarterly, 63, 1, 9 22.

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

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

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

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

This article was downloaded by: [University of East London]

On: 27 March 2015, At: 11:17

The International Journal of Human

The influence of cross-cultural

Laxmikant Manroop , Janet A. Boekhorst & Jennifer A. Harrison

School of Human Resource Management, York University,

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 2013

The influence of cross-cultural differences on job interview selection

Downloaded by [University of East London] at 11:17 27 March 2015

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

*Corresponding author. Email: lmanroop@yorku.ca

Downloaded by [University of East London] at 11:17 27 March 2015

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

Downloaded by [University of East London] at 11:17 27 March 2015

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

Downloaded by [University of East London] at 11:17 27 March 2015

A model of cross-cultural differences on interview outcomes

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

Downloaded by [University of East London] at 11:17 27 March 2015

Downloaded by [University of East London] at 11:17 27 March 2015

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

Downloaded by [University of East London] at 11:17 27 March 2015

Framework of the processes involved in the employment interview

Downloaded by [University of East London] at 11:17 27 March 2015

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

Downloaded by [University of East London] at 11:17 27 March 2015

Downloaded by [University of East London] at 11:17 27 March 2015

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

Downloaded by [University of East London] at 11:17 27 March 2015

Downloaded by [University of East London] at 11:17 27 March 2015

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

Downloaded by [University of East London] at 11:17 27 March 2015

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

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

Downloaded by [University of East London] at 11:17 27 March 2015

Self-promotion behaviours and cultural norms

Downloaded by [University of East London] at 11:17 27 March 2015

Discussion and concluding remarks

Downloaded by [University of East London] at 11:17 27 March 2015

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

Downloaded by [University of East London] at 11:17 27 March 2015

Downloaded by [University of East London] at 11:17 27 March 2015

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

Downloaded by [University of East London] at 11:17 27 March 2015

Dougherty, T.W., and Turban, D.B. (1999), Behavioural Confirmation of Interviewer

Downloaded by [University of East London] at 11:17 27 March 2015

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

Downloaded by [University of East London] at 11:17 27 March 2015

Downloaded by [University of East London] at 11:17 27 March 2015

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi