Final Essay Course Code: MGMT969 Introduction Employment interviews are a popular and most frequently used selection method to assess candidates for employment in different organizations around the word [1]. Research shows that the interview is the most preferred method by human resource management and supervisors. Furthermore, from the applicant’s point of view, they expect interviews as part of selection process and they recognized interviews as fair as other selection methods[2]. Employment interview may be structured or unstructured [3]. For structured interview, a series of job related questions with predetermined answers, are asked across all interviews [4]. Structural interviews contain four types of questions including situation questions, job knowledge questions, job simulation questions and worker requirement questions. Many research have concluded that adding structure to the job interview process can increase the validity and reliability of interviewer judgment [5]. For example, structured interviews show relatively high validity of 0.39 based on meta- analysis data [6]. Several personal related and non-personal related parameters can affect the outcomes of each interview. In this work two important personal related factors, which may affect the interview and its outcomes, were studied. These factors are: 1. The influence of applicant accent on interview 2. Faking in employment interview   1- The influence of interviewee accent on job interview Introduction As a result of business globalization, billions of people all around the world interact with individuals who speak different languages as well as different accents. This issue is more and more important in multicultural countries such as Australia with many people from all over the world with different background and different accents in their English speaking. Such difference in accent and background originated substantial problems for many immigrants in countries such as Australia and USA to their contribution within the society and specially in their employment related issues [7]. Study conducted by Reitz indicated that individual with accent have higher un-employment rate and much lower income level compare to the native English speakers in the USA society [8]. A similar case could be expected in the Australian society due to the multiculturalism. In the first instance, immigrants may face discrimination due to the appearance of their accent during job interview or even during job application over the phone. According to the US General Accounting Office, this discrimination becomes obvious in the case of employment hiring using telephone. Their study showed that 41% of employer treated applicant with accent different from the applicant without accent, telling individual with accent that the position were filled but telling applicant without accent that position is still available. What is accent? According to the Oxford Dictionaries, accent defined as “ a distinctive way of pronouncing a language, especially one associated with a particular country, area or social class” [9]. Accented English is happened due to the influence of person’s native originality, culture or language into the phonological characteristics. In the case of this study, such differences can affect the job interview outcomes. Immigrant with different cultures and accent make a large part of the service workplace in many of the developed countries including Australia [10]. Therefore, the primary objective of the first part of this research is to investigate the effects of accent including foreign and different English accent on employment related decisions. How accent affect the human resources management process? The empirical study by Purkiss et al. have shown that applicants with an accent were viewed less positively by interviewers compared with an applicant without an accent [11]. They defined such influences of accent on employment opportunities as “modern racism” and indicated that such racism could be a potential explanation for negative effect of applicant’s accent on job selection. In another study, Stone-Romero et al. were proposed a model of cultural influences on stigmatization in organizations to study the influence of different parameters including applicant’s accent and background culture on the human resources management process and practice. They defied stigma as a “real or apparent deeply discrediting difference between a person’s virtual and actual social identity” [12]. Virtual social identity of ideal job applicant, changes as a function of organization’s culture where is influenced by the culture of both dominant and non dominant groups in the society. Therefore, the native culture in the organization’s society could have negative effect on human resources selection for the applicants from non-dominant groups. Research has shown that in the US organizations, the high level individuals tend to be white men who speak English without accent who are the representative of dominant group in the society. As a result, the applicant with un-accented English often is chosen for high level jobs whereas applicants with foreign accents are viewed for low level jobs [13]. For example, it is more likely to hire applicant with American English accent for supervisor position, while applicant with Spanish accent were hired for semi- skilled position [14]. Lippi- Green in her book titled ” English with an accent: language, ideology, and discrimination in the United States” argue that the different discrimination based on the foreign accent can be effected by the origin of applicant, for example accent related to the non white skin only can lead to negative reaction [15]. Indeed, the European accent is more favoured compare to the Asian accent or accent linked to the third world countries. The effect of applicant accent on job selection seems to be quiet different based on job demand and level of communication needed for the selected job. Hosoda.et.al examined [16] the effect of applicant accent on employment decisions across four different jobs include manager trainee, underwriter, customer service representative and data entry clerk. The jobs were differed based on job status and the level of communications needs [16]. The study was based on accumulated data from 286 college students at two different locations and with three different applicant accents including standard American, French and Japanese for two low and high status jobs and two low and high communication demands. The Cronbach’s alpha, which is a coefficient of reliability of a psychometric test score for a sample of examinees, has been used to evaluate the study. This value rated from 0.88 to 0.95 for each of four jobs [16]. The results of the study supported the effectiveness of the applicant accent manipulation on job selection. Both applicants with Japanese (M=4.66, SD=1.02) and French (M=4.64, SD=1.18) accents were recognized as having a stronger accent than American accented applicants (M=1.76, SD=0.86). It should be noted that all applicants used correct grammar and understandable accents. According to the multivariate analysis of variance, the manager trainee and underwriter jobs were shown to have higher job status than the data entry clerk and customer service representative jobs. Also, underwriter and data entry clerk jobs were shown to have less communication demand. Based on all analysis from Hosoda et al, applicant accent had a major and interaction effect with job status when the communication demand was higher. Furthermore, for the low status job with high communication demands, applicants with American and French accent hired more often than applicants with Japanese accent [16]. However, hiring criterion did not vary for the high status job for all kind of applicant with three different accents. In addition, applicants with Japanese accent were less favourite for high status job with high communication demands compared to the applicants with French accent. Also, applicants wi
th Japanese accent were rated more suitable than applicant with French accent for a low status job with low communication demands. In a similar study, Hopper et al. investigate the effect of accent in the interview success [17]. In this study, forty interviewers evaluated applicants with African American and Anglo-American accents for five different jobs with different demands and different level of communication needed for each job. Results showed huge difference among the highest status jobs, where standard American accented applicants were more favourable than African American accented applicants. In another study carried out by Rey et al., Spanish accented speak found negative benefit in their jib interview and selection among many collage undergraduates. Several researchers investigate the mutual effects of applicant’s accent as well as their name on job selection. Cargile.A.C conducted the study about the evaluation of employment suitability for the job based on the effect of their accent [18]. Although lots of research regarding the language attitude has revealed that standard accented applicant are more suitable for high status jobs and non standard accented applicant are more suitable for low status jobs, Cargile’ study doesn’t support this [18]. Investigating the effect of name applicant and applicant accent on the job interview was the main focus of this study. For this reason applicant with standard American accent / Angle name, standard American accent/ Chinese name and Chinese accent / Chinese name has been chosen. Based on the results of this study, applicant with standard American accent with Chinese name were assessed the same as American accented applicant with Anglo American name, but not the same as Chinese accented applicant. This shows that listeners respond to accented applicant not just to the identification of the applicant’s ethnic. Furthermore, Chinese accented applicants were not judged to be less appropriate for high status job nor more appropriate for low status jobs [18]. However, Chinese accented applicants were rated less proper for the human resource associate. These rating seem to be the result of job description which emphasis that the human resource associate must have good communication skills. Based on these criteria the applicant skill judged and the negative results are not due to the Chinese accent of applicant. It is interesting to point out for both male and female applicant, the standard American applicant judged in the same way weather he or she had a Chinese name or an Anglo American name. Similar influence of speaking accent on human resources selection was reported for other English and even non-English speaking countries. For example in a study conducted by Kalin et al., the effect of applicant’s accent on judgment of suitability for a job was carried out in Canada [19]. For their study 203 subjects act as personal consultants and evaluate 10 job applicants for four jobs with different status. Five applicants spoke with an English Canadian accent and the other five spoke with foreign accent. The results show the discrimination in favour of English-Canadian accented applicant for high status job compare to the foreign accented applicants. In another study, T. Rakic et al. investigated whether accent alone can be sufficient for discrimination in job interview or not[20]. In their study, they compare a standard German accent with different regional accents. No main effect involving gender or attractiveness of each voice was found. Analysing the results showed that the present of the regional accent effects stereotype activation and possible discrimination against non-regional applicants. Applicants with standard German accent were judged as more competent than applicant with regional accents. However, there was no difference among different regional accents. Also, they mentioned that for some specific type of jobs, regional accent could be privilege compare to the standard German accent. As a summary of all above mentioned studies, the negative evaluation of foreign accent is more happen for the jobs with high communication demand. Also type of foreign accent can cause the negative evaluation. For instance, French accent is more favour than the Japanese accent rather than the status of the job. However for many special jobs, especially for jobs with high level of communication or management needed, some foreign accents may cause more negative reaction than other accents. However, it should pointed out that in some cases the applicant accent should be considered as an important selection criteria as may have direct influence on his/her service to the employer and their customers. For example, in service contexts where visual cues are absent (e.g. call centres), the accent of service providers may positively or negatively influence the customer perception of service quality[21]. Then in these cases the employer (or interviewer) should consider such influences of applicant accent. One of the latest cases in this regards could be referred to the Indian call centres provide service to the Australian large companies such as Telstra. The Indian accent of many employees in those call centres created some trouble for customers and companies, pushed the call centre managements to do an accent test before hiring of new staffs. Therefore, in some special cases treating employees differently because they have a foreign accent could be lawful, and this is only in the cases that accent materially interferes with being able to do the job. For example jobs that require effective oral communication in English (or organization country language) include teaching, customer service, and telemarketing to English speaking clients. How to reduce the applicant accent effect on job selection To reduce the negative effect of foreign accent for on human resources management and selection, several strategies may be carried out. Structured interviews are more valid and job related compare to unstructured interview and can help to reduce the negative effect of foreign accent in the employment interview[16, 22]. Also it is important to use training interviewers, selective effective interviewer and multiple interviewers[11]. Moreover, it could be very effective to have interviewer who have positive views about foreign accent and have international experience and/or background. Furthermore, if interviewers have access to the sufficient amount of information about the applicant, it will reduce the effect of accent-based stereotype. 2- Faking in job interview Faking is defined as an intentional distortion or a misrepresentation of response in order to make a good impression or provide the best answer [23]. For example, job applicants may respond and act in the way to increase their chance of being hired for special job. Impression management (IM) and faking are not identical in the employment interview; even though IM incorporate partly into the faking. In fact, IM refer to the intentional distortion of response in order to make a good impression and it is different from unintended distortion of response. IM can divide to the honest and deceptive part. Job applicant may use IM to make a good impression without being untruthful or may they use them in untruthful way. Levashina et al. describe faking as untruthful IM or deliberate distortion of response to interview question in order to make a good impression [24]. Job candidates change their response using role-faking strategy which is responding deceptively in accordance with the specific social role in order to make a favourable impression. Social roles show expectations about how job applicant who occupy the job has to act. It should be pointed that the candidate suitability for the special job might be assessed by comparing their personality with the individuals who already employed for the job. Then a role-faking strategy give a set of guideline for faking for job applicant who want to get the job but do not confident that they have desired suitability for the job. Several research show that individuals try to make a good image of themse
lves in public in order to enhanced perceived value [25]. As a result, job applicants are likely to answer questions regarding the job expectations [26]. They might try to show they fit for the special job and answer questions according to their understanding of the best candidate for the job and increase their chance of being hired. Levashina et al. in their study propose a model of faking likelihood in the employment interview and they argue that the faking in the employment interview is a function of the respondent’s capacity to fake, willingness to fake and opportunity to fake [24]. Capacities to fake include capabilities that enable job applicant to fake in employment interview. These capabilities consist of oral expressions skills, social skills, cognitive ability and knowledge of the construct being measured. Candidates who are more talent at oral expression can make more believable stories during an interview. The second parameter in capability to fake is social skills. Riggo et al. argue that expressive and socially controlled individuals are more successful in faking compare to those who have lack of communication skills [27]. The third parameter that may enhance the capability to fake is the cognitive ability. Study shows that lie telling is a function of cognitive ability since deceiver need to make lies consistent and in the way that satisfy the receivers. Furthermore, researches based on the experimental results from personality measurement of applicants under different instructions show that participants who have higher cognitive ability are more successful to answer to personality questions with more distortion [28]. As a result, it is more likely that individuals with high cognitive ability are more successful to fake during job interview. Finally there are two kind of knowledge that candidate may use to fake during job interview: knowledge of construct being measured and knowledge of job roles. These kind of knowledge can be achieved in many different ways including job requirement which is described in the job advertisement, reading the interview preparations books which explain about common question in job interview or simply by guess [24]. Interview questions become more transparent if candidate obtain knowledge of the constructs being measured. Then candidates may take detail knowledge of particular future jobs and successfully simulate the profiles of actual role. Moreover, it should be pointed that both type of the knowledge are the results of cognitive ability [29]. It is possible that applicants who have higher cognitive ability are to read more about different aspect of specific role and job requirements before the interview. These applicants have more potential to fake due to have greater knowledge about the job in interview. Researches show that people high in Machiavellianism [30], self monitoring [31], need for approval [32] and public self-consciousness [33] are more capable at managing impression than those who low on those features. Therefore, individuals high in those personality traits will be more willing to engage in faking during job interview. Also it is crucial to analyse the relationship between the big five personality dimensions and faking in employment interview. According to the several research, the big five personality dimensions are extroversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability and openness to experience [34, 35]. Meta-analysis of correlation between integrity tests and the big five factors show that integrity tests depend significantly to conscientiousness, agreeableness and emotional stability. Individuals who are high in these features should be more truthful and less likely willing to fake. Applicant high in consciousness and emotional stability may be better prepared and do better in job interview without faking [34]. Also these individuals may spend more time practicing for interview and have greater job knowledge. McFarland et al. argue that individuals with low consciousness and low emotional stability fake more than individuals with those high traits [36]. As a result, candidates who are emotionally stable, conscious and agreeable should be less involve in the faking during employment interview. Extroversion may also lead to the faking in job interview. It is reported that more social people engage more in the social interaction and told more lies every day. Because of that lie telling is easier and more successful for them [37]. Also extroverts were involved in self-permission during job interviews which influence interviewer opinion of person-job fit [38]. Integrity tests have been employed to predict the untruthful behaviour in organisations. Integrity tests are related to employee theft and other counterproductive behaviours [24]. As faking is a kind of counterproductive behaviour, job candidates with low integrity will be keener to involve in faking during job interview. Integrity testes include two part of measuring theft attitudes and assessment of one’s own honesty and admission of others bad behaviour. Individuals who think others behave in dishonest way, have a tendency to behave untruthful themselves [39]. Therefore, job applicants who are untruthful and think others are fraudulent will be more intent to fake during job interview. If candidate think that there is a high chance of getting caught when faking, the lower the probability of engaging in the faking and candidate will respond more accurately to the questions. This could be done by advising candidate that the interview contains methods for detecting faking or their answers will verify after the interview. Candidates who believe they treated unfairly at previous job interview will be more likely to fake in subsequent interview. Several candidates point out that they force to fake after several unsuccessful interviews where they respond honestly during the interview. They believe the unsuccessful outcome is the result of their honesty and truthfulness. Due to the pressure to find the job and lack of time to improve requirement for the job, they tried to increase their scores in interview by faking and making the untruthful relevant story which is needed for the special job [24]. Job candidates who present at interview coaching session designed to improve interview performance will be more willing to fake during the job interview. This is likely because they have higher knowledge about the employer expectations and the best answer for specific questions during job interview. Even though applicant may intent to fake during job interview, there may be obstacles that limit faking. Different types of interviews have different degree of vulnerability to fake by the candidates who want to make a specific impression of themselves. For example, unstructured interviews provide more opportunity to fake compare to structured interviews. In an unstructured interview, applicants have an opportunity to construct certain image and use it during the whole interview. This is consistent about the relational communication which unstructured interview allow an applicant to obtain relational control and have an authority during the interview [40]. Also the degree of dominance may affects the interviewer decision; for example successful applicants controlled the conversations [40]. Finally, the lack of relevant information about job in unstructured interview may lead interviewers to categorize based on the previous conception of the perfect applicant. This will give an opportunity to job applicant to fake successfully by responding questions based on the description of best candidate for the job. Although structured interview may reduce the faking, some factor of structured interview may raise faking. Due to the influence of faking in the validity of interview, it is crucial to determine which component of structured interview increase or decrease the opportunity to fake. Subtle interview questions which are difficult to understand should reduce faking. Meta-analysis shows that the mean score differences between fake good and truthful situations may be less for subtle items than obvious items [41].
Objective items which are more verifiable will engage less faking compare to the subjective items those include interpretation and allowing self-justification and self enhancing distortion. Based on Mael’s classification, background questions are historical, internal, subjective and unverifiable questions, therefore, there is less chance of faking for them. On the other hand, situational questions are more fakeable because they can be expressed as hypothetical, internal, subjective and unverifiable questions. Furthermore, several researches show for higher level positions job, the situational interview is not effective as behavioural descriptions interview. This is due to the higher verbal and social skills and cognitive ability of applicant for high position job which allow them to fake successfully especially in situational interview [42]. It should be noted that longer interview can reduce the chance of faking. This is due to have an opportunity for asking several questions about the same toping from different point of view and check the consistency of the answers by the applicants. Also it is possible that the number of attempt to engage in faking will be increase for long interview, therefore it is more probable to detect faking in the long interview. Using single interviewer, provide more possibility to fake. A single interviewer is less likely to notice inconsistency in candidate’s behaviours. Also it is easier to distort answers in the present of one interviewer than the panel of interviewers. Using structured interview limit follow-up questions. This will reduce bias and enhance the standardization of interview. In the other hand this may possible to fake during interview as candidates may think there is no way to detect the faking by no follow-up questions [22]. To enhance standardization in job interview, ancillary information include applicant forms, resume, previous interview, test score and so on, should be used in standard way [22]. The problem with uncontrolled ancillary information is that gave interviewer pre-interview impression about candidate and they try to find evidence to support their impression during interview. However, withholding ancillary information enhance faking during interview, because interviewer doesn’t have information to challenge candidate who is trying to create fake impression [24]. On the other hand, using ancillary information in standardized manner can improved structure and reduce opportunity to fake. Finally, interview questions that evaluate personality, interest and organizational fit will allow candidate to fake more compare to interview questions measuring mental capability, knowledge and skill and applied social skill constructs. It is worth to point that the selection interviews will make more opportunity to fake than recruitment interview [24]. References: 1. Ryan, A.M., L. McFarland, and H.B. Shl, An international look at selection practices: Nation and culture as explanations for variability in practice. Personnel Psychology, 1999. 52(2): p. 359-392. 2. Lievens, F., S. Highhouse, and W. De Corte, The importance of traits and abilities in supervisors’ hirability decisions as a function of method of assessment. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 2005. 78(3): p. 453-470. 3. Gatewood, R.D., H.S. Field, and M. Barrick, Human resource selection. 2008(6th). 4. Pursell, E.D., M.A. Campion, and S.R. Gaylord, Structured interviewing: Avoiding selection problems. Personnel Journal, 1980. 59(11): p. 907. 5. Conway, M.J., A.R. Jako, and F.D. Goodman, A meta-analysis of interrater and internal consistency reliability of selection interviews. Applied Psychology, 1995. 80(5): p. 565. 6. Wright, P.M., P.A. Lichtenfels, and E.D. Pursell, The structured interview: Additional studies and a meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 1989. 62(3): p. 191-199. 7. Podberesky, R., R.H. Deluty, and S. Feldstein, Evaluations of spanish- and oriental-accented english speakers. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 1990. 18(1): p. 53. 8. Reitz, J.G., Immigrant success in the knowledge economy: Institutional change and the immigrant experience in canada, 1970–1995. Journal of Social Issues, 2001. 57(3): p. 579-613. 9. oxforddictionaries.com/definition/accent. 10. Hill, S.R. and A. Tombs, The effect of accent of service employee on customer service evaluation: The role of customer emotions. Managing Service Quality, 2011. 21(6): p. 649. 11. Segrest Purkiss, S.L., et al., Implicit sources of bias in employment interview judgments and decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2006. 101(2): p. 152-167. 12. Stone-Romero, E.F. and D.L. Stone, Cognitive, affective, and cultural influences on stigmatization: Impact on human resource management processes and practices. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management. 26. 13. Giles, H., P. Wilson, and A. Conway, Accent and lexical diversity as determinants of impression formation and perceived employment suitability. Language Sciences, 1981. 3(1): p. 91-103. 14. Zerdaa, N.D.L. and R. Hopperb, Employment interviewers’ reactions to mexican american speech. Communication Monographs 1979. 46(2). 15. Lippi-Green, R., English with an accent: Language, ideology and discrimination in the united states. United State, Routledge, London, 1997: p. p.238. 16. Hosoda, M. and E. Stone-Romero, The effects of foreign accents on employment-related decisions. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 2010. 25(2): p. 113. 17. Hopper, R. and F. Williams, Speech characteristics and employability. Speech Monographs 1973. 40(4): p. 296. 18. Cargile, A.C., Evaluations of employment suitability: Does accent always matter? Journal of Employment Counseling, 2000. 37(3): p. 165-177. 19. Kalin, R. and D.S. Rayko, Discrimination in evaluative judgments against foreign-accented job candidates. Psychological Reports, 1978. 43(3f): p. 1203-1209. 20. Rakić, T., M.C. Steffens, and A. Mummendey, When it matters how you pronounce it: The influence of regional accents on job interview outcome. British Journal of Psychology, 2011. 102(4): p. 868-883. 21. Lippi-Green, R., Accent, standard language ideology, and discriminatory pretext in the courts. Language in society, 1964. 23: p. 163. 22. Campion, M.A., D.K. Palmer, and J.E. Campion, A review of structure in the selection interview. Personnel Psychology, 1997. 50(3): p. 655-702. 23. Comrey, A.L. and T.E. Backer, Detection of faking on the comrey personality scales. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1975. 10(3): p. 311. 24. Levashina, J. and M.A. Campion, A model of faking likelihood in the employment interview. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 2006. 14(4): p. 299-316. 25. Carnevale, P.J.D., D.G. Pruitt, and S.D. Britton, The negotiator under constituent surveillance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1979. 5(1): p. 118. 26. Mahar, D., J. Cologon, and J. Duck, Response strategies when faking personality questionnaires in a vocational selection setting. Personality and Individual Differences, 1995. 18(5): p. 605-609. 27. Riggio, R.E., J. Tucker, and B. Throckmorton, Social skills and deception ability. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletinpsp, 1987. 13(4): p. 568. 28. Furnham, A., Response bias, social desirability and dissimulation. Personality and Individual Differences, 1986. 7(3): p. 385-400. 29. Viswesvaran, C. and D.S. Ones, Agreements and disagreements on the role of general mental ability (gma) in industrial, work, and organizational psychology. Human Performance, 2002. 15(1): p. 211. 30. Christie, R. and F.L. Geis, Academic press. Studies in Machiavellianism, 1970. 31. DePaulo, B., Nonverbal behavior and self-presentation. Psychol Bull, 1992. 111(2): p. 203. 32. Millham, J. and R.W. Kellogg, Need for social approval: Impression management or self-deception? Journal of Research in Personality, 1980. 14(4): p. 445-457. 33. Mark Snyder and T.C. Monson, Persons, situations, and the control of social behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975. 32(4): p. 637. 34. Barrick, M.R. and M.K. Mount, The big five per
sonality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 1991. 44(1): p. 1-26. 35. P, J.O., The“big five” factor taxonomy: Dimensions of personality in the natural language and in questionnaires. Handbook of personality Theory and research 1990. 14: p. 66. 36. McFarland, L.A. and A.M. Ryan, Variance in faking across noncognitive measures. J Appl Psychol, 2000. 85(5): p. 812. 37. Kashy, D.A., Who lies? J Pers Soc Psychol, 1996. 70(5): p. 1037. 38. Kristof-Brown, A., M.R. Barrick, and M. Franke, Applicant impression management: Dispositional influences and consequences for recruiter perceptions of fit and similarity. Journal of Management, 2002. 28(1): p. 27. 39. Murphy, K.R., Honesty in the workplace, 1993. pacific Grove, CA:Brooks/ Cole publishing Companey. 40. Tullar, W.L., Relational control in the employment interview. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1989. 74(6): p. 971. 41. George M. Alliger and S.A. Dwight, A meta-analytic investigation of the susceptibility of integrity tests to faking and coaching. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 2000. 60(1): p. 59. 42. Huffcutt, A.I., et al., Comparison of situational and behavior description interview questions for higher-level positions. Personnel Psychology, 2001. 54(3): p. 619-644.