The Four Stages of the Job Interview: Helping Interviewers Put Two and Two Together

Abstract

Abstract
Purpose
–
The purpose of this paper is to provide a conceptual model of the standard employment
interview that practitioners may use to improve their interview skills and the accuracy of their
selection decisions.
Design/methodology/approach
–
The dynamics of each discrete stage of the interview model are
supported by empirical findings from the research literature on employment interviewing.
Findings
–
An interview transitions through four naturally occurring stages: the initial impression
formed in the first few seconds when the candidate and interviewer first lay eyes on one another;
a rapport building stage of several minutes to help each party settle in; the body of the interview in
which job skills and culture-fit are assessed; and the close, when the interviewer asks if the candidate
has any questions about the job or company.
Research limitations/implications
–
Implications for research include providing solutions to the
problem of difficult-to-control personal biases (especially during Stages 1 and 2), as well as conducting
holistic studies that include the factors that influence decision making across all four stages to
determine their relative weights.
Practical implications
–
The four stage model can be used to design interview training programs.
By dividing the interview into discrete stages, practitioners can become aware of the pitfalls within
each stage and use evidence-based findings to correct mistakes.
Social implications
–
Companies and job candidates benefit alike when selection is based on job
skills and person-organization fit rather than on how well job candidates can interview.
Originality/value
–
This is the first paper to propose that employment interviews move through four
discrete stages and to support the assertion with findings from secondary empirical research.

Full text

The four stages of the
employment interview
Helping interviewers put two
and two together
Uco J. Wiersma
School of Economics and Management, Tongji University, Shanghai, China
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to provide a conceptual model of the standard employment
interview that practitioners may use to improve their interview skills and the accuracy of their
selection decisions.
Design/methodology/approach –The dynamics of each discrete stage of the interview model are
supported by empirical findings from the research literature on employment interviewing.
Findings –An interview transitions through four naturally occurring stages: the initial impression
formed in the first few seconds when the candidate and interviewer first lay eyes on one another;
a rapport building stage of several minutes to help each party settle in; the body of the interview in
which job skills and culture-fit are assessed; and the close, when the interviewer asks if the candidate
has any questions about the job or company.
Research limitations/implications –Implications for research include providing solutions to the
problem of difficult-to-control personal biases (especially during Stages 1 and 2), as well as conducting
holistic studies that include the factors that influence decision making across all four stages to
determine their relative weights.
Practical implications –The four stage model can be used to design interview training programs.
By dividing the interview into discrete stages, practitioners can become aware of the pitfalls within
each stage and use evidence-based findings to correct mistakes.
Social implications –Companies and job candidates benefit alike when selection is based on job
skills and person-organization fit rather than on how well job candidates can interview.
Originality/value –This is the first paper to propose that employment interviews move through four
discrete stages and to support the assertion with findings from secondary empirical research.
Keywords Selection, Cognitive model, Job interview
Paper type Viewpoint
1. Introduction
Companies manage well when they hire well. Yet there is a mismatch between what is
known and practiced.
Researchers knew a century ago that standard selection interviews have both, low
inter-rater reliability (Scott, 1915) and poor predictive validity (Scott, 1916), and that
interviewers are influenced disproportionately by candidate mannerisms, facial
expressions, and personal appearance (Magson, 1926). Eldon Wonderlic (1937), of the
Wonderlic intelligence test, summed up the frustration of his time when he wrote:
“Most interviews today are conducted in exactly the same way as they were 50 years
ago […] Few [interviewers] follow a well-defined pattern and the interview generally
amounts to a disorganized conversation resulting in a series of impressions based upon
impulsive reactions”(p. 35). Practitioners today continue to use the same basic
unstructured, conversational interview (Buckley et al., 2000; Lievens and de Paepe, 2004),
Evidence-based HRM: a Global
Forum for Empirical Scholarship
Vol. 4 No. 3, 2016
pp. 232-239
Emerald Group Publishing Limited
2049-3983
DOI 10.1108/EBHRM-11-2015-0045
Received 17 November 2015
Revised 18 February 2016
10 March 2016
Accepted 25 March 2016
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/2049-3983.htm
©U.J. Wiersma 2016
232
EBHRM
4,3

although researchers advise against it (Latham and Sue-Chan, 1999; Wiesner and
Cronshaw, 1988).
Cascio (2007) noted that academics focus on technical innovation whereas
practitioners focus on administrative style. Academics can sell their ideas to
practitioners, who are also lobbied by consultants and journalists, more easily by
ensuring that they make intuitive sense. For example, using a social representations
approach, Roulin and Bangerter (2012) argue that behavioural interviews are diffused
through the practitioner-oriented literature much better than are structured interviews,
and conclude that academics should “rethink their ways of communicating with
practitioners through media”(p. 149).
This viewpoint outlines the key elements of a four stage interview model that is
easily understood by practitioners. People create internal cognitive models of
behaviour they intend to perform, compare their performance with the internal model
and adjust subsequent actions accordingly (Bandura, 1986). A clear internal concept
leads to good task performance. Moreover, complex tasks are best understood and
mastered when divided into smaller components and when novel response patterns are
related to familiar concepts. Hence, the four interview stages described below offer
practitioners a cognitive map and highlight common pitfalls.
2. The four interview stages
Stage 1
Stage 1 begins when interviewers and candidates meet eye-to-eye and ends with a
handshake. Strangers assess one another on the two universal dimensions of warmth and
competence when they first meet (Fiske et al., 2006), and people judge how trustworthy a
stranger’s face looks within one-tenth of a second (Willis and Todorov, 2006). This stage
lasts only a few seconds, however premature biases about job candidates, which are
unrelated to potential job performance, cause interviewers to hire candidates who perform
poorly on the job or to dismiss candidates who could have done the job quite well.
Appearance and the handshake are two sources of bias during Stage 1. Interview
decisions are heavily affected by candidate appearance during unstructured, informal
interviews but interviewers barely consider appearance when the interview is
structured. Moreover, appearance does not correlate with subsequent job performance
(Barrick et al., 2009). Handshake quality affects hiring decisions because a firm
handshake with a good pump and solid eye contact communicates extroversion
(Stewart et al., 2008). Extroverts present well during interviews (Caldwell and Burger,
1998; Huffcutt et al., 2001) because they are emotionally expressive (Riggio and Riggio,
2002), which is generally considered a desirable trait (Friedman et al., 1988). However,
with the notable exceptions of managerial (Barrick et al., 2001) and telemarketer jobs
(Barrick et al., 2002), extroversion, has not been a good predictor of job performance
(Barrick et al., 2001; Berry et al., 2007; Chiaburu et al., 2011).
This suggests that interviewers should withhold judgements during Stage 1.
Stage 2
Stage 2 begins when the interviewer offers coffee or exchanges pleasantries such as
“So, did you have any trouble finding the place?”It gives both parties time to settle in.
Practitioners can use the time to change gears from their busy schedules.
While engaging in small talk, a mismatch in non-relevant values can bias
interviewers. Inadvertent comments by candidates can provoke interviewers’deeply
233
Four stages
of the
employment
interview

held values (e.g. religious, political persuasion) and act as knock-out factors before
candidates can prove themselves in Stages 3 and 4. Even when interviewers agree that
such negative evaluations are unfair, counteracting the effect is challenging. Wilson
and Brekke (1994) have coined the term mental contamination to emphasize that the
effects are difficult to control. Research findings on the halo effect, first impression
effects, cognitive dissonance, frame of reference, metacognition, heuristics, cognitive
schemas and priming show the extent of mental bias.
However, interviewers should do their best to defer any evaluation during Stage 2
until the end. During mock interviews with student job candidates, evaluations after
three minutes correlated with end-of-interview ratings (Barrick et al., 2010). However,
when the students interviewed with the Big Four accounting firms for summer
internships two weeks later, the end-of-interview evaluations in the practice interviews
predicted internship offers four times better than did the initial evaluations.
Subsequently, Barrick et al. (2011) showed that interviewers were most influenced by
candidates’verbal fluency and extrovert personalities during Stage 2.
Although applicant non-verbal behaviours influence interviewers throughout the
interview, they first manifest during Stage 2. It is well known that interview
judgements are swayed by candidates’body language such as eye contact, smiling,
hand movements and posture (Burnett and Motowidlo, 1998; Liden et al., 1993) as well
as by the quality of their voices (DeGroot, and Gooty, 2009).
Thus, interviewers should build rapport to put candidates at ease, resist the
effects of mental contamination, and then collect good-quality, job-related data
during Stages 3 and 4.
Stage 3
Stage 3 is what most people think of as the interview. The academic-practitioner gap is
most pronounced during this stage. Although Stage 3 is highly important, but it is one
of four, and selection decisions are being shaped throughout the interview.
Stage 3 may proceed in either a structured or unstructured fashion (Dipboye, 1994).
O’Rourke (1929), a Psychologist who worked for the US Civil Service during the time of
Prohibition, developed the first known structured interview. Subsequently, Latham
et al. (1980) developed the situational interview and Janz (1982) developed the patterned
behaviour description interview. During a situational interview, the interviewer
describes a dilemma embedded in a realistic job scenario. This is analogous to a work
sample such as a typing test, except that words are used to convey the setting, and
applicants’responses of how they would act substitute for actual performance.
The mean corrected criterion-related validity of the situational interview is r¼0.47
(Latham and Sue-Chan, 1999).
Structured interviews ensure that candidates are judged against the requirements of
the job instead of in the abstract (Campion et al., 1997; Levashina et al.,2014).Findings
show that behavioural and situational questions help interviewers detect honest and
deceptive applicant impression management better than does mere interview experience
alone (Roulin et al., 2015); reduce employment selection biases against pregnant women
(Bragger et al., 2002) and overweight job candidates (Kutcher and Bragge, 2006); and
reduce both gender and race similarity effects between interviewers and interviewees
(McCarthy et al., 2010). Moreover, structured interviews permit the most qualified job
candidates to more accurately identify the target job dimensions (Ingold et al.,2015).
Notwithstanding the superior effects of structured interviews, in practice,
interviewers have historically used the unstructured approach (Wagner, 1949) and
234
EBHRM
4,3

continue to do so today (Dipboye, 1994; Stevens, 2009; Van der Zee et al., 2002).
Typical questions are, “So, tell me about yourself. Why do you think you'd
be good for this position?”“Why should I hire you?”and “How would you
describe yourself?”
Unstructured interviews create several problems. Interviewers who use applicants’
resumes to drive interviews are unable to compare multiple candidates against a
common yardstick afterwards. This is analogous to giving different final exams to
different students and then arguing that the grading is fair. Second, some interviewers
are affected by stereotypes, such as bookworms cannot take action, women with
families are more interested in benefits than careers, people with weight problems are
lazy, ex-military personnel have a command-and-control attitude, and athletes in
competitive sports make good leaders. Finally, interviewers use puzzle-tests that do not
measure key job requirements. For example, a computer programmer might be asked:
“You’re shrunk to a height of a nickel and thrown into a blender. Your mass is reduced
so that your density is the same as usual. The blades start moving in 60 seconds.
What do you do?”
In addition to measuring job skills during Stage 3, interviewers should explore how
well candidates’values match their corporate cultures. There is a sizable literature on
person-organization fit and findings show that fitness matters (Cable and Judge, 1997;
Edwards and Cable, 2009; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). Interviewers should ask “Why do
you want to work for our company?”As one executive recruiter said, “You and I may
have the same exact résumé but it doesn’tmeanwe’ll be equally happy in that
company’s environment […]. It’s not a bad thing, it’s who you are as a person. […] there
are some cultures that fit different personalities”(Wiersma, 2016, p. 81). Candidates
who fit the company culture are happier and stay longer but are not necessarily more
productive (Arthur et al., 2006).
In summary, interviewers should structure the interview by basing their questions
on a job analysis and then being consistent across job candidates, and assess person-
organization fit.
Stage 4
Finally, Stage 4 begins when interviewers ask job candidates at the close of the
interview whether they have any questions about the company or position.
The popular literature (e.g. Bolles, 2009) advises applicants to ask questions, and
empirical findings, although scarce, confirm the advice. A review of the empirical
findings shows that interviewers evaluate candidates more highly when they ask
questions (Tullar, 1989); most candidates ask questions about the job (performance
standards, schedule, in which department), the organization (culture, career
opportunities), and the hiring process (selection criteria, why job is available) (Taylor
et al., 2010); interviewee questions average nine words (Babbitt and Jablin, 1985); and
that the more successful candidates project themselves into the job by using the first
person tense: “What would be my responsibilities?”instead of “What are the job
responsibilities?”(Einhorn, 1981).
It is more difficult to pose a good question than to answer one, therefore candidates
reveal useful information about themselves. Better candidates will custom-tailor their
questions and link their personal backgrounds to the job responsibilities and needs of
the organization. Instead of “How does this division plan to grow?”a thoughtful
candidate would ask, “I understand from reading the annual report that this
division plans to grow through its new health care acquisitions. How might my past
235
Four stages
of the
employment
interview

experience at Total Health Hospital help me in this job and division?”Specific questions
may broadcast unique personal qualities that can be a competitive advantage
for a company.
For these reasons, interviewers should set a tone at the close that encourages
questions from job candidates.
3. Concluding remarks and research implications
The four stage model has research implications. Withholding judgements during the
early interview stages is easier said than done because forewarned is not always
forearmed (Wilson and Brekke, 1994). We need research that helps practitioner avoid
unwanted factors that intrude upon selection decisions, for example, a limp handshake
during Stage 1, or an inadvertent comment during Stage 2. One strategy to help
interviewers avoid errors is to have them focus more on information that has predictive
value. For example, when interviewing recent college graduates, a promising but rarely
used approach that could potentially minimize mental contamination is simply to ask
for the ’candidate’s grade point average (GPA). GPA is an excellent proxy measure for
conscientiousness in labour market entrants (Wiersma and Kappe, 2016).
Conscientiousness predicts job performance across a wide spectrum of jobs, but is
the most difficult of the Big Five personality dimensions to observe in an interview
(Barrick et al., 2000).
Second, analysis is part of science, but reductionism has its limits; synthesis is also
important. We might conduct studies that measure simultaneously all of the important
variables that influence hiring decisions to determine their relative weights, and assess
how candidate characteristics interact with one another across the four stages, in both
structured and unstructured interview contexts.
In summary, some degree of gut feel will be present during any interview but such
feelings should not dictate hiring decisions. It is important to create meritocracies in
which job candidates with requisite skills and values are selected, rather than those
who just happen to interview well.
References
Arthur, W., Bell, S.T., Villado, A.J. and Doverspike, D. (2006), “The use of person-organization fit
in employment decision making: an assessment of its criterion-related validity”,Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 4, pp. 786-801.
Babbitt, L.V. and Jablin, F.M. (1985), “Characteristics of applicants’questions and employment
screening interview outcomes”,Human Communication Research, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 507-535.
Bandura, A. (1986), Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory,
Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Barrick, M., Shaffer, J. and DeGrassi, S. (2009), “What you see may not be what you get:
relationships among self-presentation tactics, and ratings of interview performance”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 94 No. 6, pp. 1394-1411.
Barrick, M.R., Mount, M.K. and Judge, T.A. (2001), “Personality and performance at the beginning
of the new millennium: what do we know and where do we go next?”,International Journal
of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 9 Nos 1-2, pp. 9-30.
Barrick, M.R., Patton, G.K. and Haugland, S. (2000), “Accuracy of interviewer judgments of
personality traits”,Personnel Psychology, Vol. 53 No. 4, pp. 925-951.
236
EBHRM
4,3

Barrick, M.R., Stewart, G.L. and Piotrowski, M. (2002), “Personality and job performance: test of
the mediating effects of motivation among sales representatives”,Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 1, pp. 43-51.
Barrick, M.R., Swider, B.W. and Stewart, G.L. (2010), “Initial evaluations in the interview:
relationships with subsequent interviewer evaluations and employment offers”,Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 95 No. 6, pp. 1163-1172.
Barrick, M.R., Dustin, S.L., Giluk, T.L., Stewart, G.L., Shaffer, J.A. and Swider, B.W. (2011),
“Candidate characteristics driving initial impressions during rapport building:
implications for employment interview validity”,Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 85 No. 2, pp. 330-352.
Berry, C.M., Ones, D.S. and Sackett, P.R. (2007), “Interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance,
and their common correlates: a review and meta-analysis”,Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 92 No. 2, pp. 410-424.
Bolles, R.N. (2009), What Color is Your Parachute? A Practical Manual for Job-Hunters and
Career-Changers, Ten Speed Press, Berkeley, CA.
Bragger, J.D., Kutcher, E., Morgan, J. and Firth, P. (2002), “The effects of the structured
interview on reducing biases against pregnant job applicants”,Sex Roles, Vol. 46 No. 7,
pp. 215-226.
Buckley, M.R., Norris, A.C. and Wiese, D.S. (2000), “A brief history of the selection interview:
may the next 100 years be more fruitful”,Journal of Management History, Vol. 6 No. 3,
pp. 113-126.
Burnett, J. and Motowidlo, S. (1998), “Relations between different sources of information in the
structured selection interview”,Personnel Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 963-983.
Cable, D.M. and Judge, T.A. (1997), “Interviewers’perceptions of person-organization
fit and organizational selection decisions”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82 No. 4,
pp. 546-561.
Caldwell, D.F. and Burger, J.M. (1998), “Personality characteristics of job applicants and success
in screening interviews”,Personnel Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 119-136.
Campion, M.A., Palmer, D.K. and Campion, J.E. (1997), “A review of structure in the selection
interview”,Personnel Psychology, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 655-702.
Cascio, W.F. (2007), “Evidence-based management and the marketplace for ideas”,Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 50 No. 5, pp. 1009-1012.
Chiaburu, D.S., Oh, I., Berry, C.M., Li, N. and Gardner, R.G. (2011), “The five-factor model of
personality traits and organizational citizenship behaviors: a meta-analysis”,Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 96 No. 6, pp. 1140-1166.
DeGroot, T. and Gooty, J. (2009), “Can nonverbal cues be used to make meaningful attributions in
employment interviews?”,Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 179-192.
Dipboye, R.L. (1994), “Structured and unstructured selection interviews: beyond the job-fit
model”,Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Vol. 12, pp. 79-123.
Edwards, J. and Cable, D. (2009), “The value of value congruence”,Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 94 No. 3, pp. 654-677.
Einhorn, L. (1981), “An inner view of the job interview: an investigation of successful
communicative behaviors”,Communication Education, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 217-228.
Fiske, S., Cuddy, A. and Glick, P. (2006), “Universal dimensions of social cognition: warmth and
competence”,Trends in Cognitive Sciences, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 77-83.
Friedman, H.S., Riggio, R.E. and Casella, D.F. (1988), “Nonverbal skill, personal charisma, and
initial attraction”,Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 203-211.
237
Four stages
of the
employment
interview

Huffcutt, A.I., Conway, J.M., Roth, P.L. and Stone, N.J. (2001), “Identification and meta-analytic
assessment of psychological constructs measured in employment interviews”,Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 5, pp. 897-913.
Ingold, P., Kleinmann, M., Konig, C., Melcher, K. and van Iddekinge, C. (2015), “Why do situational
interviews predict job performance? The role of interviewee ability to identify criteria”,
Journal of Business Psychology, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 387-398.
Janz, T. (1982), “Initial comparisons of patterned behavior description interviews versus
unstructured interviews”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 67 No. 5, pp. 577-580.
Kristof-Brown, A.L., Zimmerman, R.D. and Johnson, E.C. (2005), “Consequences of individuals’fit
at work: a meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-
supervisor fit”,Personnel Psychology, Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 281-342.
Kutcher, E.J. and Bragge, J.D. (2006), “Selection interviews of overweight job applicants: can
structure reduce the bias?”,Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 34 No. 10, pp. 1993-2022.
Latham, G.P. and Sue-Chan, C. (1999), “A meta-analysis of the situational interview: an enumerative
review of reasons for its validity”,Canadian Psychology, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 56-67.
Latham, G.P., Saari, L., Purcell, E. and Campion, M. (1980), “The situational interview”,Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 65, pp. 422-427.
Levashina, J., Hartwell, C.J., Morgeson, F.P. and Campion, M.A. (2014), “The structured
employment interview: narrative and quantitative review of the research literature”,
Personnel Psychology, Vol. 67 No. 1, pp. 241-293.
Liden, R., Martin, C. and Parsons, C. (1993), “Interviewer and applicant behaviors in employment
interviews”,Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 372-387.
Lievens, F. and de Paepe, A. (2004), “An empirical investigation of interviewer-related factors that
discourage the use of high structure interviews”,Journal of Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 29-46.
McCarthy, J.M., van Iddekinge, C.H. and Campion, M.A. (2010), “Are highly structured job
interviews resistant to demographic similarity effects?”,Personnel Psychology, Vol. 63
No. 2, pp. 325-359.
Magson, E.H. (1926), “How we judge intelligence”,British Journal of Psychology, Monograph No. S9.
O’Rourke, L.J. (1929), “Measuring judgment and resourcefulness: an interview technique”,
Personnel Journal, Vol. 7, pp. 427-440.
Riggio, H. and Riggio, R. (2002), “Emotional expressiveness, extraversion, and emotional stability:
a meta-analysis”,Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 195-218.
Roulin, N. and Bangerter, A. (2012), “Understanding the academic–practitioner gap for structured
interviews: behavioral’interviews diffuse, ‘structured’interviews do not”,International
Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 149-158.
Roulin, N., Bangerter, A. and Levashina, J. (2015), “Honest and deceptive impression management
in the employment interview: can it be detected and how does it impact evaluations?”,
Personnel Psychology, Vol. 68 No. 2, pp. 395-444.
Scott, W.D. (1915), “Scientific selection of salesmen”,Advertising and Selling Magazine, October.
Scott, W.D. (1916), “Selection of employees by means of quantitative determinations”,Annals of
the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, Vol. 65.
Stevens, C.K. (2009), “Structure interviews to hire and recruit the best people”, in Locke, E.A. (Ed.),
Handbook of Principles of Organizational Behavior: Indispensable Knowledge For Evidence-
Based Management, Wiley Publishers, West Sussex, pp. 41-56.
Stewart, G., Dustin, S., Barrick, M. and Darnold, T. (2008), “Exploring the handshake in
employment interviews”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 93 No. 5, pp. 1139-1149.
238
EBHRM
4,3

Taylor, V.F., Coolsen, M.K. and Reese, D. (2010), “What did you ask? An empirical investigation of
the influence of applicant questions”, in Oglesby, R.A., LeBlanc, H.P. and Adams, M.G.
(Eds), Business Research Yearbook: Global Business Perspectives, Vol. 17, International
Academy of Business Disciplines Publishers, Beltsville, MD, pp. 394-401.
Tullar, W.L. (1989), “Relational control in the employment interview”,Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 74 No. 6, pp. 971-977.
Van der Zee, K.I., Bakker, A.B. and Bakker, P. (2002), “Why are structured interviews so rarely
used in personnel selection?”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 1, pp. 176-184.
Wagner, R. (1949), “The employment interview: a critical summary”,Personnel Psychology, Vol. 2
No. 1, pp. 17-46.
Wiersma, U.J. (2016), Interview Charisma: Evidence-based Strategies to Help You Win the Job You
Deserve, Career Knows Publishing, Norwalk, CT.
Wiersma, U.J. and Kappe, R. (2016), “Selecting for extroversion but rewarding for
conscientiousness”, unpublished manuscript, School of Economics and Management,
Tongji University, Shanghai.
Wiesner, W. and Cronshaw, S. (1988), “A meta-analytic investigation of the impact of interview
format and degree of structure on the validity of the employment interview”,Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 61 No. 4, pp. 275-290.
Willis, J. and Todorov, A. (2006), “First impressions: making up your mind after a 100-ms
exposure to a face”,Psychological Science, Vol. 17 No. 7, pp. 592-598.
Wilson, T.D. and Brekke, N. (1994), “Mental contamination and mental correction: unwanted
influences on judgments and evaluations”,Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 116 No. 1,
pp. 117-142.
Wonderlic, E.F. (1937), “Personnel as a control function”,Personnel, Vol. 14, pp. 31-41.
Corresponding author
Uco J. Wiersma can be contacted at: ujwiersma@gmail.com
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
239
Four stages
of the
employment
interview