Candidate’s personality and decision making during recruitment and
selection process
Amalasunta Georgeta Iacob, Phd.
University “ Al. I Cuza”
Iaşi, România
semproniaro_2004@yahoo.com
Andreia Andrei, Phd.
University “ Al. I Cuza”
Iaşi, România
andrei.andreia@gmail.com
Daniela Iosub, Phd.
University “ Al. I Cuza”
Iaşi, România
dana.iosub@gmail.com
Abstract
Studied from theory and experience in staff recruitment and selection, we have some great patterns of personality or,
rather, we are inclined to give more credit to a candidate with certain personality traits. Along with this finding was
observed and a good ability of candidates to play a very good candidate interviewed so well manages its strengths and
weaknesses, that we speak a high level of self-monitoring. So that we can interview a candidate is accepted if it has the
following personality traits: openness, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiously. If high positions dominate the first
three dimensions listed, but can not necessarily talk about conscientious, but a great capacity to take risks, make
decisions and high self-monitoring. While in executive positions required a high level of conscientiousness and of
emotional stability order to avoid conflicts between candidate and employer.
Keywords: personality evaluation, Big Five model, self-monitoring, interview.
1. Introduction
Meaning assigned to term limits personality ranged from one to another theoritician. Allport found that
psychologists had visions of three elements: a) each individual has a unique personality, b) each person
consists of several different characteristics, c) those characteristics remain stable over time (are constants)
(apud
Hayes
&
Orrel,
1997).
In an attempt to describe how personality is formed, Murray proposes four sets of essential factors:
1.Constitutional determinatives - they are: age, gender, body type, physical force, any disabilities that have
different
importance
depending
on
the
social
environment.
2.Group membership determinatives - these include family groups, professional, political, religious, etc.
because that membership entails a social environment with a particular system needs.
3.Related role determinatives - is a subclass of determinants of group membership, culture prescribes ways
in which the roles required for group life should be played, the formation of personality is closely linked
both
predefined
roles
(gender)
and
those
that
choose
(occupation).
4.Situational determinatives- is composed of the individual's everyday experience, which is usually
unpredictible and capricious: interpersonal contacts short / long term, family constellation, relationships
with
certain
people,
etc..
Personal constructs theory focuses on psychological processes that facilitate understanding of life.
Personologic Kelly's system, key theoretical construct is whether the term of construction. "Man of the
world through transparent patterns or templates you create yourself, then trying to match the realities of the
world consists [...]. Without these patterns, our world would appear as an undifferentiated homogeneity that
we could not assign any sense (apud Hjelle & Ziegler, op., p.217). Such a personal construct is a class of
thoughts which the human individual constructs and interprets his own life (ie, refined to raunchy, good
against evil, etc.).
2. Personality assessment in organizational environment
The first environmental assessment in organizational psychological nature have emerged from the need to
ensure compatibility between people and machinery due to the introduction into employment and further
automation. These initial assessment aimed at both qualified staff and on the unskilled, but also specialists
in
order
to
assess
their
ability
to
adapt
to
new
working
conditions.
The main objective of psychological evaluation is human knowledge, the features and characteristics of its
individual
for
a
diagnosis,
possibly
to
solve
a
psychological
problem.
Investigations of specific psychological divide after Zörgö (1976, apud Pitariu 1983): a) examination aimed
at capturing and describing certain processes / physical activities, without taking into account their different
aspects and b) review study aimed primarily features Psychiatric differential, which identify and
organizational
psihodiagnosis.
In a more comprehensive psychological examination involves understanding human problems and the
overall behavior of the individual as psychological aspects. Thus, the findings of a psychological evaluation
is a synthesis of information obtained from a variety of methods and techniques. Horia Pitariu very plastic
emphasize his "psychology of selection and training": "The image of our personality structure is organized
as a mosaic according to its own laws which constitutives elements are interrelated, are compensated each
other"
(p.
83)
.
Psychological examination must therefore design a framework that goes beyond mere observation
"mechanistic" because human personality is a dynamic and continuous transformation, in terms of layout
skills and interests. Psychological assessment should not remain in the methodical observation of behavior
in clearly defined circumstances, but can serve at one time a progressive analysis of our behavior that we
learn
to
know,
we
strive
to
current
capabilities.
3. Organization of psychological assessment in organizations
Indicated that psychological evaluation to take place in a special, after a series of well defined rules, since it
must be more complex to discover as much of the subject's personality. W. Stern (apud Pitariu, 1983)
proposes an organizational scheme of psychological assessment: a) basic components - assessment of
feelings, perceptions, memory, language, imagination, b) intellectual components - intelligence and
operational review of its aspects, c) personal components - the structure of general reactions, dynamic
personality. Another scheme offered by Allport (apud.Pitariu, 1983), who believes that psychological
assessment should include: a) determining psychophysical systems - temperament and skills, b) special
components - the nature of acquired behavior, c) dynamic organization of personality, d ) relational system
and
adapt
to
the
environment.
In practice it is difficult to observe such a scheme and the situation often requires the identification of other
types of attitudes, relationships, etc.. Across organizational psychology literature have often met diagnostic
word as a result of a psychological evaluation, word is not used in practice and whether it would use many
would have a reaction such as a medical diagnosis. Moreover, some organizations strongly oppose the use
of psychological assessment, while others take so much as personality inventories and outcome applied to
ensure performance at work, employee loyalty, even profit - which is very difficult to predict for an
employer.
4. Test usefulness and organizational effectiveness
A very common question is justified and the organizational environment is the extent to improve staff
selection techniques help to increase efficiency and profitability in an whole organization.
Schmidt, Hunter, McKenzie and Muldrow (1979) have estimated how much a company using a valid
program for the selection of employees such a measure. First the researchers used the station analysis
software, then supervisors asking them to estimate the "financial value" of programmers weak, medium and
good. The responses collected were processed together with other collateral information such as: a) a test
used in hiring computer programmers have a validity of 0.76, b) costs $ 10 for each candidate taking the
test, c) were employed by the company more than 4,000 programmers, d) each year we employ over 600
developers, e) once committed, the programmer takes this job environment for 10 years. Using this
information, the study authors compared the expected utility of the test with other tests that were used in
the past and whose validity was between 0.00 and 0.50. They also examined the effect of different selection
ratios, whose value was between 0.05 and 0.80. Financial cost that campaign to use a test with higher
validity was surprising. If the test used in the past have a validity of 0.50, and the selection ratio was 0.80,
the efficiency (ie the result of employment of people better prepared) was 5.6 million dollars per year.
Although Carson, Becker and Henderson (1998) made some progress in convincing managers to
understand the usefulness of the tests valid analysis, they found that the degree of acceptance by managers
of the process is still very low. Whyte and Latham (1997) considers the reluctance of managers to
understand and accept the logical conclusions based statistics regarding the usefulness of a valid evaluation
program as "futility of utility analysis. Cronshaw (1997) suggests that the best use of this procedure is the
amount of information given to a psychologist to assist program managers in making personnel decisions.
5. Personality in human resources selection
5.1. Big Five Model and another methods
5.1.1.
Big
Five
model
in
cross-cultural
studies
Immediately after the emergence of this new model of personality analysis and numerous studies have
appeared
in
various
places
linguistic
response
in
Europe,
Asia
and
America.
Oliver P. John and Sanjay Srivastava (1999) provides a summary of the key research conducted to support
the transcultural nature of the model. Thus the first research of origin other than English were those of
German and Dutch. Dutch research has been conducted by Hofstee, De Rad and colleagues (De Raad,
Hofstee him of. 1988). Their findings were consistent with results obtained by British researchers,
identifying only five global factors showed that any set of adjectives used or group of subjects. As stated
John and Srivastava (1999), were realized similar research in Chinese, Czech, Hebrew, Hungarian, Italian,
Russian and Turkish to demonstrate the existence of the five global factors of personality.
Recent studies further examine the reliability and internal consistency of the Big Five model.
Chockalingam Viswesvaran and Deniz S. Ones (2000) study included all personality inventories which are
currently used and assessing the Big Five model and analyzed the factors on the fidelity and internal
consistency. The results show that the average stability coefficients are between 0.69 and 0.76, the highest
average coefficient of stability are found only in extroversion and lowest in agreeability. In terms of
internal consistency environments ranging from 0.73 to 0.78. Extroversion, emotional stability and
conscientiousness have achieved a 0.78 average and lowest average internal consistency was obtained
openness
to
experience
scale:
0.73.
If we consider that the Big Five model is closely related to language may argue that language is at the same
time, and a very weak point of the cross-cultural model. (Juni, 1996 apud Rolland, 2002). To correct this
problem arose two types of current methodological research that can be created: a) emic discussing - who
wants to discover the culture-specific constructs adding specific language material, b) ethical approach which aims to verify identification constructs in a given culture can be found in others. In general research
from both perspectives agree on the three dimensions of the five most problematic is open to experience
and
neuroticism.
As we have seen, if allowed lexical retrieval of the five dimensions (Big Five) in a variety of cultural and
generated a series of studies on the Five Factor Model (factorial approach). The major difference in crosscultural validation of both models is the size opening to experience. The most common explanation for the
failure of this scale mining in certain cultural and linguistic context through psycho-lexical processes is
given the insufficient number of adjectives on this dimension in certain cultures although recent crosscultural studies which show recently but found that this dimension different and varied cultural contexts.
(Rolland,
2002).
Studies conducted by Digman & DeRaad summary (1990, 1994) indicates a unanimous agreement
of scientists in the first four factors: Extraversion, Agreeability, Conscientiousness and Emotional Stability
(Neuroticism). Regarding the fifth factor names are controversial, but the scope is conceptually identical. In
conclusion, we can say that there is a fairly broad consensus among researchers in the field and
manufacturers of personality tests in terms of a vision of personality as a structure consisting of five of
personality superfactors or large. Big Five model is essentially a general framework for understanding and
description of the personality, the personality which gives effect sizes are those groups of important
psychological meanings in everyday life and used as such to distinguish individuals within each language
(Minulescu, 1996, 2004).
5.1.2. The Five Superfactors and their facets
The NEO-PI-R, each of the five superfactors has many facets which six were confirmed by factor analysis.
Given the high specificity of these types of tools for the language culture, it is possible that intrafactorial
structure (facets) of the 5 superfactors vary in different linguistic and cultural areas, according to what
people consider speaking specifically useful in evaluating behavior or personality. Structure rules will also
be different from one population to another.
I.N-Neuroticism
Neuroticismul is considered by many theorists to be the area most studied personality. Is defined as a
continuum between emotional stability and instability, mismatch and it is important to note that it is
considered a dimension of mental normality. High scores define the general trend of living adversely
affecting to be irrational ideas, decreased ability to control and cope with stress. Define low emotional
stability scores. Scores are interpreted in very high risk of mental development but without pathological
significance
is
compulsory.
The
neuroticism
facets
as
follows:
N1 - Anxiety: the general tendency, very high scores may also send the content type vs. phobic, calm,
relaxation;
N 2 - Hostility: the tendency to experience state of anger, rage vs.. a prevailing state of psychological
comfort;
N3 - Depression: predisposition to live affect a provision vs. depressive. their absence;
N4 - Self-(exaggerated) social anxiety and shyness vs. confidence or skills of social status;
N5 - Impulsivity: incapacity of self-control vs. capacity to resist temptations and frustrations;
N6 - Vulnerability: vulnerability to stress vs. self-assessment of competence and resist stress.
II.E-Extraversion
This super-factor indicates predominantly extrovert orientation (high scores) vs.. introvert stance
(understood as lack of extraversion), thus making reference to the interpersonal domain. The two are
features visible in the current behavior and studied extensively in the literature. Introvert behavior, are less
observable,
is
low
in
points
differential.
The
extraversion
facets
are:
E1 - Heating / excitement: emotional behavior and friendly vs. attitude distant, formal, reserved;
E2 - Gregarious spirit: a preference for the company vs. others. tend to avoid company;
E3 - Assertion: the dominant behavior, social ascendancy vs. tendency to remain in the background;
E4 - Activism: Energy, high tempo vs. leisure preference for a slower tempo;
E5 - Search excitation: preference for stimulation vs. preference for a certain monotony;
E6 - Quality positive emotional states: the tendency to experience positive emotional states vs. lack of
exuberance
and
verve.
III.O-Open
to
experience
(openness
to
experience)
This is a factor less known, there are some authors from a relatively disagreement on its content features.
Openness to experience is characterized by active imagination, the aesthetic sensibility, for proper attention
to inner life and feelings, preference for variety, intellectual curiosity, independence of thought. All these
aspects should be noted, not necessarily associated with education or general intelligence. Pole indicates a
conservative behavior, preference for familiar emotional life "in soft and without exaggerated feelings.
Lack of openness does not mean intolerance, authoritarian aggression (found in agreabilitate) or lack of
principles.
Facets
of
openness
are:
O1 - For fantasy: fantasy life, dreams oriented enrichment vs. inner life. prosaic structures that prefer to
remain
focused
on
what
I
do
here
and
now,
O2 - On the Aesthetic: openness to and interest in art and beauty vs.. lack of interest; O3 - Towards modes
of feeling: appreciation and sensitivity vs. inner life. affect less differentiated, less nuanced;
O4 - the action plan: the desire to try things and new activities vs.. need to anchor in what is already known
but
without
changing
anything;
O5 - the ideational level: intellectual curiosity, interest in new ideas vs.. curiosity poor, limited interests;
O6 - The plan values: tendency to re-examine personal values, social vs.. tend to accept authority and
tradition.
IV.A-Agreeability
Agreeability appears as a powerful interpersonal dimension of personality, like extraversion. Agreeability
central issues are altruism, cooperation plan interpersonal prosocial behavior and to help others, sometimes
they signaling a dependent person. Pole describe a dominant and antagonistic behavior, self-centered,
competitive,
sometimes
narcissistic,
hedonistic
and
anti-social.
Agreabilităţii
facets
are:
A1 - Trust: the confidence to conduct vs. cynicism and skepticism directed at others;
A2 - Honesty in expressing opinions and conduct: an honest, open and ingenious show vs. Handling
parents
tend
to
flattery,
lying;
A3 - Altruism: active concern for the welfare of others, generosity vs. focus on yourself;
A4 - Goodwill: the tendency to give, forget, forgive vs. conflict situations. aggressive, competitive trends;
A5
Modesty:
modesty,
humility
vs.
arrogance,
an
attitude
of
superiority;
A6 - gently: sympathy and concern for others vs. hardness, lack of emotions on interpersonal level.
V.C-Conscientiousness
Conscientiousness refers to self in terms of ability to self-organization, planning, fulfillment of liabilities,
the willingness and capacity to complete. Conscientiousness is a valuable predictor for achievements in any
profession. Pole is characterized by a lower accuracy in applying moral principles, a way to track
flightiness goals, to accomplish tasks, a certain tendency towards hedonism and sexual dominant interests.
The
conscientiousness
facets
are:
C1 - Competence: the feeling of being competent, capable vs.. reduced confidence in their abilities;
C2 - Order: organization, clarity, orderly mind vs. self-esteem a little low on the organization and working
methods;
C3 - sense of duty: responsibility aware, strict ethical principles vs. conduct under circumstances in which
it
was
difficult
to
trust;
C4 - Want to achieve: high aspiration level and his perseverance in achieving vs. apathy, laziness, lack of
ambition;
C5 - Self-discipline: the ability to complete despite
vs.. tendency to defer, to deter;
C6 - deliberation: the tendency to think carefully before acting vs.. tendency to hurry.
In personnel selection is well-known value of personality variables as predictors for differential efficiency
on certain items. There is an ethical warning to be expressed in that context and covering requirement not
to discriminate individuals using as a criterion of personality structure, similar to the requirement not to
discriminate individuals using criteria as age or sex. This is one of the main reasons for the psychologist
evaluator will make recommendations on selection rather than selection decisions. In fact, personnel
selection is an approach that is identified who can ensure maximum efficiency in a post or a specific
activity to determine the efficiency and contribute multiple variables, many of which related to personality,
such as knowledge experience, skills, motivation. We recall that the same professional results can be
obtained
by
different
routes
for
people
with
different
personality
structures.
It is important to mention that the Big Five might be useful for selection of staff with managerial or
executive functions that require a relatively high level of responsibility and complexity. For executive
positions, simple activity characterized by low complexity, personality variables are not necessarily useful
predictors.
It is interesting to note that the Big Five theory can be used with good results as an adjunct in the work
analysis for the focusing on the job in personologic terms and interpersonal skills. In selecting employees,
either for a new job or a new position in the organization, composition profile can capture the Big Five
traits
unique
to
a
particular
occupation.
Of course, for some occupations or positions in the organization do not come with unique features. This
unfortunate situation is not uncommon and may be due at least two conditions.
(A) It is possible that scores of a sample of employees from that position to have the same average general
population without being noticed is therefore possible special facets would recommend a person to fill that
position.
(B) On the other hand it is possible that the sample of subjects evaluated the average scores are
significantly different from the average, suggesting a critical dimension, but the dispersion of scores to be
too large to define consistent score that is the size necessary to promise performance work from the
employer.
However, many occupations are characterized by unique features scores, scores that are substantially
different from the normal population. In this case, a person can compare scores with scores obtained by
individual occupation or job, the approach developed analytical work to determine the degree of match
between
individual
and
workplace.
Examples of jobs with a profile different from normal: assistant flight (N +, E +, A +), GP (N-, A +, A +,
C-),
sales
agent
(E
+
C
+),
organizational
consultant
(O
+).
Research in the U.S. (44state), Australia and New Zealand (14state) showed that most used personality
tests used in selection are FFM, PCI, OPQ and MBTI. Model of five factors (NEO, OPQ, Big Five) is best
used to MBTI and is used in all types of organizational structures: production, commerce, Bussiness,
government, and the MBTI is used only two types of structures: production and business. Questionnaires
using the five factors have a greater validity in the selection process than other surveys (Salgado, 2003).
Salgado & Moscoso (2002) have shown a high correlation between the five factors model and
semistructured
interview.
Werther and Davis (1996) conducted a more detailed classification of tests for selection providing
examples, grouped by level of occupation - the execution or management levels. Classification of their
mind
the
following:
1. Psychological tests - Minnesota Multiphase Personality Inventory - measure aspects of personality and
temperament (the executive, security), California Psychological Inventory-measure aspects of personality
and temperament (executive, managerial, supervisory), Guilford-Zimmerman temperament questionnairemeasured aspects personality and temperament (sales staff), assessment test Watson-Glaser critical thinking
- logic and reasoning skills measured (executive, managerial, supervisory), Owens creativity test measures the creativity and ability to proceed (engineers); typology of Mayers-Briggs Inventory - measures
of
personality
components.
2. Tests of knowledge - leadership opinion questionnaire-measured knowledge about leadership practices
(management positions, supervisory) general aptitude test battery - measures verbal, spatial, numerical
dexterity
issues
(employment
offices
for
the
unemployed)
3. Performance tests - Stromberg dexterity test - measuring physical coordination (commercial workers),
pencil-paper test Minnesota- measured spatial visualization skills (designers), test the functioning of
Minnesota - measured operating skills with numbers and names, work simulation test - measured points,
samples
of
professional
responsibilities
(managers,
technicians)
4. Attitudes tests- honesty test measured attitudes fraud (bank employees to offices, security) (apud Zlate,
2008, "Handbook of organizational psychology - Management, Polirom Iasi, p. 332)
Another category of tests for selection, published recently, especially for management positions are
situational tests. These tests simulate real situations, daily events and are based on directly observed the
candidate's response to different situations - the stimulus is placed. Candidate seeking behavior, attitudes
and reactions of elements that may have predictive role in performance management. Some illustrative
examples
for
this
test
are:
Test "the basket" (in basketball) is a complex of problems and requests (business letters, invoices, reports,
correspondence, etc.) that candidates must solve a time limit. It highlights the productivity, originality,
accuracy
and
efficiency
of
settlement.
Test "without discussion group leader" (Leaderless group discussion) - a group composed of 2-8 persons
are involved in a discussion of issues related to employment. Roles are not divided thus someone will
assign leadership. Candidates are evaluated by how to show and assumes roles, also highlights the degree
of
sociability,
communication,
ability
to
listen,
etc..
Test "game of the enterprise" - the group charged with running a company receives fictitious. Group
members who have roles as human resources manager, general manager, production manager, etc., must
conduct the business and solve its problems. This test measures candidates' psychosocial skills
(communication, negotiation and compromise ability, sociability, networking ability).
5.2.
The
concept
of
self-monitoring
Self-monitoring refers to the ability of individuals to adjust their conduct to the requirements of social
situations (Snyder, 1987, apud Hutchinson & Skinner, 2007). Self-monitoring is defined in two ways: the
degree to which individuals adjust their response to social situations and the extent to which people are
sensitive to social cues (Snyder 1986, Snyder, Berscheid & Matwychuk, 1988). Such self-monitoring is
part of a presentation as well as perceptual. Regarding the perceptual component, a high self-monitoring is
described as an individual who is particularly sensitive to self-express and present as relevant in other
social situations and use these tips .... ... Presentations monitoring verbal and non-verbal "(Snyder, 1989).
Self-monitoring concept developed by Snyder (1974) consists of five factorial dimensions:
1.
concern
for
the
social
opportunities
of
their
own
self-presentation;
2. attention to social comparison information as appropriate evidence of self-expression;
3. ability to control and modify their self-presentation and expressive behavior;
4.
use
these
skills
in
particular
situations;
5. extent of respondents' expressive behavior and self-presentation in difficult situations consistent or
variable.
In 1990, Anderson and Shackleton have achieved a scale of personality come to interview candidates and
measures nine bipolar dimensions: 1. boring-interesting, 2. relaxed-nervous-powered 3. low-power 4.
active-passive 5. immature-mature, 6. unenthusiast enthusiast-7. sensitive-insensitive, 8. pleasantunpleasant, 9. dominant-submissive. Anderson & Cunningham-Snell (1999) found that self-monitoring
correlated positively with the candidate's employment decision, but not significant, but those with high selfmonitoring had a greater impact on the interviewer. In contrast, correlated significantly with the following
dimensions of the nine polarities: boring-interesting (r = 0.62), low-power (r = 0.62), mature-immature (r =
0.54), dominant- subject (r =- 0.52), active-passive (r =- 0.42), enthusiast- unenthusiast (r =- 0.31).
People with high self-monitoring behavior changes or adapt quickly as needed, from a social context to
another, in contrast, people with low self-monitoring indicates that considers it their way and truly be
considered conduct them to be consistent over different social situations. Characteristics associated with
self-monitoring are: consistent adherence to rules is correlated with a poor self-monitoring and innovators
prefer to implement different solutions seems to be characteristic of people with high self-monitoring
(Hutchinson
&
Skinner,
2007).
Self-monitoring refers to differences in ability and motivation to mold expression of affects, nonverbal
behavior and other forms of self-presentation (Snyder, 1974, 1987, apud Leone & Hall, 2003). Because of
concern to be appropriate in terms of social and situational, people with high self-monitoring are very
attentive to words and actions of others. These people do this to determine the social situation in which it is
located. Deciphering the nature of the social situation, people with high self-monitoring using their welldeveloped repertoire of social skills and knowledge to engage in strategic self-presentation. Self-matching
of the concern, persons with low self-monitoring are particularly attentive to internal conditions and
provisions. Knowing the good themselves, these individuals choose their words and actions in the service
of self expression. These interindividual differences affecting people's social worlds (Snyder & Campbell,
1982, apud Leone & Hall, 2003). Social world of those with high self-monitoring is differentiated in that
they are associated primarily with people with good skills related to various fields. Since different activities
require different skills or knowledge not shared by many people, people with high self-monitoring interact
with different individuals in different situations. In contrasting fashion, the social world of people with low
self-monitoring is very indiscriminate, and associating individuals who are largely compatible with them.
Thus, they interact with the same people in a variety of situations. These differences in self-monitoring of
the nature of personal relationships and social interactions are evident in close relationships as friendships
and love relationships (Snyder, Gangstad, & Simpson, 1983, 1984, apud Leone & Hall, 2003).
Gilmore and Ferris (1989) by applying self-monitoring scale to applicants who were interviewed stated that
self-monitoring was negatively correlated with assessments of employment and insignificant, but
significant negative recommendation on home salary for applicants who applied for the job.
There is evidence that self-monitoring can be linked to different social behavior of men and women. Some
research in this area, published by Anderson (1987, 1990, apud Anderson & Randlet, 1993) found that selfmonitoring is linked to performance at work for men or women according to occupational role. The
proposed explanation is based on the notion of traditional versus non-traditional occupations in relation to
gender. Thus, self-monitoring correlated strongly with the efficiency at work for individuals with a nontraditional occupation for women in management, men or women as nurses in computer sales. A weaker
correlation,
but
significant
for
individuals
found
in
traditional
occupations.
It was argued that individuals from non-traditional occupations require greater efforts to convince members
of the group working their effectiveness and legitimacy of the occupation of that post. If group members do
not perceive that occupies that role at non-traditional work performance can decrease by decreasing the
social influence. It is suggested therefore that high self-monitoring helped to demonstrate the legitimacy of
the
role,
leading
to
increased
effectiveness
in
the
role.
The purpose of impression management and self-presentation are two camps. Some researchers understand
self-presentation as a phenomenon occurring in certain situations and is used only for some certain people.
Is associated with some role for personal reasons with intent or deception. Other social psychologists see it
as a normal part of the behavior to achieve social goals to win the approval of others. Self-presentation is
designed to communicate plans and definitions that each person gives his or her identity. Once the
identities were established, each participant interaction has to accept and respect the other's identity so that
interactions
are
conducted
fluently
and
smoothly.
Throughout the selection process, most candidates try to describe the best way possible by making a
presentation of their beliefs, subjective and objective. Management of impression or adjust their behavior to
move more like circumstanced as would "sell" himself, hiding defects and maximizing behavior that would
positively influence others (Fletcher, 1989). Trying to impress the audience is a behavior that can be
invoked deliberately or recklessly, but one of these ways is used to gain favor from others (Giacalone &
Rosenfeld, 1989). Their impressions of candidates manages to appear more attractive to the other (Delery
& Kacmar, 1998, Gilmore, Stevens, Harrell, Cook & Ferris, 1999, Howard & Ferris, 1996, Wayne, Liden,
GRF & Ferris, 1997). In the arena of the hiring process, good impressions are very important and it is a
powerful incentive to use positive presentation tactics. After Gilmore and associates (1999), impression
management is defined: "conscious or unconscious attempts to influence images during interaction and
self-presentation
is
defined
as"
attempts
to
influence
self-relevant
images.
Model of Ferris & Judge's (1991) influence how human resources affect political behavior has been adapted
from Gilmore (1999) and used to explain how decisions affect impression management job interview. The
adapted model, the association between actor and situation characteristics lead to activation of impression
management influence hiring decisions and thus all three mediating process of self in a situation
assessment. Gilmore and Ferris (1989) examined the impact of strategic impression management
techniques (long term) and tactical (short term) on decisions by the recruiter in the intensive training
program. Strategic impression management variables were manipulated by changing the qualifications for
the job candidate, while the tactical impression management were handled by the viewing of recorded
video tape of an interview in which candidates are manifested impression management conditions of high
or low (behaviors handled included frequency smiles, candidates complement interviewer willingness to
work for them, etc.). In addition, Gilmore and Ferris have applied the Self-Monitoring Scale Snyder. The
results showed that only those who manifest behaviors of tactical impression management was significantly
influenced
interviewer
evaluations
of
the
interview.
If recruitment and selection of self-presentation is designed to transmit information so other player
interaction to reach a conclusion, preferably a positive and real. Information submitted is true, but the
manner in which is transmitted is very important (gestures, mimicry, presentation of information). Selfpresentation and self-monitoring individuals make goals come true and to control the situation with which
it interacts. Self-presentation varies according to the following: 1. cognitive effort by actors to this
information, 2. extent that the actor is aware that attempts to create a certain impression; 3. extent that actor
behavior is perceived as false or genuine, 4. audience to whom the information is presented. Thus there is a
strong pattern between personality assessments of candidates by the interviewer and their general
assessments,
but
no
significant
correlations.
Self-monitoring can be controlled or automated. Paulhus (1981) showed that automatic self-presentation
without the individual's cognitive control, provide more positive information than controlled selfpresentation. When people focus on other tasks, their self-descriptions more positive than when it focuses
solely on these self-descriptions. Researchers have long considered that individuals seek to create positive
images in the assessment situation than they create in the private sector. Paulhus and collaborators have
shown that deliberate imposition of control makes individuals more prudent: they reflect more on the
credibility of information they provide themselves and other unpleasant consequences of the invalidation of
such
information.
Such candidates can be identified in two styles that influence self-presentation self-monitoring: assertive
style and protective style (Arkin, 1981). Assertive style refers to the tendency to quickly build on
opportunities to achieve the desired results and respect for others, while the protective style is to avoid the
unpleasant
results
for
the
actor.
Assertive style is characterized by intense involvement in social interactions and presentation of the
distinctive and positive qualities. He usually correlates with high self-esteem, sense of control, confidence,
lack
of
social
anxiety.
Protective style is characterized by defensive behaviors designed to prevent damage to identity. Individuals
using this style when it is unlikely to create the impression that they would like to leave. Actions associated
with reduced participation in social interactions and poor self-disclosure. Self-presentation is prudent,
modest, designed to remove attention because they are afraid of negative evaluation, have a low self
esteem.
6. Research
Objective of research: from theory studied and experience in recruitment and selection, both I and my
colleagues a great number of patterns of personality or, rather, we are inclined to give more credit to a
candidate with certain traits personality. Along with this finding was observed and a good ability of
candidates to play a very good interview so that he manages very well the strengths and weaknesses,
namely a self-monitoring. Thus we can talk about an acceptable candidate is one who has the following
personality traits: openness, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiously. Predominates at high posts first
three mentioned above, but not necessarily conscientious, but a good capacity to take risks and a high level
of self-monitoring. While heading the executive level is required as conscientiousness and low neuroticism
order to avoid conflicts between candidate and employer.
6.1. Description of the investigated sample
Following interviews conducted and evaluations made I got a lot of 123 subjects who applied for the
following positions: high-level (56 candidates, 45.5%), middle-level (49 candidates, 39.8 %), low-level (18
candidates, 14.6%). Subjects were ages 20 to 54 years distributed as follows: 40 candidates or 32.5% were
aged 20 25ani, 56 candidates or 45.5% were aged 25-35 years and 27 candidates or 22% older than 35
years. Distribution of educational level of candidates is as follows: 63 candidates or 51.2% have a
university degree, 46 candidates or 37.4% have graduated high school, and 14 candidates or 11.4% have
graduated from vocational school.
The interviews were made by four recruiters who had only assessed the attitudes and psychological profile
of candidates and based on these assessments allowed the candidate to declare accepted.
6.2 Methodes
Personality assessment instruments used in the interview are surveyed by Prof. T. Constantine and his
team, version 150 items (each with two response options for the positive and negative) the model of
Goldberg (1999) grouped into five factors, each factor by 6 subfactors and Self-Monitoring Scale
developed by Mark Snyder in 1974 includes 25 items to which they respond with "true" or "false."
Statistical analysis methods we used as Independent Samples T Test for parametric data and Chi-Square for
nonparametric data, respectively Linear Regression analysis to identify the optimal model of personality
factors that determines a positive assessment from a recruiter.
6.3.Research hypotheses
Given
the
purpose
of
research
have
set
the
following
assumptions:
1. We expect those who have a relatively high self-monitoring to obtain a result of "accepted" from
interview.
2. There are significant differences between levels of self-monitoring function and level.
3. There are significant differences between gender and self-monitoring in the sense that men have a higher
level
of
self
than
women.
4. Expect that the five factors model can be an important role in securing an interview with the outcome of
"admitted."
5. We expect the Big Five factors with self-monitoring to provide a predictive model to obtain a positive
result for an interview.
6.4.Conclusions
Following these statistical analysis I have confirmed four of the five hypotheses.
Indeed self-monitoring ability did not influence positively the outcome of the interview. This confirms that
all theories in the field and a capacity for self-monitoring very good interview does not predict a positive.
However following subjects responses were not received very high scores (maximum 15), but average
scores. Therefore believe that the test be reconsidered in order to obtain and score 20 points at least to
obtain
significant
differences.
In the general population was a trend as those with middle and low positions have a higher self-monitoring.
According to investigations, those holding management functions do not need to show a high selfmonitoring because of their function in itself would have a significance which goes beyond selfmonitoring. By contrast those of other groups will try to concern over how their behavior is appropriate in
an interview situation, as use of comparative information, the ability to adjust their behavior in different
situations
imposed
by
the
assessor.
As regards the two sexes, there remain significant differences in that men have a greater capacity for selfmonitoring than women. Although men are faced with and appropriate to conduct appropriate, more often
enter into direct assessment situations. It is interesting that the objective of the future to determine whether
sex
and
job
evaluator
for
applying
self-monitoring
ability
to
influence.
Big-Five model is renowned for its efficiency in work performance. But my frustration was that, although
most used tool in recruitment and selection have been few studies showing the role of the category of
people actually work. According to analysis it appears that only factor Openness, in particular, followed by
Agreeableness and Conscientiousness factor has a greater role in the outcome of the interview.
Model Conscientiousness, )penness, (p <.001), which shows that it is the best among all five factors.
Lowest predictive model, but significant, is the Conscientiousness, Openness, Neuroticism, Extraversion (p
<.005).
According to multiple correlation for each model, conclude that the model with five factors is strong (R =.
395) and explained 15.6% of the variation in the dependent variable interview. When the model was
included self-monitoring variable, it explained 18% of the variation in the dependent variable interview.
Acknowledgements
This paper has benefited from financial support from the strategic grant POSDRU/88/1.5/S/47646, co
financed by the European Social Fund, within the Sectorial Operational Program - Human Resources
Development 2007-2013.
References
[1]Allport, G.W. şi Odbert, H.S. (1936). Trait-names: a psycho-lexical study, Psychology Monographs.
General and Applied, 47, 171-220. (1, Whole No.211).
[2]Barrett, F. L., Pietromonaco, P.R. (1997). Accuracy of the five-factor model in predicting perceptions of
daily social interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11, 1173-1187.
[3]Barrick R M. şi Mount K. M. (1991): „The Big Five Personality Dimensions and Job Criteria
Performance: a Meta-analysis in Personal Psychology vol 44 issue 1 pag 1-26
[4]Barrick R. M., Mount K. M. şi Judge A. T.(2001): „Personality and Performance at the Begining of the
New Millennium: What Do We Know and Where Do We Go Netxt” in International Journal of
Selection and Assessment vol 9, issue 1&2, pag 9-30
[5]Ben-Porath Y., (2003), Assessing personality and psychopathology with self-report inventory” pag 554558 in Hanbook of Psychology vol 10 Assessment Psychology editorii vol Ghraham R. John şi
Naglieri A. Jack, Coord Wiener B. Irving editura John Wiley&sons New Jersey
[6]Cloninger C. S. (2004) Theories of personality understanding persons fourth edition, Cap 8, Cattell and
the Big Five: Factor Analytic Trait Theories pag. 240- 248 Editura Pearson Prantice Hall.
[7]Cattell, R. B., (1947), The ergic theory of attitude and sentiment measurement. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 7, 221–246.
[8]Chaplin, J.P. (1985) Dictionary of Psychology, Second Revised Edition, New York, Laurel
[9]Costa, P.T. şi McCrae, R.R. (1990): Personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality. In:
Journal of Personality Disorders, 4, 362–371.
[10]Costa, R. R., McCrae, P.T. (2003) Personality in Adulthood: A Five Factor Theory Perspenctive ediţia
a 2-a, Guilford Press, New York
[11]Dalton, M., Wilson, M. (2000), The Relationship of the Five-Factor Model of Personality to Job
Performance for a Group of Middle Eastern Expatriate Managers în Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, vol. 31, nr. 2, p. 250-258
[12]Digman, John (1996) The Curious History of the Five-Factor Model în Handbook of Psychology:
Theory and Research, Guilford, New York
[13]Dîrţu, C (2007) – Psihologia personalităţii în Psihopedagogie sociala, suport de curs, anul II ID,
Editura Universitaţii „Al Ioan Cuza”, Iaşi
[14]Fiske, D. W. (1949). Consistency ofthe factorial structures of personality ratings from different
sources. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 44. 329-344.
[15]George, J. M. & Zhou, J. (2001).When openness to experience and conscientiousness are related to
creative behavior: an interactional approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 513-524.
[16]Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative "description of personality": The Big-Five factor structure, in
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216-1229.
[17]Goldberg, L (1996) The Big Five Factor Structure as an Integrative Framework: An analysis of
Clarke’s AVA Model în Journal of Personality Assesment, vol. 65, nr. 3
[18]Goldberg, L.R. (1999) A Broad-Bandwidth, Public-Domain, Personality Inventory Measuring the
Lower-Level Facets of Several Five-Factor Models, Personality Psychology in Europe, vol. 7, (pp.
7-28), Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press
[19]Goldberg, L.R., Johnson, J.A., Eber, H.W., Hogan, R., Ashton M.C., Cloninger, C.R., Gough, H.G.
(2005) The International Personality Item Pool and The Future of Public-Domain Personality
Measures în Journal of Research in Personality nr. 40, p. 84-96
[20]Hjelle, L.A., Ziegler, D.J.(1976) – Personaliry Theories: Basic Assumptions, Research and
Applications, New York, Mcgraw-Hill, Inc.
[21]Hofstee, W. K. B., De Raad, B., şi Goldberg, L. R. (1992), Integration of the Big Five and circumplex
approaches to trait structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 146-163.
[22]Hutchinson, L., Skinner, N.(2007) – Self-awareness and Cognitive Style: Relationship Among
Adaption-innovation, Self-monitoring and self-consciouness, Social Behavior and Personality,
no.35, vol. 4, pp. 551-560.
[23]John, O.P., Srivastava, S. (1999) The Big Five Taxonomy: History, Measurement and Theoretical
Perspectives în Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research 2nd Edition, Guilford, New York
[24] Joyce, M.P.(2008) – Interview, Techniques Used in Selected Organizations Today, Business
Communication Quaterly, no.27, vol. 3, pp. 271-281
[25]Judge, T.A., Higgins, C.A., Thoresen, C.J., şi Barrick, M.R., (1999), The big five personality traits,
general mental ability, and career success across the life span. Personnel Psychology, 52, 621–
652.
[26]Lounsbury, J.W., Loveland, J.M. et al. (2003) An Investigation of Personality Traits in Relation to
Career Satisfaction în Journal of Career Assessment vol 11, nr 287
[27]Lounsbury W. J., Hutchens T., Loveland M. J., (2005), An investigation of Big Five Personality Traits
and Career Decidedness Among Early and Middle Adolescents, in Jounal of Career Assessment
vol. 13, nr 1, pag 32-39
[28]Perugini M., Gallucci, M & Livi, S., (2000), Looking for a Simple Big Five Factorial Structure in the
Domain of Adjectives. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 16, 87-97.
[29]Pitariu, H.(1983) – Psihologia selecţiei şi formării profesionale, Ed. Dacia, Cluj-Napoca
[30]Mangold, D.L., Veraza, R., Kinkler, L., Kinney, N.A. (2007), Neuroticism Predicts Acculturative
Stress in Mexican American College Students în Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, vol.29,
nr. 366
[31]McCrae, R. R., şi Costa, P. T., Jr., (1987), Validation of the five-factor model of personality across
instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 81-90.
[32]McCullough E. M., Bellah C. G., Killpatrick D. S., Johnson L. J. (2001) Vengefulness: Relatinoship
with Forgiveness, Rumination, Well-Being and the Big Five in Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin vol. 27,nr. 5, pag 609-610
[33]Minulescu M., (1996), Chestionarele de personalitate în evaluarea psihologică, Editura Garell
Publishing House, Bucureşti
[34]Rolland, J. P., (2002), Cross-Cultural Generalizability of the Five Factor Model of Personality, in The
Five Factor Model of personality Across Culture (coord. Robert R McCrae , Juri Allik) pag 5-29,
Springer
[35]Ryan, Anne-Marie, Plozhart, R.E.(2000) – Appplicants Perceptions of Selection Procedures and
Decisions: A Critical Review and Agenda for the Future, Journal of Management
[36]Shaver R. P. şi Brennan A. K., (1992), Attachment styles and the „Big Five” Personality Traits: Their
Connections with Each Other and with Romantic Relationship Outcomes, in Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin vol. 18, nr. 5 pag 536-545.
[37]Thurstone, L. L. (1934), The vectors of the mind. Psychological Review, 41, 1 – 32.
[38]Tupes, E. C. and Christal, R. E, (1961), Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings (ASD-TR-6
1-97). Lackland Air Force Bace, TX: Aeronautical Systems Division, personnel Laboratory
[39]Schwartz, S. H. & Ros, M., (1996), Values in the West: A theoretical and empirical challenge to the
individualism-collectivism cultural dimension. World Psychology, 1, 91-122.
[40]Shweder, R. A., (1975), How relevant is an individual difference theory of personality? Journal of
Personality, 43, 455-484.
[41]Schmutte, P.S., and C.D. Ryff (1997). Personality and Well-Being: Reexamining Methods and
Meanings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 549-559.
[42]Viswesvaran C. şi Ones S. D., (2000), Measurement Error in big Five Factors Personality
Assessment: Reliability Generalization across Studies and Measures, in Educational and
Psychological Measurement vol 6, nr. 2, 224-235
[43]Weiner B. I., (2003), The Assessment process, in Hanbook of Psychology vol 10 Assessment
Psychology (Ghraham R. John şi Naglieri A. Jack, Coord Wiener B. Irving), John Wiley & sons
New Jersey
[44]Weiner B. I., Green L R., (2008), History of Personality Assessment, in Handbook of Personality
Assessment, John Wiley&sons New Jersey