<p>Introduction: </p><p>A job interview is for both the candidate and the company involved, an important</p><p>situation. It might be tempting for the candidate to adjust the answers to the job in question or what he</p><p>or she thinks the recruiter wants to hear. This behaviour is a part of what socialpsychology would call</p><p>impression management. This term means that you try to control the impressions you send out and</p><p>accordingly adjust your behaviour for the current situation.</p><p>Purpose: </p><p>Candidates usage of impression management is a widely debated subject where the</p><p>research mainly has focused on the candidates, their strategies and the efficiency of impression</p><p>management. Our purpose with this thesis is therefore to see how recruiters experience candidates</p><p>impression management in a job interview, how they handle it and what level of acceptance they have</p><p>for it.</p><p>Theoretical perspectives: </p><p>The theories and previous research used as models for explanation and</p><p>basis for discussion is mainly Erving Goffman´s (1974) dramaturgical perspective and thoughts about</p><p>impression management and Mark R Leary´s (1995) theories concerning impression management</p><p>tactics. In addition to these we also used more specific research concerning attribution, selfdescription</p><p>and problems with applicants use of impression management.</p><p>Methodology: </p><p>We carried out six qualitative semistructured interviews with recruiters from two</p><p>marketleading Swedish companies. The empirical foundation was analyzed through the method</p><p>concentration of meaning and thereafter put in relation to relevant theories and previous research.</p><p>Finally the empirical foundation was discussed on the basis of the thesis purpose.</p><p>Empirical foundation: The empirical foundation is mainly a description of the recruiters experiences</p><p>of different impression management tactics and their coping strategies. The result shows that there is</p><p>many different experiences of the various tactics and whether they are seen positive or negative is</p><p>dependent on which job it is and the candidates impression in general. The empirical foundation also</p><p>describes the recruiters thoughts about how a candidate carries out a successful interview and what</p><p>their interviewsituation looks like. The chapter ends with a description of which importance the</p><p>recruiters ascribe candidates usage of impression management.</p><p>Conclusions: </p><p>Our main conclusion is that even if the recruiters on direct questions concerning</p><p>different impression management tactics describe it as negative, the result shows that it often is seen</p><p>as a relevant social skill and something that is expected of a good candidate. We also think that the</p><p>recruiters are “unconciously aware” of the different impression management tactics. At first they show</p><p>no awarness concerning the tactics but after further discussions we found that they had several coping</p><p>strategies for them.</p>

Introduction: A job interview is for both the candidate and the company involved, an important situation. It might be tempting for the candidate to adjust the answers to the job in question or what he or she thinks the recruiter wants to hear. This behaviour is a part of what socialpsychology would call impression management. This term means that you try to control the impressions you send out and accordingly adjust your behaviour for the current situation. Purpose: Candidates usage of impression management is a widely debated subject where the research mainly has focused on the candidates, their strategies and the efficiency of impression management. Our purpose with this thesis is therefore to see how recruiters experience candidates impression management in a job interview, how they handle it and what level of acceptance they have for it. Theoretical perspectives: The theories and previous research used as models for explanation and basis for discussion is mainly Erving Goffman´s (1974) dramaturgical perspective and thoughts about impression management and Mark R Leary´s (1995) theories concerning impression management tactics. In addition to these we also used more specific research concerning attribution, selfdescription and problems with applicants use of impression management. Methodology: We carried out six qualitative semistructured interviews with recruiters from two marketleading Swedish companies. The empirical foundation was analyzed through the method concentration of meaning and thereafter put in relation to relevant theories and previous research. Finally the empirical foundation was discussed on the basis of the thesis purpose. Empirical foundation: The empirical foundation is mainly a description of the recruiters experiences of different impression management tactics and their coping strategies. The result shows that there is many different experiences of the various tactics and whether they are seen positive or negative is dependent on which job it is and the candidates impression in general. The empirical foundation also describes the recruiters thoughts about how a candidate carries out a successful interview and what their interviewsituation looks like. The chapter ends with a description of which importance the recruiters ascribe candidates usage of impression management. Conclusions: Our main conclusion is that even if the recruiters on direct questions concerning different impression management tactics describe it as negative, the result shows that it often is seen as a relevant social skill and something that is expected of a good candidate. We also think that the recruiters are “unconciously aware” of the different impression management tactics. At first they show no awarness concerning the tactics but after further discussions we found that they had several coping strategies for them.