Answer

HOW HUMAN RESOURCE (HR) COULD DEAL WITH THE CROSS-CULTURAL CONFLICT IN AN INTERVIEW CONTEXT

Abstract

This paper draws from a number of cross-sectional and cross-sequential studies to discuss conflicts in cross-cultural interviews and how organizations can handle them in interview settings. Specifically, this study adopts a theory –development process. It investigates the impact of culture and multicultural job interviews. Further, the paper employs the interpretive theory to explain how interlocutors in the interview, namely, the interviewer and the candidate can design significant cultural understanding. It utilizes symbolic interactionism to assess the cultural experiences of interviewers and candidates and their impacts on the job interview. The report culminates with a rationale for design of a grounded theory for the job interview through examination of literature involving Australian panelists with Chinese job candidates.

Keywords: cross-cultural human interview, recruitment, grounded theory, symbolic interactionalism

Table of Contents

Cross-cultural Conflict in an Interview Context 4

1.0 Introduction  4

1.1 Process Model of Communication  8

2.0 Research Design  9

2.1 Justification for Cross-sectional Design  10

3.0 Design/Methodology/Approach  11

3.1 Theoretical Proposition  12

3.2 Formation of Culturally Meaningful Experiences  13

4.0 Literature Review   15

5.0 Results and Analysis  24

6.0 Implications  25

7.0 Conclusion  28

List of References  29

1.0 Introduction

In the modern times, talent recruitment has emerged as one of the most challenging corporate exercise to execute. This is because human resource functions in the contemporary world are typically undertaken in highly competitive contexts. This is particularly evident in the context of globalization, an era in which multinational companies (MNCs) compete with local firms for talented and skilled individuals from a limited pool of employees. As a result, recruitment has not only become difficult to engender but also expensive to complete. Available research show that several companies in the United States spend close to 72 billion dollars annually on talent acquisition as global expenditure tops 216 billion dollars (Shen et al. 2018; p. 3542). In particular, the job interview, usually conducted at the terminal stage of recruitment, continues to attract interest in the current era of globalization. In this era, firms have been compelled to cast their nets wider as they source for skills and talents from foreign markets. Whereas extensive investment has been dedicated to multicultural job interviews in recent times, the exercise remains largely subjective as it is generally mediated by cultural bias. Specifically, for the most part, outcomes of modern job interviews have been impacted by personal and technical capabilities of individuals on the interview panel. Consequently, owing to the cultural differences between interviewers and interviewees, the role of communication as a fundamental medium of engagement in multicultural job interviews has been amplified (Lim and Kramar 2010; Noor, Tab, and Kamarulzaman 2017). The impacts of cultural heritage on corporate reporting and concomitant ramifications have been investigated for eons. Nevertheless, in the past two decades, the rapidity of modern globalization has reinforced the significance of intercultural understanding to the success of modern interactions (Lim and Kramar 2010). Fairly antique studies, from the 1980s, focusing on culture have been idealized for diffusing vital information on “macro culture” in occupational settings (Lim and Kramar 2010). The studies have been effective in shedding light on general cultural trends and have exposed variances in the way they manifest. Specifically, phenomenological studies by Geert Hofstede’s (1980) and Minkov et al. (2019; p.93) have effectively elucidated the theoretical foundations of culture by focusing on the former’s cultural dimensions. In theory, Hofstede’s studies yielded cultural dimensions such as “Collectivism/Individualism, Masculinity/Femininity, and Monumentalism Flexibility” which have been widely applied to the understanding of cultural differences in general (Minkov et al. 2019; p.93; Demmler, Ayala and Solís 2018, p.28). In practice, permutations of culture are more intricate and manifest beyond the scope of “unsophisticated postulations”. These concerns have been validated by Minkov (2018; p.95) who suggests that nationalities with similar scores on some dimensions on Hofstede’s scale could display similar dimensions in diverse ways. Minkov (2018; p.95) contends that Hofstede’s framework should be reduced to two dimensions, namely individualism–collectivism and Monumentalism–flexibility and dismisses it as an attempt to redefine “Confucian dynamism”. In the meantime, a growing number of commentators are expressing their skepticism of the relevance of cultural dimensions to the management of job the interview as an intricate, relational communications exercise (Minkov et al. 2019; p.93; Demmler, Ayala and Solis 2018, p.30).

A number of scholars have accentuated communication related challenges of cross-cultural interviews. For instance, Timming (2015, p.7) alludes to the availability of “socio-linguistic” literature on dialectical and articulation biases. Other studies have validated these findings as well. It is also generally acknowledged that the accent as a symbolic aspect of culture represents objects, figures, sounds, and colors, only represents the way language and reality is constructed, and disseminated. The preceding elements of the accent presents a major challenge in cross-cultural interviews by stonewalling communication. As a result, these studies have offered insight on the problem of discrimination of foreign workers in the American labor force, who are deemed inferior due to their non-American accents and style of communication (Deprez-Sims and Morris 2010). Thus, cultural differences, visibly expressed through accents have been used to conceptualize communication through expression of the latter as a “soft skill” and a key requirement for employment. In the American context, several studies have investigated the cultural conflicts at play during interview processes involving black Americans and their white counterparts. Findings from these studies have proven that African Americans are more likely to miss out on employment opportunities because of their accents which in the view of some white interviewers, is deficient in light of prevailing demand for “soft skill”. The soft skill in this case is the distinctly American English accent, idealized as an imperative for candidates seeking job opportunities relating to “customer-facing” jobs (Timming 2015, p.7).  In fact, there is already established a trend spanning decades of research on accent and employability in this area. Similarly, much scholarship over the past decades have proved positive correlation between accent and employability, most of which were conducted in the US. Incidentally, much of this research focuses on within-country regional dialects, in contrast with the present study, which examines the effect of foreign accents on perceived suitability in the US. Similar studies focusing on communication glitches in multi-cultural interviews have been used to provide assessments of tape recorded accents from dialects within the United States. The recruiters’ reports tended to favor the white accent as the standard accent, effectively implying that the white Americans with the standard accent were employable than their black American compatriots. Further, studies have proved the availability of stereotypes which perceived English speakers as more suitable for “supervisory roles” as Mexican accented citizens were earmarked for blue-collar jobs. Similar studies in the United Kingdom and Australia showed that candidates with acquired pronunciation, as observed among citizens in the upper classes, were more favorably predisposed towards white collar jobs in comparison to those with regional Anglo-Saxon accents (Timming, 2015, p.7).

As such, Multicultural job interviews represent such inefficiency and are the center of this report. Prior to the sars-cov-2 pandemic, there were massive incursions of highly educated emigrant workers into western economies and Australia. The new dynamic is unlikely to change after the pandemic and underlines the urgency of entrenching a low-conflict “cross-cultural job interviews” (Minkov et al. 2019; p.93).

A number of scholars have raised concern with high attrition rates in the Australian workforce and have called on firms to devise strategies for speedy replacement of elderly workers (Hertel and Zacher 2018, p.5). Policy responses have been activated and generally involve increased placement of Australian students in technical institutions and enacting a robust immigration policy. Incidentally, for the first time in history, China has emerged as a leading source of trained workers for the Australia economy (Minkov et al. 2019; p.93). Subsequently, this report discusses the problems arising from cross-cultural job recruitment interviews for Chinese expat workers in Australia. This report suggests a trilateral delineation of culture and provides a rationale for the study of interviews involving Australian and Chinese nationals. In addition, focused literature reviews are conducted to delineate gaps in literature as far as the running of cross-cultural job interviews is concerned. This paper elucidates the manner in which theoretical concepts of symbolic interactionism and interpretive theory are applicable to the design of a conceptual outline of cross-cultural job interviews (Lim and Kramar 2010). It follows the grounded theory design to delineate approaches for dealing with conflicts in multicultural job interviews.

1.1 Process Model of Communication 

The foregoing methodology demarcates culture, meaning and action as interconnected. In other words, culture impacts meaning and meaning informs decision-making (Ocasio, Laamanen and Vaara 2018, p.155). Therefore, due to the procedural nature of communication, it is also delineated as a process. To further elucidate the process of communication, culture may be explored using the grounded theory methodology. The latter agrees with the conceptual approaches such as symbolic interactionism and interpretive theory (Ocasio, Laamanen and Vaara 2018, p.155). Current research creates a “process framework of antecedents, phenomenon and consequences” by answering three research questions:

• What are the factors influencing the cross-cultural job interview?
• What is the phenomenon of culture in the job interview?
• What are the consequences of culture in the job interview?

Research-based answers to the questions above will form the basis of appropriate interventions for dealing with cross-cultural conflict in the interview context. Thus, the effectiveness of this methodology will rely on multiple focused reviews to increase the robustness of the research (Lim and Kramar 2010). Extensive review of diverse literature is conducted by considering related and contrasting literature as a basis for cascading the theory as well as reproducing the comprehensive theory (Lim and Kramar 2010). Ultimately, the resultant model is produced by grouping similar observations from the myriad symbolic interactionism from job interviews to frame the proposed theory. In this way, conflict in multicultural interviews can be delineated and tackled. Hence, application of “symbolic interactionism and grounded theory” is expected to promote escalation of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions on relational interactions involving the interviewer and interviewee.

2.0 Research Design

This report employs focused studies of literature with cross-sectional design to investigate multi-cultural conflict in interview settings and a further exploration of how to deal with them. Consequently, the search and selection criteria have been constrained, in principle, to cross-sectional studies of the study subjects. Some cross-sequential studies have also been considered.  The chosen design compares various study subjects from which attributes at a “single point in time” are studied (Hertel, G. and Zacher 2018, p.26; Sedgwick 2014, p.348).

Data from longitudinal design, a type of research design that relies on observation of study subjects without interfering with them, has not been employed in this report. This is because longitudinal study designs take place over extended periods and could take years to accomplish. As a result, changes in the study subjects will have occurred rendering the findings irrelevant. Cross-sectional studies are recommended for current study as it investigates culturally-mediated conflicts in episodic events such as interviews (Lindenberger, Von Oertzen, Ghisletta, and Hertzog 2011, p.39). Furthermore, cross-sectional designs generally tend to preclude dynamics of biased interviews from other possibilities such as durations of interviews, prior history between interlocutors prior to the interview itself, ages of interviewers and interviewees, and whether the candidates have special needs.  Historically, many cross-sectional studies have been anchored on the state of the candidate at the time of the interview. In addition, research outcomes re typically anchored on observed responses by the candidates.

Whereas outcomes of cross-sectional research in cross-cultural interviews can be conceptualized on the basis of perceived bias, prejudice on the part of the researcher can compromise the investigation altogether. Consistency of cross-sectional studies with individual changes is practically impossible as it requires researchers to presume that study subjects, duration of study, selection criteria for the research are nonexistent. Yet, cross-sectional studies are still useful for researching the dynamics of multicultural interviews.  In addition, cross-sectional studies are preferred for this report because research durations are fairly elastic, from a few minutes to several years.

The selected literature for this report is not earlier than 2010. Evidence from blogs and other websites have been neglected. Peer-reviewed journals entries, websites of Universities, Technical Institutions, and governmental agencies have been considered in the inclusion criteria. In addition, only English publications have been considered.

2.1 Justification for Cross-sectional Design

This paper employs the cross-sectional study design to analyze the state of conflicts in multicultural interviews, mainly arising from communication difficulties caused by differing accents. Similar to the longitudinal study design, cross-sectional studies are observational in nature. Correspondingly, data on the research subjects, mainly, individuals from Chinese and Australian backgrounds, have been processed without altering the research environment. In other words, there was no attempt to influence the subjects to participate in the research or alter their behaviour. In contrast to the longitudinal study design, a process by which investigations are conducted over the same study subjects for extended periods of time cross-sectional study design characteristically compares various groups at a “specific point in time” (Hertel, G. and Zacher 2018, p.26; Sedgwick 2014, p.348)..

            Some have analogized this study design to a photograph in which meanings are derived from “whatever fits into the frame”. Thus, considered in this report, the cross-sectional study is most effective as it facilitates the study of several variables at play in the study subjects, as expressed through symbolism, language, beliefs, values, and artifacts. In addition, this design is preferred since interview biases and conflicts tend to occur in spasms and are perceptual rather than originating from well considered judgements. The cross-sectional design is preferred as it captures the behavior of individuals more accurately without the risk of manipulation of data. Another benefit of a cross-sectional study design is that it permits investigators to contrast multiple variables instantaneously. For instance, current investigation focuses on cultural differences through symbolism, often manifested through different languages and meanings. Additionally, cross-sectional studies are preferred in this study as much of the literatures considered are no older than ten years. This precludes the use of longitudinal research data which tend to be much older, typically 15-20 years.

3.0 Design/Methodology/Approach

This paper essentially describes culture as a multicultural and relational exercise (Minkov et al. 2019). In this regard, current qualitative exploration aims at designing a conceptual model for explaining the manner in which the collective occurrence of culture dictates and elucidates the actions of “interviewers and candidates cross-cultural job interviews” in their private capacities. Minkov et al. (2019) aptly captures requirement as the “detailed study of interpersonal conversations we can understand how culture emerges in specific communicative practices”.

This paper recommends the acceptance of theoretical models, namely, symbolic interactionism and interpretive theory, and calls for its assimilation into a “grounded theory” to explain conflicts in cross-cultural interviews and how to deal with them (Minkov et al. 2019). This methodology is intended to aid the design of a model that charts a process of understanding the collective impact of culture in unique interactions of multicultural job interviews and reveals the scope of cultural influences on procedures and results.

3.1 Theoretical Proposition

Cross-sequential research demarcates hiring and concomitant results following job placement interviews as a reciprocal interaction and managerial process. These are expected to facilitate the understanding of dynamics of multicultural interviews through conceptual prism of symbolic interactionism (Minkov e al. 2019).

This paper acknowledges that an understanding that the “shared symbolic” connotations of communication during interviews will not always be practiced uniformly by interlocutors during multicultural job interviews. Indeed, this paper concedes that misapprehensions in multicultural interviews are antecedents of inconsistencies from symbolic meanings between interviewers and candidates from disparate cultures (Minkov et al. 2019). Inferentially, the approach perceives “meanings” as results of social interaction. However, as the communication process is subject of interpretation, “interpreted” meanings take preeminence over the actual communication (Minkov et al. 2019).

In this way, elucidation of communications remains critical as a mediating variable between culture and communication, and an enabler of “derived meanings” during multicultural interviews (Minkov et al. 2019). To the degree that the interviewer and the interviewee are from different cultures, variations in understanding of words will be expected. To put it differently, symbolic interactionism and interpretive theory are central to this research. The preceding postulations provide a mechanism for remodeling the concept of culture in multicultural interviews while paying attention to culturally assigned meanings from interviewer-interviewee interactions in hiring processes.

3.2 Formation of Culturally Meaningful Experiences

Having defined the theoretical underpinnings of the methodology, this paper proposes “culturally-derived experiences” of participants as the most critical components of theoretical frameworks (Noor, Tab and Kamarulzaman 2018, pp. 89-90).

While Minkov et al (2019, pp. 93-116) acknowledges the manifestations of culture in diverse ways, other studies have focused on the specifics of the interview process and ways in which culture emerges and differences are expressed. In this regard, studies by Garrick and Smith (2016) have emphasized the significance of “greater awareness and understanding” of cross-cultural variations and how these differences impact interviews in organizations. The same acuity is also recommended when assembling multicultural teams as it could potentially influence organizational output and retention of staff. Accordingly, Garrick and Smith (2016) have offered that for organizations to avoid missing out on suitably qualified and talented employees, human resources managers must possess an awareness of extant cultural nuances and the manner in which spoken and non-spoken communication can differ radically across cultures. Culture and cultural differences also manifest in a number of specific ways. Principally, these differences show in “discrete ways”. The discrete criterion as observed in cross-cultural interview settings are manifested through cultural backgrounds, “power hierarchy, pauses and silence, gestures, greeting and stereotypes” (Garrick and Smith 2016). These differences have been found to impact the outcome interviews of Chinese candidates in Australia, as they show perceptively high power distance compared to their Australian interviewers. Additionally, they are prone to pausing and silence, higher than normal gestures, and movement. Similarly, the specific categorization plays out inn interviews through “eye contact; tone of voice; facial expressions and language” (Garrick and Smith 2016). Accordingly, as already stated, individuals from China and other Eastern countries with high power distance are likely to avoid making direct eye contact with the panelists especially during greetings. Similarly, slight hands shake remains popular among westerners, but remain unpopular among Chinese.  According to Australian culture, just as is the case in the UK and the US, eye contact is highly recommended and is construed as a sign of trust and confidence. Therefore, Chinese interviewees seeking opportunities in Australia will most likely be dismissed as too shy and deficient in self-confidence.  This is not always easily noticeable from a noncritical observation (Minkov et al 2019, p.95; Garrick and Smith 2016).

Correspondingly, communication related conflicts in multicultural interviews tend to manifest in the manner in which the participants relate to context. Studies on contextual influences on culture have been conducted by several scholars such as Garrick and Smith (2016). These studies have revealed that candidates from high “context culture” such as china may not give detailed responses during interviews while panelists from “low culture” societies such as Australia will naturally expect detailed answers. Consequently, the resultant conflict has invariably alienated Chinese applicants as terse and indirect answers are misconstrued as lack of interest and sincerity. In addition, some may delineate less expressive individuals as less knowledgeable and experienced (Garrick and Smith 2016). 9

Culturally-assigned meanings are communicated through language. The “meaningful experiences” are achieved due to the shared characteristic of cross-cultural interactions involving interviewers and candidates. Additionally, both interviewers and candidates’ cultures function as some form of “frames of reference” for extraction of meaning in respective experiences (Noor, Tab and Kamarulzaman 2018, pp. 89-90). Further having established a frame of reference the interlocutors derive logic from the process as well as evaluating subtle aspects of the unique interview exercise. Subsequently, the interviewers are sufficiently aided in making well-considered judgments regarding the right candidate for the job (Noor, Tab and Kamarulzaman 2018, pp. 89-90). This methodology precludes the occurrence of errors as interviewers are empowered to make informed decisions from culturally meaningful communications (Liddicoat 2014, pp.260-262). Consequently, a new, unified culture is birthed and perpetuated through communication. Having established a common ground for transacting, both interviewer and interviewee engage in a mutually engaging process, markedly deviating from the traditionally linear, top down, and hierarchical process to an iterative process (Liddicoat 2014, pp.260-262).

Additionally as the interaction progresses, mutual engagement reveals new opportunities for understanding of new meanings and actions to be undertaken. Minkov et al. (2019) venerates the attained indeterminacy of the interview processes, facilitated by an effective communication process as the ideal cross-cultural job interview, and is the foundation for scrutiny of data and development of theory.

4.0 Literature Review

Several studies have established significant effects of cultural barriers to the outcome of multicultural interviews.  For instance, Deprez-Sims and Morris (2010), Hosoda, Nguyen and Stone-Romero (2012, pp.347-364) and Bielefeld (2019; p.3) have shown positive correlation between candidate accents and interview outcomes.  Specifically, research evidence show that interviewers tend to dismiss alternately accented applicants from different backgrounds. A similar study by Bielefeld (2019, p.2) on 116 residents delineated three types of candidates as “American job candidate, a Spanish accented candidate and the German-accented candidate”, found that the interviewees differed on three employability scales, namely, perceived status, solidarity, and dynamism (Bielefeld 2019, p.2).  The findings showed, that overall, the “non-standard” accents were treated less favorably in relation to the American accent (Bielefeld 2019, p.2). This implication of this is that Dutch multinational companies who transact using English as their official language will discriminate against differently accented candidates. The study suggests the creation of countermeasures such as awareness creation on discrimination and increased social acceptance of non-standard accents in English.

Other studies have focused on hiring decisions as mediated by intelligence and English language proficiency.  A number of scholars, notably Alias, Sidhu, and Fook (2013), Bye et al. (2011) and Hall, Gradt, Goetz and Musu-Gillette (2011) have outlined the proclivity of interview panelists to rate prospective candidates almost exclusively on the basis of eloquence and proficiency in the English language. Thus, during the actual job interview, candidates from White Anglo-Saxon backgrounds tend to register high scores, aided to a large extent by their mastery of English as a first language.  Earlier studies have opined that multicultural interviews accord candidates the chance to exhibit a strong first impression on the panelists. However, the transactional nature of multicultural interviews also imply that extend opportunities to both interviewer and the job-seeker to “meet each other’s’ needs” (Lockwood, 2012). In addition, studies show positive correlation between favorable appraisals form panelists and candidates with higher level of education. The result is that graduate candidates are perceived as endowed with appreciably superior skills in contrast to their less educated counterparts. As such conflicts in multicultural interviews are bound to be fomented by covertly biased inclinations of recruiting panels. Other studies have concentrated on the effect of “speech styles”, characteristics, and verbal cues in multicultural interviews (Deprez-Sims & Morris, 2010; Lockwood, 2012). Other scholars such as Feiler and Powell (2016) have focused on the impact of “Assertiveness” on the part of the interviewer and corresponding anxiety exhibited by candidates as an important determinant of intercultural job interviews.

Another study by Nguyen (2010, pp. 4-5) on “employment decisions as a function of an applicant’s accent” revealed that the culture organizational culture had a substantial influence on beliefs about the virtual social identities, VSIs. VSI is essentially an aggregation of expectations regarding a person’s desired future state in terms of “ability, personality, physical appearance, attitudes, and behaviors” that are congruent with the customs of a given group (Nguyen 2010, p.4-5). For example, for a long time in the United States, organizational culture has largely been determined by “Male, White, Anglo-Saxon Protestants, MWASPs, with characteristic Anglo accent.  Thus, to be successful, a job candidate must acquire a VSI matching the profile of MWASPs (Nguyen 2010, p.5). In addition to the VSI characteristics considered in the preceding definition, individual attributes such as “race, gender, and ethnicity” have recently gained prominence. Furthermore, Hosoda and Stone-Romero (2010) have postulated that job applicant may “conceal” their accents for fear of missing out on employment opportunities. Thus positive correlation of foreign accents with rejection during multicultural job interviews has led many scholars to perceive the latter as a stigma.

Research findings by Fernando, Almeida and Dharmage (2015, p. 18) on “employer perceptions of migrant candidates’ suitability” affirm that older Australian employers tend to harbor concern about suitability of prospective minority employees. Nevertheless, this possibility is moderated by the scale of operation of the organisation concerned. However, interviewers from larger corporations are less likely to be concerned about the migrant’s suitability. Similarly, interviewers from companies with a global, ethnically diverse customer base, also show markedly reduced concern for ethnicity of migrant candidates in comparison to recruiters from firms with largely White-Anglo customer base. This trend has been attributed to the possibility of panelists from giant corporations acquiring resources for training and development on equal employment opportunity (EEO) and cultural “sensitivity development” (Fernando, Almeida and Dharmage (2015, p. 18). Further, familiarity with corporate governance programs could create an atmosphere of inclusiveness.

Other studies by Vázquez-Maggio and Domínguez-Villalobos (2017, p.28) have revealed notable variations between Mexico and the other countries in regard to outcomes of interviews involving candidates with postgraduate studies and advanced training in pure sciences.  In this instance, “global competition for talents” effectively eradicates any possibility of discrimination even if the candidates are from migrant communities. Specialist Indian and Canadian immigrants are notable examples in that regard. The study also revealed also associates English proficiency with positive interview outcomes for highly skilled jobs irrespective of qualification or level of education. Correspondingly, poor mastery of English language tends to increase the likelihood of consignment to low-cadre roles irrespective of educational achievement.

Similarly, vast amounts of scholarship scrutinizing “interviewer-candidate race-similarity effects on interview outcomes” remain inconclusive (Lim and Kramar 2010). However, inconsistencies of such investigations notwithstanding, some studies have proved that interview processes can be impacted by “interviewer-candidate race similarities” (Lim ad Kramar 2010). Ironically, other studies have shown no correlation between race similarity and quality of hiring decisions (Lim and Kramar 2010). Yet, other research findings still suggest that the impacts of racial “similarity on candidate ratings are stronger” in standard structured interviews than in the situational interview. Negative outcomes in structured interviews can be voided by employing “mixed race interview teams” (Lim and Kramar 2010). Contrastingly, Gibert, Tozer and Westoby (2017, p.82) designated such impacts of race as more prominent in unbalanced interview panels compared to balanced teams. Additionally, a meta-analysis of 31 studies delimited race differential impacts on job interview assessments as lower than race differential effect of mental ability tests” (Lim and Kramar 2010). By implication the foregoing assertions deconstruct the notion that job interview processes are not culturally biased selection instruments.

Similar studies by Darolia et al. (2015, p.6) have found that the racial background of the candidates employment status, and “racial attitudes” of members of the interview panel have no impact on employment decisions. However, it was established that racial outlooks affect the degree of confidence of interviewers particularly in situations involving the hiring of staff for highly biased jobs (Darolia et al. 2015, p.6; Lim and Kramar 2010). Assessors who are biased towards Blacks have shown more confidence compared to their non-biased colleagues regarding their selection of black individuals for the low cadre jobs. A similar trend is observed when biased-toward-black attitudes are in play for high cadre jobs for white candidates. This seems to suggest that some appreciable degree of subtlety of discriminatory tendencies in multicultural job interviews is probable.  

Whereas numerous studies have failed to establish a correlation of the Chinese accent and the circumstantial issues surrounding employment in situations in which variations in job statuses are neglected, (Lim and Kramar 2010) identified accent and names of interviewees as foundations of bias. Subsequently, cultural signs can conjure biases in attitudes which can impact hiring decisions.

Some studies have found that accents affect the hiring process of multicultural interviews as cultural backgrounds impact outcomes and not processes (Deprez-Sims and Morris 2010; pp.417-424; Timing 2015; p.415). 

Some scholars have analyzed race as a function of demographics on one hand and their impact on interview outcomes on the other. By so doing, they have based their studies on extrapolations of the concept of race to explain the manner in which it impacts the job interview (Darolia et al. 2015, p. 5). However, these studies have produced inconclusive results. Instead, they have highlighted the active role that intervening variables such as interview format, stereotypes and attitudes can have on interview outcomes (Lim and Kramar 2010).  Similarly, rather than race not influencing the job interview, it is its “presence that may be masked” (Darolia 2015, pp. 2, 5).  As a result, these studies reinforce the necessity for scholars to transcend population-specific impacts when analyzing outcomes of multicultural interviews and to explore rudimentary factors such as attitudes and values (Nguyen 2010, p.5). In this regard, “Underlying Factors Studies” are generally restricted to the delineation of how they impact the outcome of interviews. Indeed, several qualitative studies have utilized comparative data from the study of Asian and American cultural standards to study discrimination during job interviews in multinational corporations (Bielefeld 2019, p.2).

Further reviews have explored how panelists from various countries assess and employ selection criteria (Lim and Kramar 2010). This is achievable as high-ranking recruiters from various demographic backgrounds evaluate work standards differently (Lim and Kramar 2010). The same actions will have connotations on how hiring criteria are determined, and how they affect the interview outcomes.

Whereas interview teams have generally endeavored to recruit fairly and credibly, studies have delineated three interviewer behaviors that may impact on communication process. Communication also produces a domino effect, which in turn affect the extent to which interviewers and interviewees comprehend aspects of the hiring process. The three behaviors are “respect, interaction composure and empathy” (Lim and Kramar 2010). Respect is necessary during interview process as it requires panelists to show favorable predisposition toward job-seekers. In addition, apposite interaction posture allows panelists to exhibit non-prejudiced broad-mindedness, while empathy calls for genuine interest and understanding during the interview.  In addition, studies by (Gelan 2017, p.38) have demarcated a number of factors such as instigation of rapport, sustaining concern for and understanding of ethnic differences of candidates, demonstration of a tendency to internalize these differences, as well as maintenance of “culturally-sensitive” behavioral patterns as supplementall attributes that could enhance the possibility of achieving positive job interview outcomes for employers and prospective employees alike (Gelan 2017, p.38). As these studies have scrutinized the fundamental ingredients to an effective communication process in multicultural interviews, the studies are also influencing procedures and results and aiding acquisition of new knowledge on previously considered demographics. Regardless of how one perceives the preceding phenomenon, few researchers appreciate the manner in which this process functions. Cursory understandings of culture have traditionally been illustrated using visual cues such as “Black” and “White”. This phenomenon conforms to the general trajectory of race studies which tend to rely on optically discernible signs to delimit races of candidates and the impact of such heritage on multicultural interviews and outcomes (3 evidences). On the other hand, ethnicity-focused researches have generally emphasized on terminologies such as “Caucasian, Asian, Chinese, Pacific Islander, African American and Maori” to highlight the historical origins of interview teams (Lim and Kramar 2010). In addition, culture has been defined in terms participants’ nationality (Demmler, Ayala and Solís 2018, p.38) in recognition of the geographical placement and social contexts in which participants are emanated. Thus, various approaches can be delineated from literature for defining culture and identification of cultural groups. Therefore, it is sensible for this study to focus on a specific group by restricting the study to three dimensions, namely, race, ethnicity, and culture of participants along the three dimensions of race, ethnicity and nationality. Qualitative studies by Lim and Kramar (2010)focusing on the differences between “Anglo Australian and Chinese Cultures in a Singaporean study exploring cross-cultural issues in communication” demarcated the “East” and the “West” as diametrically opposite in the job interview. Chan and Koh (2018; p. 15) scrutinize the evolution of Australia’s Chinatown, especially the denigration of local Cantonese language and subsequent adoption of Mandarin. The change of language signals the end of takeover of the Sydney suburb by Chinese immigrants, a once marginalized enclave. To Chinese immigrants, Chinatown has transformed into a thriving “commercial and cultural doorway” controlled by Chinese emigrants, presently the “second largest migrant group in Australia” (Chan and Koh 2018; p.15).

Consequently, owing to the growing influx of Chinese immigrants into Australia, this review sets forth the boundaries of this report. Specifically, this paper focuses on two ethnically disparate groups, the Anglo-Saxons from Australia and the Chinese. Significantly, since the start of the 21st century, Australia has welcomed hordes of Chinese immigrants at an increasing rate. For instance, available immigration data from 2001 to 2006 indicates a rise in Chinese immigrants by 44% from 143,000 to 206,000 (Lim and Kramar 2010). In contrast, the same study puts the rise in number of migrants from “Anglo source” countries such as United Kingdom, Ireland and New Zealand at just 2 ½ % in the period under review. Historically, since the first horde of Chinese migrants docked on Australian shores in 1788, a sizable percentage of destination cities have comprised of migrants. However, whereas contemporary Australian society has become increasingly diverse in recent years, the composition has remained characteristically Anglo-American (Lim and Kramar 2010). The Australian population is remains white overall, and the “White Australia Policy” is still emblazoned in social, political, and economic life of the nation. Similarly, the popular culture has Anglo-British originations.

Australia’s culture remains strongly influenced by its Anglo heritage, particularly the Anglo British. White Anglo-Saxon principles, morals, ethics, and standards still determine the country’s economic, social and political activities: they define behavioural patterns, mannerisms as well as norms for a vast majority of Australians.  The same culture is easily picked up by recently arrived immigrants as inductees into the Australian society. Essentially, modern Australia presents an optimistic outlook for researchers focusing on Australian corporates interested in hiring Chinese expats. Thus, the focus of this paper is to expose intrinsic cultural variances of White Anglo-Saxon Australian teams with the experiences of Chinese job applicants. It aims to expound on the intricate communications involving Australian interviewers of Anglo-British heritage and candidates from China.

5.0 Results and Analysis

The job interview has become a popular form of recruiting appropriate candidates for various job offers (Lim and Kramar 2010). However, psychometric data affirms the popularity of interviews as a recruitment tool, and cites its gradual enhancements as evidence of the same. Nevertheless, prevailing culture has been found to impact multicultural job interviews in several ways and is believed to impact its efficacy. In other words, variances in culture particularly among interview teams could actually negatively impact job hopefuls (Lim and Kramar 2010). Correspondingly, cultural cues could change the course of the recruitment decisions. This is especially true in situations where the interviewers are unfavorably prejudiced against interviewees. Consequently, “cultural bias” during interviews could bring negative outcomes into play. One of such possibilities is the entrenchment of discrimination which in turn cast doubt on the legitimacy of the interview (Lim and Kramar 2010). Some studies have attributed direct repercussion of biases in recruitment to the preclusion of suitably qualified candidates under the cacophony of conflict-riddled interview processes.  Above all, the most salient topics in the interviews were language, suitability, the notion of fitting in and employers’ ‘gut feelings’. Talking with our respondents about these issues, it is evident that attitudes existed that were difficult to define and comprehend (Lim and Kramar 2010). Regarding language, it was noteworthy that employers quickly attributed lack of ethnic minorities in their labour forces to language issues. Language issues were also prevalent when we specifically reminded the employers that our candidates were born and had completed their education in Norway. Employers inferred that persons of minority background in general have poor language skills. Minorities were attributed with levels of language skills according to their names and not according to employer knowledge about the individual.

Notwithstanding, the findings above, outcomes of cross-cultural interviews involving Australian panelists and Chinese candidates have been found to correspond to a number of factors. These include the manner in which the interview is structured, level of complexity of the job on offer, and sample size (Lim and Kramar 2010). Equally, variations in interview assessment outcomes have been found to be greater for lowly structured interviews than for highly structured interviews. Within the highly structured interviews, variations are notably greater for situational interviews in comparison to “behavioral description interviews”. The variations have also been found to be higher for interviews involving unskilled or less technical tasks. In contrast, variations in interview assessment outcomes are markedly reduced for highly skilled and technical jobs (Lim and Kramar 2010, p.6).

When sample sizes are considered, differences in interview assessment outcomes have been demarcated to be higher for sample sizes of minority groups (Lim and Kramar 2010, p6) . However, the same variations are low for sample sizes involving candidates from privileged majority groups. A number of studies have supported these findings as well. For instance, two researches on “stereotypes” have surveyed “race and race-related stereotypical job-type preferences” and their connections to job suitability rankings, recruitment verdicts and salary scales and established zero correlation among the factors (Lim and Kramar 2010).

6.0 Implications

The urgency to investigate the interview as a process has been recommended in a number of studies and literature on discrimination during interview mediated recruitment exercises (Castillo-Montoya 2016; p. 811). With regard to the racial characteristics of interviewees in light of their impact on outcomes of interviews, research revealed negligible discrimination between candidates of “Blacks” and “Whites” ancestries. The findings have since been validated by latter studies (Darolia et al. 2015, p.6; Lim and Kramar 2010). Yet, in assessing interview procedures and techniques in interviews, it has been established that panelists have showed some degree of “stereotyping and differential behaviours” (Lim and Kramar 2010). In fact, some have alluded to statements such as “We may hire equally, but our memories harbor prejudice” as laden with discriminatory prejudice (Lim and Kramar 2010).

Correspondingly, various decision-making mechanisms adopted by recruitment teams are associated with various impacts on the interview. As a result, emphasis on the hiring process, specifically, the interview, has gained preeminence as the most important concern for scholars. Apparently, culture in its various manifestations influence cross-cultural job interviews. However, there is lack of clarity on the manner in which the impact is engendered. Since researchers begun to emphasize on the possible influences of fundamental race variables on cross-cultural job interviews, similar changes in research questions have arisen particularly on culture, its influences on cross-cultural job interviews and how these influences are experienced (Graham, Grennan and Harvey 2016, p.17-18).

To answer these questions, an evaluation of the hiring process is conducted. Scrutiny of the process is necessary as it facilitates the study of practical influences that could facilitate research on the inconclusive data from reviewed literature (Lim and Kramar 2010; Molad 2019; 22-23). A shift in the research focus has also been recommended and is mostly credited with altering the trajectory of research from the less engaging “discrimination overtones” to more concrete concepts of inclusivity in multicultural interview settings.

This approach is useful as it attempts to focus on ways of mitigating the negative effects of cultural inclusivity during recruitment interviews. The concept of cross-cultural job interview was proposed as pertinent research interest in the last half of the 1960s, accompanied by a popular mantra which stating, “Words do mean different things to different people and these shades of meaning vary within subcultures and between ethnic groups as does the relativity of word-meaning” (Lim and Kramar 2010; Molad 2019; 22-23).

In antiquity, seminal research on cross-cultural job interviews mainly emphasized the influences of population-specific factors on the hiring process and subsequent outcomes. Today, several investigations have built on past studies to build a more robust understanding of cross-cultural interview. Similarly, from several meta-analyses aided exploration of rudimentary variables that impact the interview. This paper has attempted to draw from these researches to investigate factors that impact multicultural interviews, particularly the role of culture. They have elucidated both interviewer and interviewee-specific factors which interview panels must consider in dealing with conflicts in cross-cultural interviews. In addition, this paper has extended escalated current research drawing from these studies and wishes to apply the same to explain the influence of culture on the “job interview communication” (Lim and Kramar 2010). As communication is a broad concept, this trajectory opens up new frontiers of research on the possibility of designing new techniques for improving such interviews (Lim and Kramar 2010; Molad 2019; 22-23). Refinement of the communication process in intercultural interviews could roll back age-old problems of prejudice and discrimination in the job interview. Therefore, it is essential for research to not only investigate particular aspects of culture impacting on multicultural interviews but also “how this process takes place”. A complete understanding of conflicts in multi-cultural interviews can be attained by designing new conceptual explanations on culture in the job interview (Lim and Kramar 2010).

7.0 Conclusion

In this report, focused literature reviews from a number of cross-sectional studies have focused on cross-cultural job interviews to outline the need for a conceptual model. The impact of culture has been explored as well as its influence on processes and outcomes of the job interview. The paper adopted an elastic model to facilitate understanding of how the main interlocutors in the interview process, namely, interviewers and prospective can design valuable cultural experiences It utilizes symbolic interactionism to scrutinize the way various cultures of participants develop life lessons which in turn influences the process and the outcome of multicultural interviews. The paper concludes with a justification for the development of a grounded theory of culture in the job interview by examining multiple cases of the cross-cultural job interview.

Emergence of the cross-cultural interview as an active research area can be traced to the turn of the century. At present, it is at the center stage of human resource discourse a globalization drives recruiters to headhunt beyond national boundaries. As a result, design of the qualitative conceptual framework is an innovative way of modelling the desired future state, as far as modelling cross-cultural conflicts in job interviews is concerned. This model will address existing gaps in literature as well as the lack of a unifying theory for modelling such conflicts. Assessments of multicultural socializations during interview-mediated recruitments can also facilitate understanding of theoretical impacts of culture. Additionally, such assessments can promote quick understanding of contradictory outcomes in literature especially quantitative research literature. As noted in the forgoing discussion, effective communication as a means of reducing conflicts in cross-cultural job interviews has been accentuated by the delineation of communication as a process. The process model of communication, as it is referred to in this report, accords participants ad panelists the opportunity to improve cross-cultural communication. However, to make the communication process explicit, which is the desired goal, will fast-track the design of intervention techniques for the preparation of superiors and job applicants for highly conflicted cross-cultural interviewing processes. This state, if attained, will entrench positive, realistic and useful outcomes for interviewers and interviewees alike. Consequently, for the Australian interview panelist and Chinese candidate, the new theoretical framework will enhance communication between them. Also, both parties will be empowered to appreciate multicultural differences as well as to transcend superficial hurdles brought about by differences in accents, biases, and other barrier. This will effectively benefit the Australian economy to benefit from a growing pool of skilled and talented immigrants, hitherto concealed as a result of culturally biased recruitments. All things considered, the Australian economy is a rich a vastly endowed marketplace beaming with potential. However, there are real opportunities for the economy to roar even louder through effective utilization of the immense human resources as its disposal. As already pointed out, the large talented migrant community of Chinese workers remains the most perceptible gem. For this report, the proposed framework is will help assimilate theoretical and empirical aspects of the cross-cultural job interview.