Name________________________________ Period______ Date__________
Appearance and Destiny
Part I:
Answer the following questions before watching the video or reading the
articles.
1.
How much do you think your appearance has affected your destiny?
Explain.
2.
How much does a person’s appearance affect your opinion of him or her?
Explain.
Evangeline Gomez, Contributor
http://www.forbes.com/
Part II:
Watch the video from ABC’s
What Would You Do
? And write your
reactions in the space below:
Part III:
Read the articles, highlighting the most interesting/important
information.
Should Businesses Worry About
Appearance-Based Discrimination in
the Workplace?
Conventional wisdom and research
posits that, in addition to
popularity and
access to their choice of a mate,
attractive people tend to get higher
evaluations and salaries than their peers
and more favorable judgments in
trials.
For getting a job, it’s always an
advantage to be an attractive man or
woman …right?
Not so. Newer and more
sophisticated research demonstrates that
the picture is more complex than it might
seem. A recent study shows a disturbing
conclusion:
being an attractive man was
an advantage in all jobs sought, while
being an attractive woman was
their beauty was considered
a detriment
when applying for jobs traditionally
identified as male jobs such as the
manager of research and development
(R&D), director of finance, mechanical
engineer and construction supervisor
. A
different study showed attractive women
tended to be sorted into more
“traditionally female” positions
like
receptionist or secretary
. More than one
study has shown that
attractiveness was
more beneficial for women applying for
traditionally feminine-type jobs instead of
traditionally masculine perceived jobs
.
Successful women’s
opinions about
whether their beauty is a help or
hindrance in their careers are
inconsistent
. Some women believe
looks
are an advantage, others a disadvantage
,
in career success.
In 2010,
Debrahlee Lorenzana
,
made national news when she
sued her
employer, Citibank, for telling her not to
wear clothes that were acceptable for
and worn by other women in the same
office
. The list of
banned clothing
included
turtlenecks, pencil skirts and
fitted business suits “from Zara.”
( a
clothing
brand commonly worn by
Catherine and Pippa Middleton
) When
Ms. Lorenzana argued that she was fully
compliant with the Citibank dress code
and remarked that her female peers wore
far more revealing attire,
Citibank
managers allegedly argued that due to
her body type her clothes were
“distracting” and she needed to wear
something to obscure her shape
.
Citibank fired Ms. Lorenzana from her
position as a banker
after she allegedly
complained of her employer’s
disparate
treatment
of her, stated her lawsuit.
The issue of appearance bias has
been recognized since the late 1970′s.
Partly as a result of activism by those
representing obese persons. As a result
of this movement,
Michigan became the
first state to explicitly prohibit
discrimination based on weight and
height
. In fact, the EEOC now takes the
view that
extreme obesity, and obesity
that results in other physical conditions
,
is a
disability, and that discrimination
based on such obesity is prohibited by
the Americans With Disabilities Act
(ADA)
. The cities of
Binghamton
,
San
Francisco
and
Santa Cruz
prohibit
discrimination against weight and height
as well.
Madison
, Wisconsin and
Urbana,
Illinois
have ordinances banning
discrimination based on a person’s
“physical appearance” and “personal
appearance” respectively,
while
Washington
D.C. prohibits
all forms
of personal appearance discrimination
. A
variety of people have sought protection
under these laws including those persons
required to wear certain attire for
religious purposes and person
undergoing gender reassignment surgery
who had no recourse at the state or
federal level. The great majority of these
appearance discrimination laws allow for
employers to use a bona-fide
Since federal and state laws do not
prohibit this bias, appearance -based
discrimination in the workplace has to be
fit into one or more of the protected
categories under federal and state
anti-discrimination laws. Obviously,
discrimination based on appearance can
easily be a surrogate for more traditional
forms of discrimination against Latinos,
African Americans, Asians or
women.
Abercrombie & Fitch was sued in
federal court
for having a
policy of hiring
people who had “classic All-American”
looks
by some
Asian-American,
Black/African-American and Latino
applicants who argued the defendant
steered them into stockroom jobs.
The
parties reached a
settlement requiring
the retail clothing giant to pay $50
million, less attorneys’ fees and costs, to
Latino, Black/African -American,
Asian-American and female applicants and
employees
who charged the company
with discrimination. Among other relief,
the
settlement
required the clothing
retailer
to avoid recruiting at fraternities
and sororities, and to feature people with
different looks in advertisements and TV
commercials
. Obviously, discrimination
based on appearance can easily be a
surrogate for more traditional forms of
discrimination against Latinos, African-
Americans, Asian-Americans or women.
If businesses allow appearance-
based discrimination, the courts are
likely to step in, without the need for any
new legislation. Discriminating against a
full-figured, unsightly or beautiful woman
because of her appearance is against the
law as sex discrimination because such
biases generally do not apply to men.
While the federal Age Discrimination in
Employment Act (ADEA) does not offer
protections to employees under the age
of forty, local and state
anti-discrimination laws might be applicable
in appearance-based lawsuits, since some
states, such as
Alaska, Florida, Maine,
Maryland
,
Minnesota
,
Mississippi, New
Jersey
and municipalities like
New York
City
prohibit discrimination against
younger people
(or reverse age
discrimination). An employee subject to
discrimination because of a youthful
appearance or stereotypes predicated on
the employee’s young age might argue
that it is a form of discrimination against
young people. In New Jersey, a
25-year-old employee, who was hired as the Vice
President of a bank, sued his employer
after he revealed his age and
was then
told he might be fired and should work
for the bank in another capacity instead
,
according to the lawsuit. The
New
Jersey Supreme Court ruled that a claim
for age discrimination based on youth
was actionable
under the state’s
anti-discrimination law.
In a
recent survey
, younger
workers (ages 18- 35) were more likely to
report age discrimination than older
workers. Similarly,
a survey conducted by a human
resources consulting firm.
In fact,
reverse age discrimination could be
another issue, which a younger
generation, concerned that their talent is
not recognized and opportunities are not
open to them because of their youth,
might bring to the fore to create another
evolution of anti-discrimination law.
More businesses are likely to face
such issues, especially now that
independent research has confirmed this
type of bias seems to exist broadly across
Beauty at Work: How Physical Appearance
Impacts Job Search & Careers
October 17, 2011
POSTED BY CRYSTAL MILLER ON MONSTERTHINKING.COM :
EXPLORING THE COMPLEX WORLD OF WORK
It pays to be beautiful if you’re a fashion model or a soap star, but how about at the office? If you’re thinking that looks don’t matter in the world of work, look again.
Physical appearance can affect one’s job prospects, promotion opportunities, and relative income.
In business as in life, “it’s the beautiful people they want, it’s the beautiful people they love,” to quote the (sometimes beautiful) Christina Aguilera.
While most of us would like to think that physical appearance shouldn’t play a part in talent management and human capital decisions; the truth of the matter is that “beauty bias” -the psychological and biological hard-wiring that makes us attracted to well, attractive people – does exist.
This so-called “halo effect”1 is pervasive throughout our society, and the workplace is no different.
The effects of the beauty bias start working even before the employee does: the rise of the video or photo resume give recruiters a perception that’s worth a thousand resume words; and is a
subconscious filter that can make or break a candidate’s chances.
Since the protected attributes & elements of diversity within a person’s appearance are co-mingled with those that aren’t, hiring professionals wary of even the perception of being influenced
inappropriately by such submissions have reported they’re likely to ‘lose’ offending resumes.
Instead, they opt for those who’ve applied with a portfolio of relevant work, infographic or traditionally-formatted resume.
Catherine Hakim, Senior Research Fellow at the Centre For Policy Studies, London, suggests that beauty should be intentionally used as a tool for getting ahead at work – citing it as an “economic premium.”
Hakim’s research suggests that attractive workers are likely to earn anywhere from 7-13% more than their less comely colleagues. Hakim explains:
Physical and social attractiveness deliver substantial benefits in all social interaction – making a person more persuasive, able to secure the co-operation of colleagues, attract customers and sell products.
1
“halo effect” – The effect created by a beautiful appearance in which people assume other pleasing qualities must
Not that this is anything new; the entire concept of diversity hiring is predicated on physical
appearance, but study after study suggests that possessing “beauty capital” has a real impact on the bottom line – and a key determinant in predicting the relative success of a business or personal brand.
So if having an attractive workforce actually means more money and better relationships for employers, then why shouldn’t beauty be a factor in making a hiring decision?
It’s already an integral part in employer branding and recruitment advertising – after all, diversity doesn’t extend to having a few ugly faces in those career site stock images.
Ugliness isn’t a protected category (although if it were, few would likely choose to self-report as such); so why should businesses bother even taking a look at candidates who aren’t worth, well, taking a look at?
Robert Barro, a Harvard economist, writes that in matters of business economics , we’re better served when the government stays out of the “beauty intervention business.”
The landmark Hooters legislation and settlement in the 1990s upheld the chain’s restrictive hiring practices and right to only hire those candidates deemed ‘suitably attractive’ to meet their “business plan and customer demographic” and created a major precedent which Barro applauds. He argues:
The only meaningful measure of productivity is the amount a worker adds to customer
satisfaction and to the happiness of co-workers. A worker’s physical appearance, to the extent
that it is valued by customers and co-workers, is as legitimate a qualification as intelligence, dexterity, job experience and personality.
Barro is by no means alone – one 2010 Newsweek study showed 64% of hiring managers agree that beauty plays a factor in the hiring process – and that it should.
Part of me is OK that they’re OK with this – there are many industries and job functions that would suffer immeasurably if we were to legislate out beauty bias.
After all, there are few (if any) who’d want to buy cosmetics from someone with horrible skin, or pharmaceuticals from a sales rep who is morbidly obese.
But where do you draw the line? After all, discrimination is essentially HR heresy, and doesn’t inclusion and diversity efforts mean every worked should protected, not just those with symmetrical features?
It seems reasonable to expect that those protections should ostensibly extend to deformities the same way they do disabilities.
On the other hand, a research study suggests that the judgment and decision of CEOs deemed “more attractive” based on a number of factors actually were more successful in building trust and
acceptance as leaders than their less attractive counterparts.
But that’s the thing about beauty – like so many topics in HR, it’s completely subjective – in the eye of the beholder, they say. And if we were to ignore our psychological predisposition towards those we find attractive, the future talent pool would get very shallow indeed.
If the job search really is like dating , then we should look for a match the same way we look for a mate. Of course, the flip side of this coin is that unlike in courtship, being beautiful can actually be a significant impediment – particularly for women.
While there’s scant evidence to suggest that attractiveness creates any sort of ”‘career danger” or obstacle for men; studies have shown that if a woman is deemed too beautiful, she’s likely to be be denied opportunities at both ends of the career ladder.
While beauty in the “experienced, individual contributor” and entry-level management roles had little discernible negative impact in landing a job; the more attractive women in the emerging workforce were actually more likely to lose out on jobs to other, less attractive women, especially in roles requiring manual/physical labor.
In this case, the beauty bias created the false appearance of weakness, a lack of strength being directly correlated to perceived femininity.
For executives at the heights of the org chart, there’s evidence of a similar pattern – the more “gorgeous” a woman is perceived to be, the less likely she’ll be perceived as serious, intelligent or considered for promotion and top-leadership opportunities.
While exceptions to this certainly exist, Duke University’s “Corporate Beauty Contest” research project on beauty bias among CEOs couldn’t reflect women (or any minorities, for that matter) as their numbers were, for the purposes of an academic study, ‘statistically irrelevant.’
There were so few of them that researchers believed participants would be likely to recognize women included, therefore skewing results.
But that there are so few women, or minorities, for that matter, in the top spot in organizations is anything but irrelevant.
Beauty might be in the eye of the beholder, but having the kind of diverse and inclusive workforce necessary to drive innovation can create the kind of profits that are beautiful in the eye of the shareholder.
Part IV:
Answer the following questions after having read the articles.
1.
Based on the video and the information found in the articles, now
assess how much your opinion has affected your destiny. Consider
how your appearance may affect how your peers, teachers, coaches,
or even parents treat you.
2.
Considering what you now know about the beauty bias, how much do
you think a person’s physical appearance affects what you think
about/how you treat him or her? Explain.
3.
Has your opinion changed about whether a business has the right to
base its decisions about an employee based on his or her appearance?
If so, how has your opinion changed and why? If not, why hasn’t it
changed?
