Should Attractiveness be a Hiring Criterion?

The assignment content emphasizes the importance of managing equality and diversity in the workplace to ensure creativity, innovativeness, and long-term success. It highlights that physical appearance or looks should not be a factor in hiring decisions, as it can lead to discrimination and unfair treatment. Instead, organizations should focus on recruiting and developing employees based on their skills, talents, qualifications, and capabilities, regardless of cultural background, views, ideas, perception, skills, and abilities.

A LEGITAMCY OF EMPLOYERS
CONSIDERING “LOOKISM” WHEN
RECRUITING AND PROMOTNG
EMPLOYEES

Privilege and power are differently ascribed to various people within workplace based
on qualification, designation, gender, nationality, appearance, age and socio-economic class
(Furnham and Chamorro-Premuzic, 2010). Many studies have been done on discrimination
that focuses on ageism, sexism, racism and classism. Lookism is one such prejudice based on
individual’s physical appearance. Physical appearance is referred as the “outward look of an
individual regardless of gender and concerns with physical characteristics or conditions,
dressing style, style of grooming etc” (Zakrzewski, 2005). It is an aspect of individual’s non-
verbal communication and is directly associated with attractiveness. However, lookism is
advantageous for the people who are attractive and thus most often get preferential treatment
while on other hand for conventionally for less attractive person, it may create problem and
create barrier for certain opportunities. In context with business organization, it may be useful
for some companies like cosmetic, apparel companies etc. But for manufacturing firm, esp
labour industry it may prove to be injurious as it creates unrest within workforce affecting
their work efficiency (Tietje and Cresap, 2005). This essay reflects the legitimacy of
employers considering lookism when recruiting and promoting employees. In addition to this
significance of equality and diversity among employees is also explored is this essay.
Lookism may also result in unfair treatment and lack of opportunities for the
unattractive employees. For instance, when two females who are equally qualified apply for
the job, it is mostly seen that employer would rather hire one who is more attractive. Such
judgement rely on community standards and are culturally bound that further reinforces
discrimination and stereotypes. Corbett (2007) argues that in today’s society appearance
matter the most than ever before, he further states that modern society which is much more
influenced from western culture seems to be obsessed with physical appearance and
attractiveness. In context with business organizations, employers usually make hiring
decisions on the basis of personality of applicants. Many television programmes, magazines,
movies illustrates the society’s obsession with appearance. Many organizations make
employment decisions partly on the basis of appearance of applicants, especially the
company dealing which is looking in cosmetics and clothing etc (Harper, 2000). Even in the
hospitality firm, employees are recruited taking into consideration their looks and style, as
physically attractive applicants helps in generating more revenue since they are capable of
enticing more customers with their looks. It is growing trend in many large corporations such
as L’Oreal, The Gap, big hotel chains like The Marriott to develop a smart-looking sales
force and thus seeking for handsome, pretty and attractive employees who can effectively
represent the company’s product and can also act as brand ambassadors. Therefore,

employers with the view to survive, prosper as well as to create an attractive and marketable
brand image place more importance on looks rather than skills (Kite and Whitley, 2010). A
book authored by Professor Deborah Rhode “The beauty Bias” discusses the biasness
towards employees based on attractiveness and appearance and further argues that it should
be considered as illegal. However, she favours the preferences for physical appearance in
certain conditions and justify this by stating that customers would rather prefer to be served
by well dressed and smart looking employee instead of minority one. However, this issue
requires more attention of human resource department and top management personnel so as
to make value-driven and open culture where every employee gets equal opportunity to
participate and to share their views and ideas (Snell and et. al., 2009).
Lookism has also been characterized as a type of sex or gender discrimination. Many
studies have recognised the customer expectation or preference as an exception in
discrimination with regard to gender, religion or nationality. However, this exception is
limited in its scope. Laws have held it as inappropriate to consider the preferences of
customers in order to determine whether such prejudice is fair or not (Waring, 2011). For
instance, if some customers are not comfortable with a man working in clothing store, this
does not mean that male employee should be discriminated while recruitment or promotion
even when they are suitably qualified for the job or position respectively. Thus, it is unfair for
a company to use customer preferences for hiring or promotion purpose, it should only be
considered when buyer’s privacy is at concern and when hiring decisions cannot go against
customer’s satisfaction. Such type of hiring decisions are often made in health related
organizations or in the entities where employees have close contact with customers such as
saloons, spas etc. Employers also face various challenges while hiring process in order to
ensure customer privacy and safety (Nickson and et. al., 2004).
As per the Implicit Personality theory which examine an individual’s personality traits
or attributes and how these traits are used to make assumptions regarding other features. The
physical appearance carries positive relationship with other personality traits therefore
employers while making hiring decisions favours attractive candidates. Thus, according to
this theory smart-looking candidates are deemed not only more efficient, but are also likeable
as a person and are considered as having all skills to get success in life (Lookism: an
emerging issue of discrimination in the workplace, 2012). Attractive candidates are not only
benefited in job offer, but they are also proposed higher salaries and growth opportunities
than less attractive folks. In addition to it, some studies suggest that smart employees receive
more positive performance evaluation than other peers and also more likely to get selected for

management activities. However, certain studies exhibited that appearance only matters for
female employee who is working at lower level while for the women who is working at
management level attractiveness deemed to lower the performance (Tietje and Cresap, 2005).
On contrary, for the man who is holding managerial position, attractiveness benefits in his
performance assessment and further help in getting increment or promotion. But, such type of
discrimination is completely irrational and illegal under the employment laws. Various
Employment Equality Acts prohibits the prejudice or discrimination in wide range of
employment related areas such as recruitment, equal pay, promotion, training and
development, working conditions, harassment and dismissal etc (The Glass mirror:
Appearance-based discrimination in the workplace, 2012).
A person’s looks and his/her overall appearance is the primary thing that others
notice. Thus, it is a trait or feature that is generally used to judge an individual and compare
him with others. Physically attractive people are considered as being more honest, intelligent
and likeable. But, in reality this actually does not relate to a person’s work performance from
any aspect (Cornelius, 2002). It only affects interaction with other but impacts one’s ability to
get desired employment. Various studies have showed that good-looking people are more
successful in getting the job than others. In addition to it, they also have greater opportunity
for development at workplace. Appearance is suspect qualification on the basis of which
employer make decisions. But, as discrimination based on appearance has harmful effects,
thus it should be prohibited (The Glass mirror: Appearance-based discrimination in the
workplace, 2012). There are many arguments that favour the prohibition of appearance-based
discrimination in workplace. Such type of discrimination will make society more concerned
about the physical appearance rather than career, academic, skills or personal achievements.
Folks will compete for jobs not on the basis of their skills and qualifications, but on their
looks which inturn may result in less-skilled or less-competent workforce. According to
legislation, discrimination has been defined as treating an individual in less favourable
manner than others. It may be based on different grounds such as gender, status, family
background, sexual orientation, age, physical appearance and the like (Warhust and Nickson,
2007).
Even the pregnant woman faces such discrimination as she loses job just because of
weight or physical appearance. Presently, law for appearance-based discrimination is not
considered as illegal in most of the situations (Stalecup, n.d). Only few jurisdictions have
policies and laws that prohibit such prejudice. Under the existing law, Abercrombie’s or any
other related companies are permitted to restrict the hiring policies to attractive applicants

only. They are even allowed to make recruiting decisions on the basis of height or weight
providing to comply with the ADEA and Title VII. For example, the company’s practices
would be held unlawful when it sets high physical standard for female applicants while for
males no such standards are required (Lookism: an emerging issue of discrimination in the
workplace, 2012). Moreover, when the applicants are just refused because they are “too old”
for the brand and company image, then in that case also organizations would be considered as
breach of the ADEA. However, many employees are still facing problems and challenges
which inturn hinder them in their progress and success. Even though they are qualified for the
job, but still rejected or discriminated on various grounds.
Inequality within organization has been the area of great interest for many eminent
scholars. This issue has been observed within the workplace for several years and even today
inequality among different level of employees prevails in various companies. At the time of
recruitment also some applicants are just rejected either because of their gender, age or colour
(Hamilton and et. al, 2010). For example, there are few private organizations which does not
recruit female employee even when she is reasonably qualified for the job. While in some
organizations, particularly airlines, male flight attendants are not considered as suitable for
the job. Apart from that, during promotion, training and development and increment also
employers give more preference to that worker whom they like more while the employee who
deserves the position gets discriminated. Such type of unequal and unjust behaviour inturn
make the desiring and qualified employee dissatisfied with the job affecting his performance
and hinders organizational growth. Thus, in order to achieve competitive success, it is
required by companies to promote equal behaviour within work culture (Kite and Whitley,
2010). Equality is all about creating the fair and value-driven culture where every employee
participates and has equal opportunity for personal growth and development. It mainly
emphasis on rights and responsibilities of each and every people working in the organization
and promotes anti-discrimination. Equal opportunity can be described as fair and just
treatment of all employees in recruitment, promotion and other employment related areas. It
means treating all individuals having different qualifications and skills, without judging them
on the basis of stereotypes and outdated standards. It is based on providing courteous, fair
and equal growth opportunities to employees for their further growth and advancement
(MacDonald and Daniels, 2005). The organization should ensure creation of workplace in
such a manner where employees of different backgrounds, culture, view and feelings and
valued, respected and appreciated. In recruitment process, all candidates must be treated

appropriately and should not discriminate on the basis of gender, religion or physical
appearance.
Every individual in the organization possess unique skills and strengths that when
managed effectively help in reaping the higher revenues and profits by the firm. Diversity
within the organizations covers a wide array of elements. Differences in religion, culture,
nationality, age, gender and social status can benefit an organization when managed
effectively (What is equality and diversity, 2012). Managing the diverse workforce properly
is the key to capitalise the opportunities and so to mitigate the threats. This also helps in
enhancing the strengths of company making it plausible to achieve desired success and
growth. Employees with the diverse cultural backgrounds have different views and
perceptions which inturn facilitates creativity and uniqueness when working in team.
Accumulating the diverse skills and knowledge can prove to be of great advantage for the
company in maximising the productivity and also helps in adapting the firm with the
changing business environment (Eustace, 2012). Diversity also provides the opportunity to
the employees for their personal development and growth. For example, being exposed to
new culture, ideas can help an individual to understand the surroundings and the different
perspectives of people. It will also help in creating the friendly environment in organization.
Diversity and equality provides several advantages to organization like it helps in attracting
pool to new talents, reducing turnover and absenteeism and thus enhance operational
efficiencies (Zakrzewski, 2005). It also contributes to employee’s responsiveness and
promotes flexibility. Furthermore, it makes employees committed and loyal toward
organization. With the globalization, business organizations have undergone many changes;
they are expanding their network along with diversification among staff members. This
substantial transformation has been caused by various factors such as internationalization,
feminisation of workforce etc. Growing trend of female employment narrowed the gender
gap to great extent (Davis, 2011). Today’s workplace is continuously changing with the
change in overall business environment in terms of diversification and also in number of
women employees. But yet, women are discriminated when it comes to recruitment,
promotion or increment.
Evidently, physical appearance favoured the most in present society. As the
appearance has great impact on employer’s decisions, likewise it affects the customer’s
perception about the company and the products or services it is offering (Wolf, 1991). For
this reason, many organizations use appearance-based recruiting for marketing and promoting
their product. However, the old adage “don’t judge a book by its cover” is quite relevant in

context with today’s business organization. In today’s comeptitive scenario, it is required by
employers to treat people fairly and equally when recruiting, training and development and
while promoting, which will help in making the employees committed and loyal towards the
organizations and will be more dedicated for accomplishing the goals and objectives
(Overview: Equality in the workplace, 2012). Production efficiency will also be enhanced
that will help in minimising the unnecessary costs. While equality will also facilitate diversity
in organization i.e. diverse array of candidates will apply for the job which inturn will help in
creating a wider pool of talent and competent employees. Attractiveness is not as important
to sales as personnel’s skills and competencies are. For example, good-looking person may
be able to attract customers towards the company, but he/she may not be able to efficiently
assist them which inturn may develop bad impression on customers and hence affect the
brand image (Zakrzewski, 2005). Attributing to this fact, it can be said that attractiveness
should not be considered as hiring criteria as unattractive person may prove to be more
competent in performing the assigned job better that attractive one. With the view to
accomplish the desired organizational goals effectively and efficiently, it is required by
organizations to embrace employee’s skills, talents, qualification and capabilities rather than
physical appearance. People with the different culture, views, ideas, perception, skills and
abilities should be recruited and developed, so as to ensure creativity and innovativeness in
the tasks. Thus, when this diversity is properly managed, management may provide numerous
benefits to the organization in terms of growth as well as long term success. In order to
sustain in today’s scenario, managing equality and diversity in workplace has become utmost
important management concern (Overview: Equality in the workplace, 2012).

REFERENCES
Corbett, W.R., (2007). The Ugly Truth About Appearance Discrimination and the Beauty of
Our Employment Discrimination Law. Duke Journal of Gender Law and Policy.14. pp.
153-83.
Cornelius, N., (2002). Building Workplace Equality: Ethics, Diversity and Inclusion. 2nd ed.
Cengage Learning EMEA.
Davies, A., (2011).Workplace Law Handbook 2011: Employment Law and Human
Resources. Workplace Law Group.
Eustace, E., (2012). Speaking allowed? Workplace regulation of regional dialect.
WorkEmployment and Society. 26(2). Pp. 331-348.
Furnham, A. And Chamorro-Premuzic, T., (2010). The Psychology of Personnel Selection.
Cambridge University Press.
Hamilton, J. And et.al., (2010). Diversity, Oppression, and Social Functioning: Person-in-
Environment Assessment and Intervention. 3rd ed. Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.
Harper, B., (2000). Beauty, Stature and the Labour Market: A British Cohort Study. Oxford
Bulletin of Economics and Statistics. 62
Kite, M.E. and Whitley, B.E., (2010). The Psychology of Prejudice and Discrimination. 2nd
ed. Cengage Learning.
MacDonald, L.A.C. and Daniels, K., (2005). Equality, Diversity and Discrimination: A
Student Text. CIPD Publishing.
Snell, S. And et.al., (2009). The Sage Handbook of Human Resource Management. SAGE
Publications Ltd.
Tietje, L. and Cresap, S., (2005). Is Lookism Unjust?: The Ethics of aesthetics and Public
Policy Implications. Journal of Libertarian Studies. 19(2). Pp. 31-50
Warhurst, C. and Nickson, D., (2007). Employee experience of aesthetic labour in retail and
hospitality. Work, Employment and Society. 21(1). Pp. 103-120
Waring, P., (2011). Keeping up Appearances: Aesthetic Labour and Discrimination Law.
Journal of Industrial Relations. 53(2). Pp. 193-207
Wolf, N., (1991). The Beauty Myth: How Images of Beauty are used against Women.
Doubleday.
Zakrzewski, K., (2005). The prevalence of "look"ism in hiring Decisions: how federal law
should be Amended to prevent appearance Discrimination in the workplace. Journal of
labor and employment law. 7(2).

Online articles
Lookism: an emerging issue of discrimination in the workplace. (2012). [Online]. Available
through: < http://franca.com.au/lookisman-emerging-issue-of-discrimination-in-the-
workplace.html>. [Accessed on 11th April 2013].
Nickson, D. And et.al., (2004). Aesthetic labour and the policy-making agenda: time for a
reappraisal of skills. [Online]. Available through: <
http://www.skope.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/SKOPEWP48.pdf>. [Accessed on 11th
April 2013].
Overview: Equality in the workplace. (2012). [Online]. Available through: <
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/equality_in_work/equality_in_the_wo
rkplace.html>. [Accessed on 11th April 2013].
Stalecup, A.C., (n.d). The Plainness Penalty: Lookism in Western Culture. [Online].
Available through: < http://angelastalcup.com/sample_article.pdf>. [Accessed on 11th
April 2013].
The Glass mirror: Appearance-based discrimination in the workplace. (2012). [Online].
Available through: < http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1002&context=enbar_toledano>. [Accessed on 11th April 2013].
What is equality and diversity? (2012). [Online]. Available through: <
http://www.faculty.londondeanery.ac.uk/e-learning/diversity-equal-opportunities-and-
human-rights/what-is-equality-and-diversity>. [Accessed on 11th April 2013].