Search results

Aesthetic labour explains how employees are required to look and sound the part in many contemporary workplaces. That such corporeality affects workers' employment prospects, including career progression, is now well documented in research. As such, it can result in employment discrimination based on physical features, more commonly known as ‘lookism’. However, very few jurisdictions proscribe lookism, and little is known about the efficacy of those that do. Based on archival research, this chapter examines the procedures and operation of physical features inclusion in an Equal Opportunity Act in one jurisdiction that does proscribe ‘lookism – the state of Victoria in Australia. As the first analysis of such laws, the chapter provides an important opportunity to assess the efficacy of legal attempts to address employment discrimination based on employee appearance. In so doing, it draws out lessons about the legal challenge to lookism.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of a facial photo of female job applicants on employment decisions.

A laboratory or “controlled” experiment was conducted to examine the impacts of job applicants’ facial photos, job applicants' professional qualifications (education level and years of work experience), raters’ gender and college student raters’ academic year on employment-related decisions in a hypothetical situation in the Chinese context. A descriptive analysis and mixed-design factorial ANOVA were conducted.

Significant main effects were found for the applicant’s photo and professional qualifications in the analysis of employment decisions. Significant interaction effects were also found in the analysis.

Discrimination against applicants who attached unattractive photos was more pronounced for the interview decision when the applicants had low qualifications than when they had high qualifications. Although both male and female raters’ ratings of the interview, hiring and salary decisions decreased as attractiveness decreased, it was more pronounced for male raters than female raters.

This study set out to explore employees' experience and understandings of gender and age in higher education to identify if women in higher education experienced the double jeopardy of gendered ageism. Further the role of physical attractiveness and appearance in higher education is explored.

Rich data were afforded by the qualitative method of in‐depth interviewing of 48 employees in a matched by gender, age grouping and academic status design. The recorded transcripts were subject to content and interpretative phenomenological analyses.

This study supports previous findings in different workplace settings that women, both academics and non‐academics, experience the double jeopardy of being discriminated against on the grounds of their age and gender in a way that men do not experience. Emergent themes are women: question they experience age discrimination as any perceived discrimination may be gender related and not only age‐related (uncertainty); are socialised to tolerate acceptable levels (tolerance); grow to love the perpetrators (identify with the status quo). Physical attractiveness and appearance are seen as relevant to the workplace in higher education. Non‐academics see academics as being career driven by their lack of attractiveness and or poor appearance. Male academics perceive women academics as unattractive and dressing down in appearance. Young female academics play down their “looks”, i.e. attractiveness and appearance so the effect is minimal (minimisation) as they perceive these be a disadvantage in their careers. Male academics do not report such considerations. “Lookism” thus presents a further prejudice that female academics experience beyond gendered ageism.

One experienced interviewer was used to enhance consistency of interviewing but there may be concerns about possible interviewer effects and the generalisability of the findings within higher education.

Having identified and elucidated “lookism” as a concern for female academics, its extent and sequalae in higher education may be addressed.

This is the first study to show female academics experience the triple jeopardy of gendered ageism and how they look i.e.“lookism”.

This chapter draws from research on aesthetic labour, gender, management and organisation studies and research on women's careers. We base our analysis on two empirical data sets, namely interviews with women mid-managers in Finland and Scotland, and interviews with highly positioned expert women in Finland in knowledge work. Women in different phases of their careers and life experience manifold pressures on appearances, and are increasingly aware of the demands to ‘look good and sound right’. We address how these pressures impact on women managers' and experts' well-being and career plans.

Appearance is part of a person's non-verbal communication, and looks are often associated with the perceived ‘attractiveness’ of individuals for hiring practices in the workplace. As such, physical attractiveness can be a ‘prized possession’ when it comes to leaving a positive impression on managers who are interviewing candidates. In the twenty-first century environment, our society seems to be more obsessed with physical appearance than ever before because society has conditioned us to associate beauty with other favourable characteristics. Of course, such appearance norms, regarding attractiveness, ‘good looks’ and beauty are linked to years of socialisation in culture, cultural norms and materialistic personality standards.

In a business context, managers and employers often make hiring decisions based on the appearance and attractiveness of the job applicants since outward appearance seems to play a significant role in which candidates eventually might get the job. Physically attractive job applicants and candidates tend to benefit from the unearned privilege, which often comes at a cost to others who are equally qualified. Preferring employees who are deemed to be attractive, and consequently discriminating against those who are perceived as unattractive, can present legal and ethical challenges for employers and managers. In this chapter, we provide a discussion and reflection of appearance-based hiring practices in the United States with relevant legal, ethical and practical implications for employers, human resources professionals and managers. We focus on ‘lookism’ or appearance discrimination, which is discrimination in favour of people who are physically attractive. As such, we examine federal, state and local laws regarding appearance discrimination in the American workplace. We also offer sustainable policy recommendations for employers, HR professionals and managers on how they can be fair to all candidates in order to hire, promote and retain the most qualified professionals in their departments and organisations.

This study aims to critically review the research on the phenomenon of discrimination in hospitality and tourism services to identify the key thematic areas, scenarios, antecedents and consequences; to provide theoretical propositions for future research; and to propose practical strategies to reduce discrimination and to improve equality in the field.

This paper adopts the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines to collect relevant academic work on discrimination in hospitality and tourism services from 1985 to 2020 and critically reviews and analyses the studies through bibliometric analysis, content analysis and critical analysis.

The findings show that the main sources of discrimination in hospitality and tourism services include sexism, racism, ethnocentrism, lookism and ego-altruism. Discrimination-related research has temporal and geographical variations. A research map is proposed to present existing knowledge of discrimination in hospitality and tourism services, which indicates that while the impacts (at the individual, organizational and institutional levels) of discrimination in hospitality and tourism services have been thoroughly researched, the nature and characteristics of the phenomenon remain context-based and poorly conceptualized.

An anti-discrimination guideline for hospitality and tourism practitioners is designed to cope with and eliminate discriminatory situations. This evidence-based guideline provides useful coping strategies based on the prevent–monitor–manage principle.

This paper is comprehensive in its scope, methodology and wide coverage of discrimination-related research in hospitality and tourism services. It is the first attempt to review this phenomenon in the existing literature and identifies the research gaps and future research agendas.

The article aims to provide a discussion of societal norms concerning “attractiveness,” the existence of appearance discrimination in employment, the presence of “preferring the pretty”, and then the authors examine important civil rights laws that relate to such forms of discrimination. Finally, the authors apply ethical theories to determine whether such discrimination can be seen as moral or immoral.

It is a legal paper which covers all the laws related to discrimination based on look. Court cases and Americans laws related to this concept are reviewed and critically discussed.

The paper finds that appearance‐based discrimination is not illegal in the USA so long as it does not violate civil rights laws.

This research is limited to Federal and State laws in the USA and may not be relevant in other countries as the local laws might vary.

Managers and employees can protect themselves in the workplace from illegal discriminatory practices.

Employees know their rights and enhance their understanding of laws related to appearance, attractiveness, and why companies look to hire those who are considered “handsome”, “pretty” and “beautiful”.

This is an original and comprehensive paper by the authors.

The aim of this chapter is to examine appearance-based discrimination in the workplace. Modern society is exalting beautification and good looking, which affect not merely social relations but also the process of employment. It is argued that employees who have ‘good looking’ are recruited, paid more and promoted rapidly, while those who have ‘wrong looking’ discriminated against. Therefore, the chapter explores how individuals encounter discrimination in the workplace due to their appearance during the decision-making process of employers. It emerges from the literature that discriminating based on appearance is not illegal in almost all countries. However, it is publicised by lawsuits against employers. There are several measures that need to be taken at different levels in order to forestall discriminatory practices. At the individual level, an embracing attitude should be internalised. A merit-based recruitment strategy should be adopted by employers. Finally, new anti-discrimination laws and regulations must be passed by authorities to tackle with ugly discriminatory practices.

International evidence of corporate demand for ‘aesthetic labour’ has stimulated a growing and important literature on the strategic, commercial, legal, gendered and ethical aspects of this labour process (see Spiess & Waring, 2005; Warhurst & Nickson, 2009; Warhurst et al., 2000; Waring, 2011; Witz et al., 2003). There is some evidence to suggest that the growth in ‘Diversity and Inclusion’ strategies and practices by larger firms provides a level of recognition of the need to avoid discriminatory practices based on the physical characteristics of employees whether these be overt, structural or as a result of unconscious bias. It is argued that the emergence of ‘Diversity and Inclusion’ strategies are not just in response to regulatory demands or an enlightened ‘character over characteristics’ approach to hiring, but stems from a desire to meet contemporary Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) expectations. In turn this corporate motivation is frequently driven by commercial concerns such as the need to attract and retain capital and talent.

In this chapter, the intersection of aesthetic labour, appearance-based discrimination, corporate Diversity and Inclusion strategies and CSR is explored. Through the examination of Fortune 500 ‘Diversity and Inclusion’ strategies and approaches to CSR, the intent behind the resourcing of ‘Diversity and Inclusion’ and its relationship to CSR is critically assessed. This critical assessment discloses both genuine efforts to reject unethical forms of ‘lookism’ or ‘appearance-based discrimination’ but also several contradictions. These include contradictions between the rhetoric of diversity and CSR and the continuation of aesthetic labour strategies for commercial advantage. Further, the research finds that the physical representation of ‘Diversity and Inclusion’ efforts are sometimes themselves exploited for commercial gain.