Search results

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.

Appearance has two meanings. On the one hand, appearance is about the physical qualities of a person being of certain height, weight, complexion and having a particular hair, eye and skin colour as well as choice and style of dress and attire. On the other hand, appearance has a social dimension, as those physical qualities of a person are interpreted, rated and judged, and attributed varied meanings and values across different settings. Appearances can influence the experiences of individuals in the workplace in both positive and negative ways: Positive, when they are mobilised as a resource that increases the influence and advantage of individuals on others; and negative, when individuals are discriminated or disadvantaged on the basis of their appearance. Drawing on a Bourdieusian conceptual repertoire, this chapter delves into this duality of appearance and frames appearance both as a resource (a form of carnal capital) and a source of symbolic violence. As appearance is an aspect of an individual's self-identity in the workplace, this chapter explores appearance and intersectionality across gender, ethnicity, class and sexual orientation at work. Appearance is examined as a cross cutting category of diversity as both privilege (carnal capital) and disadvantage (symbolic violence).

Today, appearance is an integral aspect of a politician's image and personality and therefore his or her brand (Budesheim & DePaola, 1994; Sanghvi & Hodges, 2015; Smith & French, 2009). While appearance is critical to political marketing, most of the research focusing on appearance in politics is experimental in nature (Lenz & Lawson, 2011; Olivola & Todorov, 2010; Todorov et al., 2005). This study investigates the importance of appearance for marketing politicians through a qualitative interpretivist framework that offers implications for theory. Moreover, this chapter offers a specific focus on the importance of appearance for female politicians.

Research shows women face greater scrutiny on their appearance (Carlin & Winfrey, 2009; Sanghvi, 2018). This chapter examines myriad of issues women in politics face based on their appearance. It also examines how women have successfully managed the issue of appearance at local, state and national levels. Thus, this study delivers a multifaceted view of the topic and facilitates the understanding of how appearance management enters into the political marketing process.

The impact of appearance on career development is well-documented. We know with some certainty that those blessed with good looks, a sense of style and a winning smile have an advantage at all stages of the job application process, and throughout their careers, with the most aesthetically pleasing being more likely to be given jobs, higher salaries and promotions (Baert & Decuypere, 2014; Toledano, 2013). What then should those who offer career advice make of this? Should career advisers, coaches, HR professionals and line managers be advising their clients and employees on how to improve their looks? At one level, the answer to this question seems obvious: if the advisers know it can make a difference, of course they should try to help their clients to look more professional or better appropriate for the role, to give them every chance of success in their chosen field. But on closer inspection, this assumption is fraught with challenges. How far should the practitioners go? How can one give advice without causing offence? And most crucially, how could this tacit support of an arguably unfair and superficial value system be justified? In this chapter, I will explore some of these issues, drawing on research conducted with career advisers, counsellors and coaches and will offer some practical guidelines for all those who might find themselves tempted to offer advice.

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.

In August, 2015, Serena Williams, one of the most successful female athletes of all time, was body shamed in a New York Times article. The incident highlights the issue of unequal treatment of male and female athletes – while a muscular frame enhances masculinity for male athletes, a muscular physique invites body shaming for female athletes. In this study, symbolic interactionist theories regarding the generalized other are called into question. While George Mead's theorizing exhibits a nonproblematic role taking of the generalized other in a cooperative manner, this study reports the presence of paradoxical generalized others, and consequently, the incongruent role taking of a latent generalized other by individuals. This study investigates if the issue of body image exists among college female athletes, if college female athletes experience the dilemma of choosing between outstanding performance with a muscular frame or maintaining traditional female appearance. To provide answers to the question, female athletes in a midwest university were invited to fill out a survey. The survey results confirm the existence of a paradox between performance and appearance among some college female athletes.

Women's bodies are abject and ‘out of place’ in organisations where (self and other) disciplining of women's bodies serve to regulate and silence women. Yet we know little about how expectations of body and appearance play out in the career decisions and everyday practices of women academic leaders. In this chapter reflexive accounts are used to explore if dress and appearance expectations have implications for women's career development and advancement, specifically in the context of business schools. The literature review and two reflexive autoethnographic accounts provided, illuminate how, through dress and appearance, the pervasiveness of hegemonic masculinity is both sustained and challenged and the potential impacts of this upon women's careers in academia.

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.