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.

The formal and informal regulation of employees' appearance is a routine component of organizational life. In our research, we analyze appearance-related employment discrimination lawsuits. These cases involve organizational dress codes, grooming policies, and employers' attempts to regulate employees' appearance with regard to weight, hairstyles, religious attire, body art, and more. Men and women who refuse to comply with appearance norms face termination of their employment, promotion denials, lower wages, transfers, not being hired in the first place, and other workplace sanctions. Our focus on court deliberations and decisions allows us to explore not only the gendered nature of appearance policies themselves but also how the legal system supports, reinforces, codifies, or, conversely, deems unacceptable such policies. Our data demonstrate that organizations and courts are likely to support appearance norms that reinforce traditional ideas about femininity and masculinity.

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.

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.

This chapter investigates the issue of tattoos and examines whether the presence of visible tattoos still influences front line workers' employment chances. It finds that irrespective of a general societal shift towards greater tattoo acceptance and integration into modern society, negative stereotypes about tattoos still exist. Acceptance of tattoos in the workplace was dependent on the nature, size and location of the tattoo, as well as the occupation in question, and individual customer characteristics. Respondents were generally more accepting of tattoos on people nowadays. However, there was concern that employees with visible tattoos may still face stigma in the workplace. The findings revealed that most people will cover up a tattoo during an interview out of fear of negative discrimination by the interviewer.