Beauty Bias in Hiring

 
 
 

Vocabulary

 

perks	average	good-looking
earn	plain (2)	intelligence
fend off	downside	colleagues
attach	research	characteristic
hire	charisma	reverse (2)
charm	advantage	suggest otherwise
include	hunt (2)	curricula vitae
norm	fictitious	application (2)
pair	real live	conclusion
resume	identical	virtually (2)
least	attractive	qualifications
rate	physical	in terms of
expect	previous	interview (2)
ugly	applicant
equal	vacancy	subject (4)
offer	perceive	hypothesis
dumb	suggest	assumption
reason	promote	incompetent
baffle	intelligent	correlation
task	staff (2)	discrimination
invite	selection	human resources
jealous	handsome	old-fashioned
pretty	candidate	do away with
likely	consider	anonymous

 
 
 
 

Good Looks

In the office, as in life, good-looking people get lots of perks. Studies have shown that, all else being equal, attractive employees are more likely to be promoted and out-earn than their plainer-looking colleagues.

It seems that the only downside of being very beautiful for women is having to fend off the advances of male colleagues.

Because society tends to attach positive characteristics (such as charm and charisma) onto the attractive, they must naturally have an advantage in getting hired as well.

Or so you may think: research by two Israelis suggests otherwise.
 

The Experiment

Bradley Ruffle at Ben-Gurion University and Ze’ev Shtudiner at Ariel University Centre looked at what happens when job hunters include photos with their résumé, as is the norm in much of Europe and Asia.

The pair sent fictitious applications to over 2,500 real-live companies that had posted vacancies. For each position, the stated qualifications were virtually identical. The only difference was that some included an “attractive” photo, while other photos were “unattractive” (the pictures of the “applicants” had previously been rated for their physical attractiveness by random viewers). A third set had none.
 

The Results

For men, the results were as expected: the researchers received more callbacks for an interview for résumés with “handsome” photos than those with no photos. The “ugly” pictures got the least.

However, for women this trend was reversed: applications with pretty photos were less likely to be offered an interview than equally qualified ones with plain photos (beautiful women needed to send out 11 résumés on average before getting an interview versus seven for the non-beautiful), with non-attached résumés falling in between.
 

Explanations

At first, the team was baffled. Mr. Ruffle then reasoned that it was probably due to the “dumb-blonde hypothesis” (the assumption that beautiful women are less focused and incompetent).

However, the photos had also been rated on how smart people thought each subject looked; there was no correlation between perceived intelligence and looks.

So the cause of the beauty bias must lie somewhere else.
 

Human Resources

Upon closer examination, the researchers think they found an explanation. Human resources departments tend to be staffed mostly by women. Indeed, 93% of those tasked with the initial screening of résumés, and selecting those to invite for an interview, or pass on to the appropriate manager were female.

The researchers’ conclusion is that old-fashioned jealousy led company women to discriminate against beautiful candidates.

Mr. Ruffle suggests that pretty women not include of photo of themselves on résumés. Or better yet, the practice should be done away with altogether. Companies might even consider the anonymous model used in the Belgian public sector, where résumés do not even include the candidate’s name.

 

*     *     *     *     *     *     *

 

Questions

Human Sources. On average, physically attractive men and women are more successful in life than their less attractive counterparts. True or false?

Management. Both handsome men and beautiful women have an edge (advantage) in being hired by a company. Is this correct or incorrect?

Floor Operations, Logistics. How did the researchers set up or conduct their experiment?

Procurement/Purchasing. Were they surprised by the results? What was the outcome?

Sales. What was Mr. Ruffle’s initial reaction or reasoning? Was it correct?

Marketing and Advertising. The researchers found a plausible explanation. Is this right or wrong? What was their explanation?

Legal Department. Does he offer any advice or suggestions?

 

Customer Support. In your company or organization, does it seem like beautiful people are more “successful”?

IT (Information Technology). Do you think there are biases in hiring new employees and promotion?

Janitorial, Custodial, Maintenance Services. How would you describe your human resources department?

Administration. Is this fair? What should companies do?

Quality Assurance. What will happen in the future?