Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
LOOKS MATTER. OF course they matter. They shouldn’t. But they do. We’re always told “don’t judge a book by its cover”, but we do precisely that.
All day. Everyday.
We hoover up bits of information conveyed by someone’s height, someone’s clothing, someone’s manner. We analyse them in nano seconds. And we make decisions about them – quick as lightning. We have to.
The capacity to make decisions quickly about new people, to answer that question: “Friend or foe?” is the strand in our DNA that, in Neanderthal times, decided whether we lived or died. Or procreated.
We don’t do it consciously. But we register quite subtle bits of information about each other all the time. First impressions are the foundation for having an impact. Some of them we can control. Some of them we can’t.
Height among CEOs
Take, for example, the issue of men and height. In the US population, about 14.5% of all men are six feet or over. Among CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, that number is 58%.
The University of Florida has found that for every extra inch of height a tall worker can expect to earn an extra $789 per year. So, with two equally skilled people, the one who is six inches taller can expect a pay difference of $5,000 or so.
None of that is fair on guys who are short. It’s just the reality.
And it’s not just height. A similar bias applies to women with blonde hair. In 2010, Queensland University studied 15,000 Caucasian women and found that blondes earn 7% more than women with any other hair colour. The difference in pay remained the same even when other factors such as height, weight and education were removed.
They weren’t able explain why blonde-haired women earn more, but found no other hair colour produced similar results.
The University of Messina set out to see if physical appearance played a part during the first stage of the hiring process. They sent out more than 11,000 CVs for 1,542 roles across Italy using the same resume and changing only first-name, last-name, address, and the photo.
The overall callback rate was 30%, but the researchers found that good looking women had a callback rate of 54% and handsome men 47%.
However, recently researchers from University College London’s School of Management found that men who are blessed with traditional good looks were considered competent but were less likely to be promoted by men as they are deemed a threat to their male rivals.
First impressions
Either way, looks matter more than they should.
Unless you’re casting a model, choosing someone based on their looks is a daft and dangerous strategy. Firstly, you’re not getting the most skilled person for the role. For example the 29th US President Warren Harding, who is widely viewed as one of the worst US presidents, was chosen by Republicans because he looked ‘presidential’.
The other reason why it’s a dangerous strategy is staff morale. Once staff get a sniff of an unfair bias based on looks, or a similar irrelevancy, trust and respect is eroded.
Interestingly, some orchestras have begun to do auditions behind screens so to remove any gender bias. Similarly, Microsoft and Unilever in Mexico are testing this approach for the first three minutes of their interviews so first impressions are based only on what they hear.
Aside from having a screen at interviews what companies need to do is train their people how to interview and assess candidates objectively. From my experience of working with panels, they often don’t have a rashers what they’re doing. They don’t know what to ask, how to ask it, how to follow up, how to listen and most importantly how to assess a candidate.
This of course leads to their subjective preferences coming through. And the wrong candidate getting the job.
For candidates, there’s a piece of work too. As far as I know, you can’t make yourself taller and dying your hair blonde is pretty extreme. So what can you do?
The first is you shouldn’t have a photo on your CV. Unless you’re specifically asked for one, or are going for that modelling job, don’t bother. It’s irrelevant, and gives the recruiter an excuse to disqualify you.
Secondly, you should turn up appropriately turned out for the job you’re going for.
Think about it. You probably wouldn’t turn up for a job in a bank in a pair of Crocs and a high-vis, nor would you turn up for a job in Top Shop dressed like you’re going for a job as an accountant.
The rule of thumb on clothes is simple. Don’t wear anything that’s louder than you are. Your competence should be louder than your clothes. That’s it. That’s all. Don’t wear something so self-expressive, that it sidelines you.
Most importantly however is that, whether you’re George Clooney or Gollum, you need to be completely prepared for the interview. Understand the role that you’re applying for, know the company that you’re applying to, anticipate the questions and have relevant specific achievements, examples and evidence to back up your case.
Practice it out loud and get comfortable saying it. And make it absolutely, and objectively clear that you’re the best person for job.
Failing that, dye your hair and wear heels.
Eoghan McDermott is a Director of The Communications Clinic and is Head of Training and Careers there. He is author of The Career Doctor. @EoghanMcDermott.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Qualifications get you an interview not a job. To get beyond an interview you need confidence. Generally, taller men and blonde women, or attractive people, exude more confidence. That personality trait sells far better than a shy yet qualified personality.
But according to the article, that’s not fair… as a chubby bloke under 6ft, I’d disagree.
It’s worth connecting that while 58% of CEOs are over 6ft and if tall people sell confidence, a tall person is more likely to suit a leadership position. It’s not to say that someone under 6ft, like myself, can’t be a CEO, but statistically, it’s less likely, because I’m less likely to exude the style of confidence which others will follow.
It’s no more unfair than a better salesman getting a better bonus.
There are comments below which remind of the types of people who don’t want kids to win medals and want all the kids to get participation trophies, because it’s fairer – we’re not all created even and the world’s not even, and those people…. I can’t even.
Having never met you before they have to judge your ability fit in and do the job on something. Confidence because of your appearance would come across as confidence to fit in and do the job. That’s all they want to see.
No degrees… No experience…. No brain…. Big t*ts….. Your hired…..!
*you’re (basic grammar also helps)
You’re (basic grammar also helps)
Went for a job interview before and sitting across from me was a really pretty girl. 2 men doing the interviewing. Knew before it started i wasnt getting the job. Same thing happened in my next interview. Only 2 interviews i had where i didnt get the job.
If you go into an interview assuming you won’t get it then you most definitely won’t get it. The odds may have been stacked against you but you could have sold yourself positively during the ibterview. Yiu didn’t!
I dunno. I’ve got at least 2 offers that I didn’t expect…
The odds weren’t stacked ….
…. But I bet the girls were.
(I’ll get me coat).
The content of this post is mostly taken/stolen from the book Blink by Malcolm Gladwell.
Did you find the author too unattractive to reference?
That’s evolution…. People equate looks with health. Peoples looks have a direct effect on tangible leadership qualities their confidence, presence, likability, ability to influence.
>The capacity to make decisions quickly about new people, to answer that question: “Friend or foe?” is the strand in our DNA that, in Neanderthal times, decided whether we lived or died. Or procreated.
Beauty standards have changed drastically over the centuries, and I’m sure that back in Neanderthal times, what determined whether or not you procreated was your usefulness to provide labour, and your fertility. It seems extremely unlikely that a modern concept of beauty (considering that reproduced images telling us what to look like weren’t mass produced until the last 150 or so years) would have driven whether or not a person would find a mate.
The beauty industry is staggeringly huge, and it doesn’t seem to be a coincidence that the the judging of one’s ability to do a job well sky-rocketed when women first entered the workforce (you needed another way to subjugate women after all, and it’s still happening now, the number of atricles I see deriding female politicials over their looks is outrageous), and is happening again now to both men and women (although women still hold the title in being discriminated against at work based on their looks and gender) becaus the beauty industry has realised that we have more disposable income to throw at it.
Some of the advice here is good, but is very specific to Ireland, such as not including your photo in your CV. I work in Germany and didn’t realise that here, it’s extremely uncommon and red-flag raising to NOT include a photo of yourself on your CV. Got an interview and then the job, but I have the feeling that it was an English post-doc telling my boss that it wasn’t unusual for an Irish person to leave out their photo.
Also, as a little tidbit of my personal opinion of the article, I resent that the majority of the article seems to be speaking to women only rather than both men and women. I’m not surprised because it’s typically women who are judged on their looks in industry, but I would have expected alittle bit more from someone whose job is advising people about careers. You dress smartly and look clean and professional, and let your experience and qualifications talk for you. Let’s try to change the system rather than feed into it by giving out the sound advice to:
>dye your hair and wear heels.
Sorry but a good chunk of it was about males,their height and the percentage of CEO’s of Fortune 500 companies which were over 6 foot,methinks you were looking to be offended.
Your general point is correct. However, just to be a bit pedantic, Neanderthals were not our predecessors. Cro-Magnons were around before, during and after Neanderthal times. ..
He talks about the percentage of CEOs of Fortune 500 companies and says over half are at least 6foot tall, which is another story in its own right. It’s just assumed that naturally all CEOs are men, which isn’t even that wrong because today men STILL make up the majority of CEOs.
Inequality begins with the face
Never mind height and hair colour, what about hiring of someone who is quite obese and/or generally looks unhealthy, surely that’s more important?
Computer programmers? They have to sit all day. The only things moving are the fingers and their brain.
If places were more worker friendly they would have perks that would increase activity levels and increase moral instead of pressure pressure pressure that end up with workers being overwhelmed / overworked and snacking on cans of Coke to keep them going.
So.
Blondes are smarter than people think.
Interesting.
Bill gates, zuckerberg, Page and Brin, Richard Branson, Warren Buffet, Carlos Slim … All under 6′, all quite successful.
All self made, no interviews.
That was in relation to the paragraph about CEOs heights. Quite simply it doesn’t matter to the quality of CEO.
The vast majority of CEO’s are hired through interview.
A very successful leader in a very large multi national organisation here that runs the whole EMEA operation is actually quite a small guy and he leads a very large team. Maybe, statistically speaking, the amounts of CEO’s that are larger are because generally there are more taller people with that experience.. Ya know like that saying always going “statistically you are more likely to die in a car crash than a plane crash”… There are a lot more cars on the road than planes in the sky so it’s an unequal comparison? So Maybe the the amounts of tall guys that apply for the CEO outweigh the number of short guys.
All goodlooking too, Alien8.
Unfortunately, the whole premise of this article is wrong. A simple search will show that last impressions matter more. First impressions are important in eating, fighting and mating. For any judgment that needs to engage thought, not the limbic system, it’s the final impression that’s weighted.
Not true. Plenty of studies out there demonstrate that first impressions are very difficult to change
True. Sorry. Do a bit of research first. As I said, first impressions only matter in certain situations.
Dressing casual didn’t do Richard Branson any harm, did it?
He never had to go for an interview either
And age, being over weight and facial hair?
I think it shows we don’t really want “equality” as much as we think.
Looks and appearance aren’t everything – a strong CV showing relevant experience will get you in the door. After that it’s up to you to convince them. I’ve been offered 3 senior level positions after doing interviews in motorbike gear – albeit with a decent shirt underneath. To be fair, I made sure the recruitment agency forewarned them that I would be dressed significantly less formally than the other candidates.
My CV is fine, it gets me in the door, I dress nice (not over done) but what lets me down is I’m an introvert.
I’m happy being an introvert, but companies want extroverts…. Being an introvert means I focus on my work rather than chatting but still companies love extroverts.
That’s because people like extroverts. We like to spend our working days with outgoing likeable people. It’s natural.
Okay Swagman but if you’re on the hospital table for brain surgery, do you care if the surgeon is goodlooking or not?
have your say