Introduction
Lookism is viewed as a form of discrimination in the workplace. Discrimination is often seen as a violation of major ethical codes in the workplace. The issue of lookism or hiring on the basis of a person’s appearance is not expressly criminalized by any law. Firms and their management are required to take action that will further their interest and maximize their chances of meeting their corporate goals and objectives. Hence, if the management of a company believe that it will be appropriate and desirable to promote workers on the basis of how they look, rather than what their performances are, there is no basis in law that normally criminalizes it. Lookism is often seen as unjust and unfair in many ways and forms.
The purpose of this essay is to critically analyze the concept of lookism within the context of justice in the workplace and how they intervene with laws against discrimination in the workplace. In order to conduct this analysis, the following objectives will be explored:
A critical analysis of lookism in the workplace;
A rationalization of perspectives on why lookism might be acceptable and why it is undertaken;
A review of the legal position of lookism in the workplace to ascertain whether it is negative or not.
Lookism in the Workplace
Lookism is defined as the “construction of a standard for beauty and attractiveness, and judgments made about people on the basis of how well or poorly they meet the standard.”. This is a basic system whereby workplace benefits and other employment practices are judged on the basis of the physical appearance of a given person.
Lookism is also viewed as the willful and intentional discrimination at the workplace whereby the physical appearance of a person is made an important part of the decision to hire or promote a person in the workplace. This includes various variables including the facial appearance of a person, the height, weight and other physical features that defines the personality of a person. This goes to describe the system through which people are deliberately sidelined if they do not meet the subjective expressions and/or expectations of the management and HR professionals of a given organization.
The broader context of lookism comes with the features and elements of a given person and this includes the enhancement and circumstances that define the appearance of a person and this includes the kind of dressing, the sexual orientation which defines appearance and class of a person. This therefore defines a range of personality attributes that influences the way a person appears and is perceived by the outside world and this influences the personality of people from time to time and influence HR practices and reactions to people in the workplace.
Lookism is demarcated as part of the broader constructs of discrimination and how it leads people into doing things and carrying out actions that are not in sync with the mainstream processes and standards meant to objectively nurture and enhance the talents and skills of people. This is because the system of promotion and hiring is viewed as something that should be based on meritocracy on the basis of Max Weber’s rational/legal approach to hiring, firing and promotions in the workplace. Thus, the institution of practices that are similar to lookism creates a framework whereby people are favored over others on the basis of attributes that are not steeped in the laws and regulations of an organization and as such, leads to major problems and issues in the workplace which is detrimental in society.
Lookism is prevalent in the workplace of the United States and around the world because most people believe that appearances count and whether a business will succeed or fail is due in part to the looks and appearance of its workers in some crucial positions. This is because there is evidence that attractive people are treated better and are given more care in society in general terms than people are not considered attractive. This suggests a kind of subconscious mindset about people and how they should be treated. Selectivity is general and this general trend of selectivity grows and people tend to prefer to treat others with care and sensitivity if they have good looks.
On the other hand, physical appearances are major tools of stigmatization and some people are seen to be more suited for certain roles than others. This is because appearances seem to give people some kind of projection which is affected by the way they are brought up and socialized. This creates a negative situation whereby people are kept in the same position or preferred for certain positions whilst others are given elevated status through no form of objective evaluation.
Thus, it is rather common to see beautiful women placed in positions of sales and front-line jobs in order to get customers to build some kind of sympathetic attraction and connection to the firm. Also, statistics show that certain people expect people of certain roles and certain genders to have specific features and looks in order to be desirable for specific roles. Thus, it is imperative and natural for firms to grow and thrive in directions that will allow them to admit people with such looks to specific positions and roles.
Why Lookism is Justified in the Workplace
There are many reasons why employers might believe that lookism is normal and justified. This has been studied extensively and there have been many submissions and views on how they occur and why they occur in actual life and in actual circumstances.
First of all, there is an economic justification for lookism that is put forward by many perpetrators of the act. This is because there is always some kind of sensitivity that consumers have towards specific roles and specific individuals in those roles. People are likely to be less critical and less radical if they are faced with women in negotiations. They are likely to be more cooperative and more conciliatory as opposed to adversarial in such encounters and in such circumstance.
The same economic justification is presented on the premise that if a manager is justified to hire younger people rather than older people for entry-level jobs, then there is no point in condemning front-desk staff members who are more attractive because such individuals are meant to give the firm its image and provide some degree of connection to the outside world.
Diversity management is an important part of every organization. It is unjust to have an organization which makes no effort to integrate minorities into its workforce. And this includes people who might look unattractive. This is because they all form part of the wider community and the need to undertake diversity management is essential because it allows the society to thrive and promotes a healthy mix of people from different backgrounds to ensure that a strong society is built.
Another worldview also argues that the hiring of people is not restricted to skills. This is because in every market a company operates within, there are formal and informal variables that come together to define the terrain of competition. This is because there are many things in society that are social and there are others that are economic. If hiring and promotion is based solely on how people work, then there would be no point in preventing immigrants from taking the best jobs. If it was only about money, then immigrants from the poorest countries who are willing to take up a job for a fraction of what is paid to a citizen should take the job. However, here are considerations outside financial matters and a strict adherence to views on economic benefits. These are bent to reflect social realities. As such, it is simplistic to declare that the rights of people to be promoted on the basis of how they work and exclude how people look.
Also, it can be argued that hiring is always based on competitiveness of applications. People gain advantages on the basis of they have. This includes advantages like the ability to speak a foreign language or the ability to type fast in various administrative roles although this might not even be relevant to the actual job. Thus, if these extra advantages can be quantified and integrated into hiring practices and promotions, then looks can also be relevant. This is because it is rather childish to assert that looks do not matter. They do matter. Sometimes, they matter in terms of attracting people and giving them a motivation to come up and do certain things. At other times, it matters because it gives some degree of assurance to consumers and members of the outside world. Therefore, it is important and imperative for looks to be taken seriously and where necessary, integrated as a vital part and vital aspect of the hiring and career progression process.
Is Lookism Negative?
Lookism is viewed by many people as an unfair and unrealistic system of promotion. It can be said that people do not choose their parents and if we cannot determine our parents, we cannot determine how we will appear or look. Therefore, it is unfair in all forms and standards to demand that people adhere to a certain level of appearance and looks standards before they are going to be admitted into a given position in the workplace. Therefore, lookism is something that is problematic and leads to major challenges in ensuring the proper utilization of a firm’s resources.
Secondly, the utilization of lookism promotes subjectivity in the workplace. This is because there is no objective standard of beauty. Beauty is based on what people think or perceive at a given point in time and in a given generation. Therefore, if we are to use beauty as a standard, it means that beauty is going to lead to different interpretations that will lead to conflicts which will cause the very meaning of employment and payment of higher salaries to workers to be defeated. This is because when a manager can subjectively define the criteria for what is beautiful, it creates major problems and issues that could cause problems.
Thirdly, lookism leads to conflict. This is because different managers and different people will have various perceptions and preferences for looks. Whilst some male managers will prefer beautiful and attractive females to occupy lower jobs, female managers might see that as a challenge to their position and a threat to the company. This is because they might prefer strong and able males whilst they think or believe that females who are not well trained and hardworking are likely to be spoilt persons who might know nothing but just a desire to be pampered and spoilt. Therefore, the subjectivity of hiring and promotion on the basis of looks always leads to conflicts and issues that could have major implications.
Fourthly, when lookism is seen as a central pointer for promotion and management, it leads to a feeling and a problem of transient values. This is because people might want to do things that are superficial and will not be motivated to work hard. This is because no matter how hard a person who is ugly might work, s/he knows that there will be no promotion available for effort. Thus, people are going to be discouraged and this is going to lead to major problems and issues that will have implications for the company’s performance and growth.
Fifthly, lookism sparks a negative and destructive conflict. Cosmetics and various cosmetic surgeries are seen as the means through which people can enhance and improve their looks in many ways and forms. Thus, if looks are put at the center-stage for promotion and career development, this is going to spark a race that will cause people to invest more and more money into their looks and appearances in order to seek to impress. Such processes might cause major waste of money and resources and this will not encourage development and growth of the society or the economy. Social values will change and they will be focused on actions and processes that will be different and might not bring any kind of benefits to people in society.
Furthermore, it is identified that lookism has a long-term negative effect on the economic wellbeing of a company. This is because human capital is a tool of competitive advantage in businesses. Therefore, a firm will have to seek to develop and promote the best kind of workers who can work and pursue the long-term goals of the company. If lookism is placed as the main criteria for promotion, only weak workers are going to be promoted and most of them might not be too willing or able to work to meet the long-term orientation of the company. Therefore, in the long-term, the company might not be able to meet its growth and survival objectives. This will lead to major problems and issues that could cause serious consequences and could even bankrupt a company.
Legal view of Lookism
Legally, there are no direct laws that bans lookism. It will be illegal to employ a person only because of his or her looks when that person has no qualifications or abilities. However, when two people are of the same qualifications and have the same potential but one appears to be more attractive than the other, there is the possibility of choosing the most attractive applicant over the non-attractive one. This is because it is discretionary and a company will be able to continue to use that strategy.
Corporate governance laws require companies to set up a system through which there could be a transparent means of examining and reviewing workers in order to ensure that the most desirable and the most deserving workers are promoted whilst the less desirable and the less competent ones are not promoted. This is something that must be instituted and must be demonstrated clearly. This should also be monitored by an internal audit team that has the ability to review the processes and systems of promotion. There must be a system through which the best can be assessed objectively and if directors fail to institute such systems, they are deemed to have breached a fiduciary system and process.
Legally, an employee must have the right to air an internal grievance. If an employee is able to prove that he has done more work and has more competency than another worker who has been promoted in his stead, that employee should be able to present a protest to an internal party. This could be an internal audit team that reports to the board of directors. Such notifications can be part of the accountability process to ensure that the board of directors work to seek the company’s best interest rather than their subjective desires and expectations of these directors.
Furthermore, apart from internal claims, a worker who might be aggrieved by lookism can take the company on in a civil case. This can be done by going to court and starting a litigation and seeking some kind of redress. Such processes can lead to awards and also set precedents for other managers and directors to follow in the future.
There are no criminal laws that might hold directors or managers accountable for carrying out lookism. This is not like racial discrimination that is punishable by law and can attract various forms of penalties. It is a purely civil matter that is handled in the domain of private law where there are tort damages allowed to aggrieved workers.
Conclusion
Lookism is a major form of discrimination. It is widely justified in various ways and forms including the claim that it is done for the economic interest of the company and includes the rationalization of the use of discrimination for the best interest of the company. It is also justified because it is not criminalized like other form of discrimination like racial discrimination. Hence, it is very popular. Furthermore, it is seen that there are some kinds of people that consumers will feel more comfortable to deal with in certain positions. Therefore, it is in order to put people in the right fit in certain specific positions to seek the best interest of the company.
However, there are some social problems and issues that come with lookism. It does not encourage hard work and it discourages the commitment to a company. It promotes destructive competition and discourage unattractive workers who seek to work hard. The downside is that it also leads to major financial problems that could ultimately culminate in the collapse of a firm. There is no criminal law against lookism. However, an aggrieved worker can appeal to various authorities within the company or go to court and seek a civil lawsuit in cases where lookism can be proven. This will often lead to corrective action or compensation to aggrieved workers.
References
Armstrong, M. (2012). Strategic Human Resource Management. London: Kogan Page.
Armstrong, M., & Taylor, S. (2012). Armstrong's Handbook of Human Resource Management Practice. London: Kogan Page.
Badie, B., Berg-Schlosser, D., & Morlino, L. (2013). International Encyclopedia of Political Science. Thousand Oakes, CA: SAGE Publications.
Bratton, J., & Gold, J. (2015). Human Resource Management: Theory and Practice. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Carroll, A., & Buchholtz, A. (2014). Business and Society: Ethics, Sustainability, and Stakeholder Management. Mason, OH: Cengage.
Claretha, H. (2015). Impact of Diversity on Organization and Career Development. New York: IGI Press.
Davoudi, E., & Fartash, K. (2012). Integrating human resource management with firm’s strategy: A key concept to achieve firm’s superior performance. A Journal of Economics and Management, Vol.1, no. 2.
Deitch, E. A., Barsky, A., Butz, R. M., Chan, A. P., & Bradley, J. C. (2003). Subtle yetvsignificant: the existence and impact of everyday racial discrimination in the workplace. Human Relations 56, no. 11: , 1299-1324.
Greenberg, J., & Baron, R. A. (2003). Behavior in organizations: understanding and managing the human side of work. Upper Saddle, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Harnois, C. E. (2015). Age and Gender Discrimination: Intersecting Inequalities across the Lifecourse. Advances in Gender Research, Volume 20, 89-105.
Heery, E., & Noon, M. (2012). A Dictionary of Human Resource Management. New York: Oxford University Press.
Jackson, S., Schuler, R., & Werner, S. (2011). Managing Human Resources. Mason, OH: Cengage.
Musso, F. (2015). Handbook of Research on Retailer-Consumer Relationship Development. New York: IGI Publications.
Price, A. (2014). Human Resource Management. Mason, OH: Cengage.
Ver Eecke, W. (2013). Ethical Reflections on the Financial Crisis 2007/2008. New York: Springer.
