Beautyism in the Workplace - Essay Example

Beautyism in the Workplace Definition of beautyism Beautyism is a discriminative phenomenon or culture of hiring people based on their level of their attractiveness (Malos, 2007). Human resource departments consider beautiful people for job posts and disregard the unattractive lot instead of considering confidence, education and experience during the time of hiring. Physically attractive candidates secure job employment opportunities without minimum qualifications for the job position. Human resource managers ignore the beauty of the mind of a prospective candidate and base their judgment based on what they can see. Beautyism is unjust process, and it may potentially damage the reputation of the organization and reduce the chances of an organization working out a relevant strategy to defend its share in the market. Thousands of workers get hired in different organizations on an annual basis based on their level of physical attraction. The phenomenon thrives on the assumption that the physical appeal of a candidate supersedes knowledge, value and anything personable. It has become a socially accepted behavior that now defines subsequent human resource department processes such as performance appraisal and promotions. Potential Discriminatory Effects of Beautyism on Hiring In Workplace Beautyism reduces the job opportunities for certain individuals in the workplace (Gilliland, Steiner & Skarlicki, 2007). The hiring standards are based on the physical attraction of a person other than the qualifications they have for the job. Consequently, the diversity of the workplace becomes upset because the hiring process is limits the pool of the prospective candidates who might have qualified for the job. Individuals who are physically attractive enjoy more job prospects because they are assumed to be intelligent and successful at the expense of the unattractive lot. A person loses out on a job because he or she did not impress the hiring managers. The process becomes the highest order of injustice. Beautyism results to gender-based discrimination in the workplace. There are departments that prefer a particular gender to assume roles and responsibilities (York, Tyler, Tyler & Gugel, 2008). For example, public relations, marketing and reception departments base their prospective candidacy on physical attractive. The departments prefer female candidates over male because the female lot is presentable to the clientele than the male. Employment chances of the male applications become subject sex and physical attractiveness. The male lot becomes rejected, and the hiring manager may not need to provide any evidence or compliance to the law that confronts the injustice. Gender stereotyping can occur due to beautyism in the workplace. The unequal burden in the workplace flourishes where the hiring managers associate the physical appearance of a person with specific attributes or characteristics based on gender. There are managers who will expect female candidates to wear makeup or mini-skirts to increase their chances of getting hired and eventually retaining their jobs. An employer who believes in beautyism or physical attractiveness of a person is the determinant of a person may find himself trying to compel female or male candidates to stick to the appearance code of employment. Candidates who defy the call end up conflicting with the managers. The prospects of promotion for unattractive persons are low. The candidates could be hired for a job, but they end up becoming subject of unjust treatment especially after performance appraisal. The intelligence and work-ability of the unattractive persons are shunned when performance appraisal is one if it is conducted by a manager who believes in beautyism. The unattractive may have little control over their intelligence, but it necessitates to give them credit if they have achieved goals and objectives set for the by their managers. The persons soon lose their motivation and morale, and it may influence productivity of the organization negatively. The remuneration packages could be based on the level of attractiveness of a person. Attractive employees continue getting better benefits in the workplace when they get hired but at the expense of the less attractive workforce. The employees become top candidates for evaluation performances and get considered for management training and promotion. Promotion and training increase their overall experience, and it attracts a higher salary than the low attractive working lot (Cash, 2012). Discrimination based on salary and job benefits results to wrangles and low job satisfaction for employees who feel left out because they are not appealing in the eyes of their employer. Assessment of Chairs Behavior from the Human Resource Perspective The Chair chose to overlook a highly qualified candidate and consider the candidate who met him personally. He is convinced that the person who met him in person and made an impression based on the physical attractiveness had the knowledge and experience to assume the job position in question. He did not consider hiring the candidate who would save the college of administration training cost. Candidates with relevant skills for the job require training and induction that enables them to learn the tactics of their job under a new job environment. Additionally, he did not consider stipulating the skills under job description of the administrator and the knowledge base of the candidate. The chair also disregarded evaluating the information of the candidates who had applied. Every applicant is entitled to an assessment from the prospective employer. It is a top requirement that the human resource manager screens every candidate and determines the best candidate for the job. Though hiring process varies from one organization to another, it is risky to hire a physically attractive employee who does not have the definite qualifications because he or she ends up producing low results. His criterion for hiring a prospective employee is faulty. The department members are surprised by his decision to acquire the lesser qualified person. He forgets that a good selection process involves evaluating and selecting competent candidates. The prospective employees must have necessary skills, experiences and education in order to complete their set tasks without hassle. The high qualified candidate has the potential for growth and brings new ideas to the college. His criterion is bureaucratic in nature because he does not consider the opinion of the other managers within the human resource department. The managers would have assessed the candidate from another perspective and possibly suggest whether to hire them or not (Gilliland, Steiner & Skarlicki, 2007). The candidates should also have gone through a test to reassure the college that the candidate chosen indeed had the necessary skills and experience to work on the job position of an administrative assistant. The Chair hiring process is characterized by favoritism of one candidate at the expense of the other. The favoritism is based on physical attributes of the candidate other than relevant qualifications for the job. It might set animosity between the workers who feel that the selection process was not fair and just. The situation reduces the possibility of human resource prospects of the Chair receiving any approval by the members of the college. Recommendation for the Hiring Committee The committee can file a complaint or a lawsuit to challenge the decision of the chair though there are no real laws that govern beautyism. The law provisions under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibit managers from making any form of job decision that results to discrimination (Law.cornell.edu, 2014). The college can challenge the Chair in court to overturn his decision to hire a less qualified candidate and acquire the high qualified candidate with relevant skills for the administrative assistant. The committee can use the high qualified applicant to launch the discrimination complaint and get a chance for an interview or screening process. The committee must be ready to prove before the court that the Chairs selection process has violated the recruitment policy of the College of Business Administration. Physical attractiveness of a candidate is a stereotype, and it disregards one lot of employees from another. Chair should be ready to face the law stipulated law protecting the rights of federal applicants. Degree and Reasons Why Attractive Job Candidates May Be Given Unfair Considerations during Hiring Process The attractive candidate should not put a dent on the company’s financial status. The process of hiring new candidates requires the human resource department to set aside a budget. The job post in question must be advertised, and applications verified by a hiring committee. Conducting interviews take up a good budget besides considering a kitty for training and inducting the employees. The hiring team has the authority to hire an attractive candidate if they do not costs the company any monies. They may lack the technical skills for the job or the personality to work in the advertised post and fulfill their duties accordingly (Malos, 2007). Attractive candidates should get unfair consideration if the policy of the organization is open. Hiring policies restrict the hiring committee from using their authority when selecting candidates. Any fault in the process may be challenged by law in the event the applicants feel discriminated by the process (Malos, 2007. However, the hiring committee can give a fair chance to every candidate even without necessary skills and qualifications. There are job positions that call for physical traits of a person besides the experience, and they include receptionists, public relations roles and related posts where the physical impression increases prospects for business. Hiring managers end up hiring the most attractive candidate and train them for the job. Physical appearances tell a lot of attributes about a job candidate. Confidence and composure are skills that can never be taught in school yet they contribute a great deal in the delivery of services. A candidate may not possess the skills that may be stipulated as a requirement for a particular job post, but academic qualification should not always be the only factors to be considered. Other vital factors that determine how effective a potential employee can become (Jawahar & Mattsson, 2005). Relational skills, communication skills and most importantly presentation skills also contribute immensely in the service delivery. Presentations skills help create a good company image especially in posts whose job description entails linking the business with external entities. For such a role, the need to be able to communicate eloquently and coherently would far outweigh any academic qualifications, or skills attained. In such instances, it is acceptable to narrow more on the character and social skills of the individual as compared to their intellectual achievement. Academic progress should not be completely sidelined, only that they should come second when in such cases. In most cases, the most qualified candidates are also the most presentable. However in some rare instances, the most qualified may not always be the most ideal. References Cash, T. (2012). Encyclopedia of body image and human appearance. London: Elsevier. Gilliland, S., Steiner, D., & Skarlicki, D. (2007). Managing social and ethical issues in organizations. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Pub. Jawahar, I., & Mattsson, J. (2005). Sexism and Beautyism Effects in Selection as a Function of Self-Monitoring Level of Decision Maker. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 90(3), 563-573. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.3.563 Law.cornell.edu,. (2014). Employment discrimination. Retrieved 15 November 2014, from http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/employment_discrimination Malos, S. (2007). Appearance-based Sex Discrimination and Stereotyping in the Workplace: Whose Conduct Should We Regulate?. Employ Respons Rights J, 19(2), 95-111. doi:10.1007/s10672-007-9037-z York, K., Tyler, C., Tyler, J., & Gugel, P. (2008). The Ever-Changing Face of Sex Stereotyping and Sex Discrimination in the Workplace. Journal Of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 15(2), 123-134. doi:10.1177/1548051808321692 Read More