Managing Equality & Diversity at Work - Literature review Example

Managing equality & diversity at work Name University Course Lecturer According to O'Brien (2008), Lookism is a terminology commonly used when referring to any helpful stereotypes, prejudice, and favored treatment accorded to any individual who is physically attractive, or more usually to individuals who have appearances which are compatible with cultural preferences. The judgmental terminology body fascism is alternatively aplicable as a synonym to the term lookism and Warren (2005) has suggested the terminology genetic celebrity as a description of the adoration of the attractive. Physical attractiveness is linked with several good aspects, which include being a beautiful princess; contrary, physical unattractiveness can be linked with various negative aspects, which might comprise of any wicked witch. Usually, individuals make unconscious conclusions of others on the basis of their physical appearance that would be influencing how they would be responding to those individuals. According to Eagly et al. (1991), those individuals who are physically attractive are perceived to be benefiting from their appealing looks: any physically appealing individual is believed more positively and attractive physical appearance has a strong effect on the judgment of an individual’s competence. Consequently, physically attractive individuals benefit from these stereotypical perceptions. Rhodes et al. (2005) reports that various researches portray that generally, physically attractive persons have more allies, improved social skills, and extra active sex lifestyles. Hamermesh (2011) reports that the physically “attractive” American employees earn averagely $230,000 more than the ordinary very plain-looking employees. Though, attractiveness doesn’t have any impact on the degree of happiness experienced by the person. Shepherd (2010) recommends that men are supposed to be fitting into the “matrix of intelligibility” through their particular manner of dressing, dressing a particular manner, and have an attitude that is lacks emotion or everything effeminate; if they become effective to become the eventual “man’s men” thus they become virtually untouchable. But, some individuals have recommended that there is only an obvious interest in analyzing the masculinity in this political scope, it would be difficult to bring about an unswerving analysis of femininity in this unchanged sphere. In the year 2010, Cassandra Smith was requested to go to the Rose-ville, Michigan Hooters office so that she could give a review of her two year. Her directors did praise her “quality in . . . whenever she dealt with the customers’ grievances and customers’ contentment.” Then and there, two ladies from company headquarters did break the news that Smith did have thirty days to have improvement on her shirts and short size so as to meet the Hooters principles. Distressed and confused, Smith did file suit against the Hooters Company, alleging to be discriminated as per the Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act of Michigan. These rights prohibit any act of discrimination on the grounds of weight. To her surprise, Hooters Company responded by asserting that it did matter what the girls in the Hooters Company looked like in Michigan (Legal Pub , 2010) Consequently, according to Mlive (2010) this gives rise to the following question: Why is it that the Hooters Company allowed to have liberty on what their employees had to look like in Michigan? The Federal and state statutes inhibit the Hooters Company from having a decision that they have a preference of all their staff to be Blacks or Asians or to be under the age of forty. A research exhibited that for any interviewer, physical appearance is the single most essential aspect in the employee’s selection for almost all job vacancies. Hitherto, in most of job vacancies, physical appearance, like the previous pin-pointed aspects, doesn’t have any impact on the definite job function. For instance, firemen could climb ladders and hoist individuals out of a burning building irrespective of whether they have the yearly calendars of the firefighters. Only a few cities and states have acknowledged this issue and forbid discrimination on the basis of physical appearance (Santa, 2001). In its defense, Hooters Company asserted that physical attractiveness is an undeniably essential aspect for any of its waitresses and that the restaurant was to be an exception to the Michigan law. Most of the antidiscrimination acts comprise of the defenses that would be allowing employers to have assertions that in their specific situations the discrimination in contention is both essential and suitable. Whether “plus-sex” companies like Hooters have to be capable of asserting such defenses remain a contentious issue. These companies chiefly vend foods, clothing, or services, but the usage of the images of the “sexy” employees in distinguishing themselves. The main outstanding query in the research of physical discrimination is if any other businesses that apply the physical appearance of an employee as essential marketing equipment has to be allowed to have attractive employees being recruited since physical appearance is undeniably essential for their staff (Miller, 2010). Several physical qualities sum up to form what is referred to as “appearance.” These qualities comprise of both the mutable and immutable characteristics, comprising of height, weight, symmetry of the features, sizes of any feature, styles of dressing, and grooming. Though some arguments have been put across to the contrary, previous studies exhibit that fundamental appearance preferences have remained comparatively continual over the years since human beings perceive the greatest beauty in symmetry (Gumin, 2012). In a survey of interviewers, conducted by Gumin (2012), appearance did emerge as the single most essential aspect in employees’ selection for quite a number of jobs. This has remained valid even whenever the performance of a particular job doesn’t have any clear linkage with physical appearance or attractiveness. For instance, whenever an employer is hiring truck drivers, a position that is definitely not related to the physical appearance, research subjected constantly selected the “average-looking and the attractive” candidates over the physically unattractive candidates. Researches also indicate that the attractive people usually earn much more money during their lifetime and are usually handled with more leniencies by their super-visors. An emphasis on physical appearance and disrespect for the genuine qualifications might contribute to the incompetence in the relevant workforce. Gumin (2012) argues that instead of concentrating on an individual’s intellectual qualities and deeds, any employer who hires on the basis of positive characteristics they relate with the physical attractive appearance are less probably to employ the suitable candidate. Moreover, an emphasis on the physical appearance might amount to more inevitable stress and illness for less physically attractive staffs who will be constantly struggling to match up. Beauty inarguably is playing a crucial role in our community, and though beauty is intuitively “in the eye of the beholder,” there exists collective objective standards of what individuals usually find to be more attractive. As an illustration to this, John (2006) asserts that we can have a consideration of the presidential debate that had been held between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon whereby most of the radio listeners perceived that Nixon was dominant, while the TV viewers perceived that the more attractive John F. Kennedy was the more dominant. Similarly, considering the fact that the more beautiful Tennis player: Anna Kournikova, had so far to win a most important singles championship. However, she was received substantially more consideration and commendations than the most of the highly ranked players, in spite of fact that the highest rank she had ever attained was 37th. This proves that physical attractiveness actually matter, in almost all environments including the employment sectors. Heather (2008) reports that 20/20 did carry out a study whereby two ladies who possessed virtually similar resumes and characters did apply for the same job vacancy. Not amazingly, the interviewers seemed to be friendlier to the lady who appeared to more physically attractive and did extend the job offer to her; while, the less attractive lady interviewee didn’t even receive a return phone call. Barro (1998) also goes further to explain this phenomenon from an economical viewpoint that the solitary significant measure of productivity is the quantity an employee adds to the clients’ contentment and to the cheerfulness of co-workers. He also believes that the first impression of the interviewee to the interviewing panel matters a lot. This is because through the physical appearance, the interviewers can have a perception of whether the applicant has the required qualities of productivity and intelligence. He is also suggesting that the difference between the physical appearance discrimination, physical appearance in modeling, and physical appearance in acting/ film industries as a comparison to other industries is less weakened than it appears since the role of physical appearance is usually very significant, since it just differs in degree depending on the character in the film or play. Finally, Barro (1998) makes a conclusion that irrespective of what degree of essence physical appearance plays in a particular occupation, such decisions needs to be left to out for the discretion of the employers, and not to the government. Also in the same article, an economist Michael backs this phenomenon by use of physical attractiveness as a suitable hiring criterion. Stephanie (2005) contends that the aspect of looking attractive on the work is an insubstantial asset that could be essential, like the sharp technology abilities or the capability of becoming a team player could give particular employees an edge. Physical appearance is particularly essential in works whereby workers are both dealing with the public face-to-face and are having an impact on the quantity of business the employers attract. Most of the jobs that are meeting this description might be in the service industry; though, she clarifies that employers are expected to also take other crucial aspects into consideration, like the applicants’ character and other job experiences. Heather (2008) reports that most of the employers, like in the industries of airlines, usually use the physical attractiveness as a very fundamental aspect whenever they are considering the in hiring of their Air Hostesses; though, this style is catching on and majority of retailers, amongst other employers, are constantly using the physical attractiveness of their employees in portraying a positive image and appealing to their clients. For instance, some companies are currently hiring and promoting their employees on the basis of their physical appearance could be perceived to be a productive business resolution. Some companies are currently openly hiring their employees on the basis of their physical appearance, and have their sales representatives as their “brand representatives,” and this isn’t only much effective in most of the retail sector, but perceived for having physically attractive staff. Furthermore, though Harvard economics professor, Barro (1998), asserts that the more physically attractive staffs shouldn’t automatically be earning much more salaries, he holds that the hiring and promotion on the grounds of physical appearance could be just as essential of the qualifications as other esteemed characteristics, like the personal as intelligence. Correspondingly, bosses usually support this by use of physical appearance as an aspect in the hiring and promoting beauty for having a direct impact on the profitability of the respective companies. Additionally, the market analysts are agreeing that the employees’ physical appearance directly reflects on the products and the brands’ image, therefore it is a brilliant business resolution and marketing ploy to hire employees on the basis of their physical appearance. Consequently, according to Heather (2008), as companies’ charm with physical appearances continue to boom and individuals remain to make judgments based on the outside looks, the worry regarding the discrimination on the basis of physical keeps on increasing, even if discrimination on the grounds of physical looks in and of itself isn’t perceived to be unlawful. As a result of this, since courts don’t at present give physical appearance discrimination protected status, claimants try to associate physical appearance to the at present protected classes. Gumin (2012) asserts that the slippery slope argument is applicable in another manner to the physical appearance discrimination. By allowing the bosses to get out of the sanctions for their physical appearance-grounded hiring, firing, and promotion resolutions makes these bosses to be more probable to have discrimination on other much more customary basis like race and sex (Hannah, 2005). Facially neutral appearance principles, just like those which could be acceptable as per the D.C. statute, might camouflage illegitimate discriminatory intentions connected to any class that is at present acknowledged and protected from the malice of discrimination. This issue is predominantly disturbing with respect to the developing scope of sexual orientation discrimination Dale (2001). Naturally, appearance standards are reinforcing the customary male and female sex persons. This allows the employers to proclaim that these guidelines are just mere validations for an exemption to anti-discrimination decrees leading to both physical appearance discrimination, and the concealed discrimination contrary to much more ancient secured classes. However, according to Gumin (2012) some critics debate that wider latitude for any operating business is essential for the preservation of the employers’ rights in determining their business models. These critics point to the customary American esteem for the market economy and her elevation of the self-sufficiency of businesses. Companies, they assert, need to be capable of directing their personal image whenever they hire their employees that would be promoting their companies through their physical appearance. The resolutions projected by these thinkers would let bosses to have some tangible arguments that their customer favorite for physical attractiveness is so widespread that devoid of the capability to have discrimination against the physically unattractive individuals, they could be incapable of functioning. Though, clients’ preference has received rejection as the grounds for boss exemption by law courts and the EEOC, since it might give bosses room to propagate the very disunions and any stereotype which antidiscrimination statutes had been indorsed to fight. Requirements permitting wide latitude to bosses on the basis this dispute would necessarily abolish acts that try to forbid physical appearance discrimination since clients who are used to a certain way of operation usually mandate discrimination. Portion of the objective of antidiscrimination acts is moving the society in a much more alike course and letting exemptions whenever such changes make clients not contented could challenge this resolution. According to Rosenberg (2009), when some researchers had interrogated a group of recruiting but had difference in height, 72 % of the recruiters selected the more tall candidates. Finally, bosses believe that the height of employees has impact on the professional progress. Height affects the self-esteem (How people respect themselves) and social esteem (how people are respected by other people), which consequently have significant effect on the definite job performance, apparent job performance, and, eventually, proficient accomplishment. According to Julian and Herman (1986) it is rarely a concurrence that 58 % of the Fortune 500 CEOs are six feet or taller (in comparison with approximately 14.5 % of all gentlemen) and 30 % are 6’2” or taller (in comparison with 3.9 % of all gentlemen). Data is also suggesting that any extra inch in height is accompanying by a 1.8% to 2.2 % rise in wages—or approximately $789 for every increase in inch, annually. Also, the tallest 25 % of the people pockets a 13 % increase in average income as opposed to the shortest 25 %. Sandberg E & Melissa C (2005) report that one business professional has recommended that an extra four inches in an employee’s height “brings about much more variance in terms of achievement in one’s business profession than as compared with just any paper qualification an individual might be possessing” and that this would be appropriate to be “5 feet, 10 feet and the graduates of N.Y.U.’s business schools than 5 feet, 6 feet and the Harvard Business School graduates. A different commentator made a conclusion that “shortness is likely as much, or more, of being a handicap to the company achievement like being a woman or an African American. Dennis et al, (2004 assert that the aesthetic labor is whereby employees are hired by a firm due to their physical appearance or accent, so that they would help promote the image of the firm. Hospitality and retail firms deem aesthetics skills to be of paramount importance. Boutique, inns, any designer retailer and style cafe, bar and restaurant hires employees who have an accent that is appealing and also physically attractive. The United Kingdom Hospitality Training Foundation (HtF) researched into which type of skills in an employee, were perceived to be very essential to the managers in the Hospitality firms, the results were as follows: Source: HtF(2000) Dennis et al, (2004) argues that aesthetic components of labor comprise of language, dress code, shapes and sizes of body, fashion and style, are intentionally manufactured to please the clients. The authors, during their research, established that 83 % of the employers valued dressing sense/styles, 78% voice/accents and 70% physical appearance. Fig 2. Image and aesthetic labor proxies (%) Erotic capital is an example of social value liked by individuals or groups, due to their sexual attractiveness. According to Catherine (2010), erotic capital isn’t only essential in mating and marriage markets, but is also influential in the labor market, media industries, politics, advertisements, sports and acting industries. A woman has got more erotic capita than a man because she constantly works on improving it. Erotic capital is therefore a mixture of aesthetic, visual, bodily, social, and sexy attraction to other people of one’s environment, and particularly to the individuals of the opposite gender, in any social context. Since women have more erotic capital than men, they are used in advertising brands, customer cares, News anchoring etc. Hamermesh and Biddle (1994), report that the plain individuals have lesser earnings than medium-looking individuals, who have lesser earnings than good-looking ladies and gentlemen. The beauty premiums were ranging from 1% to a peak of 13% (for ladies), whereas the penalty for an ordinary look was ranging from 1% to 10 Bosses in different organizations have perception that lookism has a significant effect in the performance of the employee. Whenever a company is looking forward to hiring staff who would be attending the clients on face-to-face basis, they would look for physically attractive individuals. It is also perceived that the physically tall people are more brilliant and have more self-esteem than the short employees. This would eventually make the relatively taller individuals to be doing better in their jobs than the shorter people. Consequently, tall individuals are likely to be promoted in most companies and are highly paid since they are perceived to be influential in their job. Reference List Barro, J 1998, So You Want to Hire the Beautiful. Well, Why Not?, Bus. Week, Mar. 16, Catherine, H 2010, Erotic Capital, http://www.catherinehakim.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/ESR-Erotic-Capital-Oct-2010.pdf> Dale C,(2001) Expressive Association and Antidiscrimi-nation Law After Dale: A Tripartite Approach, 85 minn. l. rev. 1515, 1533 O'Brien, J 2008, Encyclopedia of Gender and Society, Volume 1. SAGE Dale, C 2001, Expressive Association and Antidiscrimi-nation Law After Dale: A Tripartite Approach, 85 minn. l. rev. 1515, 1533 Eagly, Alice; Ashmore & Richard, 1991. "What is beautiful is good". Psychological Bulletin 110: 109–128. Farrell &Warren, 2005, Why Men Earn More: The Startling Truth About the Pay Gap -- And What Women Can Do About It. AMACOM, ISBN 0814472109 p. 193 Gumin, M 2012, Ugly on the Inside: An Argument for a Narrow Interpretation of Employer Defenses to Appearance Discrimination, available at http://www.minnesotalawreview.org/articles/note-ugly-inside-argument-narrow-interpretation-employer-defenses-appearance-discrimination/ Hamermesh, D 2011, Beauty Pays: Why Attractive People are More Successful. Princeton University Press, p. 47 Hamermesh, D; and Biddle, J. 1994, “Beauty and the labor market.” American Economic Review, 84, 1174–1194. Hannah, F 2005, Looks Sell, but Are They Worth the Cost?: How Tolerating Looks-Based Discrimination Leads to Intolerable Discrimina-tion, 83 WASH. U. L.Q. 1295, 1305–06. Heather, R 2008, “If You Are Attractive and You Know It, Please Apply: Appearance-Based Discrimination and Employers' Discretion”, Valparaiso University Law Review , Art 6, pp.629-674 Julian, V & Herman, c1986, The Psychology of Height: An Empirical Review, in 3 Physical appearance, stigma, and social behavior: the ontario symposium 113, 122 John, S 2006, Lookism: The Ugly Truth About Beauty, http://abcnews.go.com/ 2020/story?id=123853&page=1 Legal, P 2010, Is Cassie Smith’s Hooter’s Uniform Size an Exception to Michigan El-liot-Larsen Civil Rights Act or Is Cassie Simply Already Fun Size? Available at http://legalpublication.blogspot.com/2010/05/is-cassie -smiths-hooters-uniform-size.html Miller, C 2010, Weight Discrimination Case Involving Hooters’ Waitresses Allowed, findlaw knowledge base, available at http://knowledgebase.findlaw .com/kb/2010/Oct/173209.html Mlive, 2010, Michigan Law Opened Door to Hooters Lawsuits http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2010/06/michigan_ law_opened_door_to_ho.html. Rhodes & Gillian, 2005, "Attractiveness and Sexual Behavior: Does Attractiveness Enhance Mating Success?". Evolution and Human Behavior 26: 186–201. Rosenberg, B 2009, Height discrimination in employment, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Santa, C 2001, Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act, available at http:// www.codepublishing.com/CA/SantaCruz/html/santacruz09/santacruz0983.html; D.C. CODE § 2-1402.11. Sandberg, E & Melissa, C 2005, Assessment of Psychosocial Aspects of Short Stature, 21 growth, genetics & hormones 17, 19 Shepherd, J 2010, Sex or Gender? Bodies in World Politics and Why Gender Matters. New York: Routledge. Stephanie, A 2005, Your Appearance, Good or Bad, Can Affect Size of Your Paycheck Growing Research Shows How You Look is Influential While Lawsuits Raise Awareness, USA TODAY, July 20, 2005, available at http://www.usatoday.com/educate/college/business/articles/20050724.htm. Read More