The Beauty Premium
Faunya Estrada
So how complicit are we in all this? Do we naturally prefer to be served by good-looking salespeople or be led by attractive politicians? Do we naturally gravitate towards the most attractive and charming people in the office? Is it just simple common sense that those who work harder on their appearance, fitness and social skills should be rewarded accordingly?
Exploiting Beauty in the Workplace
12:35 PM Friday September 2, 2011
Catherine Hakim, a professor of sociology at the London School of Economics, has shattered the last great taboo of the workplace: professional women should use their "erotic capital" — beauty, sex appeal, charm, dress sense, liveliness, and fitness — to get ahead at work.
And rather than believing old notions that beauty has only a trivial, superficial value, women should change the way they use the "beauty premium" and not be ashamed of using it to get ahead.
Professor Hakim, an expert on women's employment and theories of female position in society, isn't the only one talking about this. In the upcoming issue of HBR, our Synthesis column dives into Hakim's new book, and two others on the topic, to understand what this concept means for managers.
Hakim argues that while we have no problem exploiting our other advantages — money (economic capital), intelligence and education (human capital), and contacts (social capital), women especially still shirk from using erotic capital.
Why should that be? Women, she says, are more charming, more graceful in social interaction, and have more social intelligence than men, but they don't exploit those advantages. Men, on the other hand, have no compunction about using every asset to get ahead in their careers and have no embarrassment about reaping the benefits. Hakim says women feel shy, embarrassed, and ambivalent about admitting that they trade on their looks, and for good reason given the prevailing attitudes: "Women who parade their beauty or sexuality," Ms Hakim writes, "are belittled as stupid, lacking in intellect, and other 'meaningful' social attributes."
Yet, according to Hakim, the ''beauty premium'' is an important economic factor in our careers, citing a US survey that found good-looking lawyers earn between 10 and 12 per cent more than dowdier colleagues. Moreover, she says, an attractive person is more likely to land a job in the first place, and then be promoted.
"Meritocracies are supposed to champion intelligence, qualifications, and experience. But physical and social attractiveness deliver substantial benefits in all social interaction — making a person more persuasive, able to secure the co-operation of colleagues, attract customers and sell products," she writes in a column for a London newspaper.
Controversially, Hakim argues that the financial returns of attractiveness now equal the returns of qualifications, with many young women now believing that beauty is just as important as education. And while she offers up Christine Lagarde, managing director of the IMF as an exemplar of a woman who exploits her intelligence, qualifications, and erotic capital, she also champions Katie Price, a British media personality and former model who has built a successful career on her looks, an aspirational figure.
Here in the UK, Hakim's views are received with wry humour, with one columnist going so far as to say that her book should be read out to young girls as part of the national curriculum. In France, Hakim's ideas are seen as little more than common sense. The reception when the book debuts in the US is likely to be quite different. An early interview in Slate exposes Hakim's bracing opinions on discrimination, obesity, and the harsh realities of life. And a recent article in the New York Times points out that while being good looking has its obvious advantages, there is another
side to the story, one of ugly prejudice and unspoken discrimination against the less physically attractive or socially competent. This can translate into real economic disadvantage, the author says, citing one study that showed that an American worker assessed as being in the bottom one-seventh in looks, earns on average 10 to 15 per cent less per annum than a worker in the top third.
So how complicit are we in all this? Do we naturally prefer to be served by good-looking salespeople or be led by attractive politicians? Do we naturally gravitate towards the most attractive and charming people in the office? Is it just simple common sense that those who work harder on their appearance, fitness and social skills should be rewarded accordingly?
In my experience, there is a more complex picture at play than Hakim presents. I have worked on newspapers where women have played the "sex card" to spectacularly successful effect in their careers, but I have also worked in other offices where flaunting sex appeal would have meant instant career death. I have come across male managers who have been shamelessly charming and sexually obvious, while others have been branded as pathetic "himbos." And I have watched as women have consciously downgraded their looks and appearances, while their male have consulted image experts or have undergone facelifts and hair transplants.
My view is that the beauty premium is quite culturally specific: what works in one country, company, or culture doesn't always transfer to another. But I think the basic premise is right: if people can invest in education, training, qualifications and work experience, why can they also not invest in themselves? In Europe, especially France, Italy and Spain, it is accepted for men and women to pay attention to their that attractiveness, self-presentation, and grooming, and this is highly valued. One of the most delightful companies I have ever worked for was a luxury goods group where everyone, without exception, was well-groomed, charming and flirtatious.
What is wrong with making the most of ourselves to get ahead at work and in life? Surely watching our weight, going to the gym, getting a good haircut and honing our social skills are obviously a good thing? What do you think? Is exploiting erotic capital in the workplace a good idea or a retrograde step? I am sure we will have a lively debate!
--
- Theodore Roosevelt
People might not get all they work for in this world, but they must certainly work for all they get.
- Frederick Douglass
Angella Middleton
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Life Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to life...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to life_talk+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/life_talk?hl=en.
Frankela Albury
I agree that those more attractive or well groomed definitely has an advantage over those less so. Do I agree with This practice, no but I do understand. People tend to gravitate towards things & people who sell themselves (in every aspect well) it gives an employers a sense of comfortability. When You were younger or at least me & same I see with my daughters they tend to friend girls who are similar in looks style & attitude closely related to their own.
In my own company I've heard people at certain levels in the company talk about those They interview age & looks comes up first then education. I've seen it first hand. "She's older graduated from college in the seventies, she's a bit cubby. Anyway she didn't answer a major question on our math test correctly" the girl who was hired did answer that question right but not as much experience as the other lady. She's young thin pretty Great straight black hair. Fits in with the look of our company. Sad but true.
> Interesting.
>
> I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, yes, I do prefer to be
> serviced by people who put more effort into their physical appearance. I
> don't like sloppyness. Even if you're not conventionally "pretty" or
> "handsome", a reasonable effort at being well-groomed and presentably
> dressed goes a long way for me. Since this is a part of my own internal
> standard, I would probably appreciate being recognized to some degree for my
> own efforts at being physically presentable. But, it's a two-edge sword.
> If I were up for a job against someone else and all other qualifications
> were equal, I wouldn't mind being given a few extra points for appearance.
> However, I certainly wouldn't be happy if I was NOT chosen because the other
> candidate was more attractive.
>
> Lastly, I have been in situations when I felt I was chosen for a position or
> responsibility based more on my physical and social attractiveness and less
> on my skill, knowledge and abilities - and I didn't like that feeling, at
> all. I'd like to think that most people feel similarly - that while
> compliments to physical appearance are almost always flattering, we want to
> be chosen based on what we can do, not on how we look doing it.
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Faunya Estrada <faunya....@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Someone just posted an article on the Women's group page at my job. I
>> thought it was very interesting and wanted to share it and see what others
>> thought. The basic premise of the article is this:
>>
>> survey that found good-looking lawyers earn between 10 and 12 per cent more
>> than dowdier colleagues. Moreover, she says, an attractive person is more
>> are supposed to champion intelligence, qualifications, and experience. But
>> physical and social attractiveness deliver substantial benefits in all
>> social interaction — making a person more persuasive, able to secure the
>> co-operation of colleagues, attract customers and sell products." .....And a
>> * points out that while being good looking has its obvious advantages,
>> there is another side to the story, one of ugly prejudice and unspoken
>> discrimination against the less physically attractive or socially competent.
>> This can translate into real economic disadvantage, the author says, citing
>> one study that showed that an American worker assessed as being in the
>> bottom one-seventh in looks, earns on average 10 to 15 per cent less per
>>
>> *So how complicit are we in all this? Do we naturally prefer to be served
>> by good-looking salespeople or be led by attractive politicians? Do we
>> naturally gravitate towards the most attractive and charming people in the
>> office? Is it just simple common sense that those who work harder on their
>>
>> Catherine Hakim, a professor of sociology at the London School of
>> Economics, has shattered the last great taboo of the workplace: professional
>> women should use their "erotic capital" — beauty, sex appeal, charm, dress
>> sense, liveliness, and fitness — to get ahead at work.
>>
>> And rather than believing old notions that beauty has only a trivial,
>> superficial value, women should change the way they use the "beauty premium"
>> and not be ashamed of using it to get ahead.
>>
>> Professor Hakim, an expert on women's employment and theories of female
>> position in society, isn't the only one talking about this. In the upcoming
>> and two others on the topic, to understand what this concept means for
>> managers.
>>
>> Hakim argues that while we have no problem exploiting our other advantages
>> — money (economic capital), intelligence and education (human capital), and
>> contacts (social capital), women especially still shirk from using erotic
>> capital.
>>
>> Why should that be? Women, she says, are more charming, more graceful in
>> social interaction, and have more social intelligence than men, but they
>> don't exploit those advantages. Men, on the other hand, have no compunction
>> about using every asset to get ahead in their careers and have no
>> embarrassment about reaping the benefits. Hakim says women feel shy,
>> embarrassed, and ambivalent about admitting that they trade on their looks,
>> and for good reason given the prevailing attitudes: "Women who parade their
>> beauty or sexuality," Ms Hakim writes, "are belittled as stupid, lacking in
>> intellect, and other 'meaningful' social attributes."
>>
>> Yet, according to Hakim, the ''beauty premium'' is an important economic
>> factor in our careers, citing a US survey that found good-looking lawyers
>> earn between 10 and 12 per cent more than dowdier colleagues. Moreover, she
>> says, an attractive person is more likely to land a job in the first place,
>> and then be promoted.
>>
>> "Meritocracies are supposed to champion intelligence, qualifications, and
>> experience. But physical and social attractiveness deliver substantial
>> benefits in all social interaction — making a person more persuasive, able
>> to secure the co-operation of colleagues, attract customers and sell
>> .
>>
>> Controversially, Hakim argues that the financial returns of attractiveness
>> now equal the returns of qualifications, with many young women now believing
>> that beauty is just as important as education. And while she offers up Christine
>> director of the IMF as an exemplar of a woman who exploits her intelligence,
>> a British media personality and former model who has built a successful
>> career on her looks, an aspirational figure.
>>
>> Here in the UK, Hakim's views are received with wry humour, with one
>> columnist going so far as to say that her book should be read out to young
>> In France, Hakim's ideas are seen as little more than common sense. The
>> reception when the book debuts in the US is likely to be quite different. An
>> Hakim's bracing opinions on discrimination, obesity, and the harsh realities
>> - Theodore Roosevelt*
>>
>> *--
>> People might not get all they work for in this world, but they must
>> certainly work for all they get.
