AT WORK, as in life, attractive women get a lot of the breaks. Studies have shown that they are more likely to be promoted than their plain-Jane colleagues. Because people tend to project positive traits onto them, such as sensitivity and poise, they may also be at an advantage in job interviews. The only downside to hotness is having to fend off ghastly male colleagues; or so many people think. But research by two Israelis suggests otherwise. Bradley Ruffle at Ben-Gurion University and Ze'ev Shtudiner at Ariel University Centre looked at what happens when job hunters include photos with their curricula vitae, as is the norm in much of Europe and Asia. The pair sent fictional applications to over 2,500 real-life vacancies. For each job, they sent two very similar résumés, one with a photo, one without. Subjects had previously been graded for their attractiveness.

For men, the results were as expected. Hunks were more likely to be called for an interview if they included a photo. Ugly men were better off not including one. However, for women this was reversed. Attractive females were less likely to be offered an interview if they included a mugshot. When applying directly to a company (rather than through an agency) an attractive woman would need to send out 11 CVs on average before getting an interview; an equally qualified plain one just seven. At first, Mr Ruffle considered what he calls the “dumb-blonde hypothesis”—that people assume beautiful women to be stupid. However, the photos had also been rated on how intelligent people thought each subject looked; there was no correlation between perceived intellect and pulchritude. So the cause of the discrimination must lie elsewhere. Human resources departments tend to be staffed mostly by women. Indeed, in the Israeli study, 93% of those tasked with selecting whom to invite for an interview were female. The researchers' unavoidable—and unpalatable— conclusion is that old-fashioned jealousy led the women to discriminate against pretty candidates. So should attractive women simply attach photos that make them look dowdy? No. Better, says Mr Ruffle, to discourage the practice of including a photo altogether. Companies might even consider the anonymous model used in the Belgian public sector, where CVs do not even include the candidate's name.

economist.com/node/21551535

Saw this interesting piece and I thot to share. I know the practice of attaching pictures to a CV is alien in these parts but I'm curious as to the disposition of our local HR staff. Does a guys chances of scaling an interview improve simply cos he's a "hunk" and should an attractive girl be afraid (as in VERY AFRAID) simply cos she's prettier than most? Do you female interviewers sometimes feel threatened by the looks of a potential employee? (honesty would be appreciated). Do looks matter at all or is it always about what's upstairs - Assuming it's not a banks marketing job sha, uhm well.

Here are a few comments I got off the page

la-di-da 20:35
Well that article was interesting to be sure, though as many pointed out, it was a small sample size. I am loathe to say it but based on my experience, I can say that I am considered a very attractive woman judging by extensive male response over the years, and I have been consistently treated pretty shabbily by mainly women, and rarely, if ever, by a man. Let me clarify that I have a successful career and am no ones fool and do have many friendships with women for decades. It doesn't matter how intelligent, personable, kind, hardworking, focused or fair, or even how new a work relationship is, I have always had to deal with petty bitchy jealous women. The idea that women won't interview other women who are attractive sounds pretty accurate to me.

Another said

Seems the only time hotness and intellegence aren't mutually exclusive is on TV/in movies. In real life they usually are. Would you trust a CEO who constantly flips her hair, shows excessive cleavage and wears 4" heels? Only in movies! In real life the hot ones are better off met in bars, not at the work place. That way you don't have to be all awkward when running into them the day after. There's that old saying, "Don't sh*t where you eat".

Ouch!

The article seems to focus on women.

From my experience, and mostly in real life, overly attractive women are seldom taken seriously in the workplace. Conversely, attractive men are respected and deferred to. The Tall and Handsome fellow is more likely to get the fast track positions and promotions than the short, bald, and overweight fellow

^ Even if the short, bald and overweight fellow is more intelligent than the cute tall one?

wesley80: ^ Even if the short, bald and overweight fellow is more intelligent than the cute tall one?

Intelligence is not very relevant in the corporate world. What's relevant is wits and cunning, to a large extent, if you want to get ahead.

I don't know about cutting-edge research institutions, which obviously should require very brilliant people, but regular everyday jobs do not require an Einstein. For unattractive people, the best option for them would be to go for specialist roles. As in doctor, engineer, scientist, teacher, etc.

If you're good-looking, a sharp dresser, an extrovert, and well-spoken, the possibility is strong that you would be perceived as a natural leader, and liked by most. Management included. If you top that by being slightly above average with your work competence, the sky is your limit

AjanleKoko:

Intelligence is not very relevant in the corporate world. What's relevant is wits and cunning, to a large extent, if you want to get ahead.

I don't know about cutting-edge research institutions, which obviously should require very brilliant people, but regular everyday jobs do not require an Einstein. For unattractive people, the best option for them would be to go for specialist roles. As in doctor, engineer, scientist, teacher, etc.

If you're good-looking, a sharp dresser, an extrovert, and well-spoken, the possibility is strong that you would be perceived as a natural leader, and liked by most. Management included. If you top that by being slightly above average with your work competence, the sky is your limit

word!!!

AjanleKoko:

Intelligence is not very relevant in the corporate world. What's relevant is wits and cunning, to a large extent, if you want to get ahead.

I don't know about cutting-edge research institutions, which obviously should require very brilliant people, but regular everyday jobs do not require an Einstein. For unattractive people, the best option for them would be to go for specialist roles. As in doctor, engineer, scientist, teacher, etc.

If you're good-looking, a sharp dresser, an extrovert, and well-spoken, the possibility is strong that you would be perceived as a natural leader, and liked by most. Management included. If you top that by being slightly above average with your work competence, the sky is your limit

I guess that corroborates the Male - side of the research to a large extent but the interesting part is that of Females where the opposite seems to hold true, the prettier you are it is assumed the less likely you are to get employed thru an interview with female panelists and this is being put down to "female insecurity"! How much of a role does something as ridiculous as 'Jealousy' play in an interview?

yelsew80:

I guess that corroborates the Male - side of the research to a large extent but the interesting part is that of Females where the opposite seems to hold true, the prettier you are it is assumed the less likely you are to get employed thru an interview with female panelists and this is being put down to "female insecurity"! How much of a role does something as ridiculous as 'Jealousy' play in an interview?

Well . . . I have heard of a situation, bizzare as it may sound, where female interviewers vowed not to employ anyone better-looking than themselves

The problem with women may also be a function of cultural difference. In Nigeria, if you're all dressed up in tight sexy clothing, fully made-up, with your Brazilian weave to boot, it's probably going to count against you in most interviews.
That kind of dressing in another environment might be termed as classy, and would be a plus for the woman in question, as far as perception goes.