One’s own physical attractiveness plays a crucial part in career success. PHOTO | FILE
Adults possess abilities to recall strong memories from childhood. We store positive, neutral, and negative recollections. A smell in the air, noticing a particular shade of colour, or hearing a song from our youth can conjure up thoughts and remind us of a time long ago, a person since departed, or a treasured success or disappointing failure.
Particular strong memories exist for many grown-ups
about the moment or moments when as a young person they either realised
that other people viewed them favourably or unfavourably based on their
physical appearance as compared to others.
Now as a working professional, ever wonder why a
colleague received a promotion over you while you in reality performed
better? Ever pondered why a workplace welfare committee visited one
sick employee in the hospital but not others?
Here in Kenya, we often assume that questionable
office promotions or workplace bias held corrupt roots, family or tribal
ties, or inappropriate relational reasons. But in reality, one’s own
physical attractiveness plays a crucial part in career success.
Most people do not desire to live in a world
whereby our uncontrollable physical characteristics hold enormous sway
over our personal attainment. We endeavour to form societies with
rewards based on merits and one’s skill levels.
However, people uniformly bias against each other subconsciously and at times consciously on the basis of physical appearance.
Inasmuch, while society may hope that modern human
intellectual thought should dispel arbitrary decision-criteria formed
from meaningless inputs, unfortunately, human interactions exist as more
primordial than you might have realised.
Unfortunately, research by Alexander Todorov and
his team in 2015 showed that humans do not make decisions based on
rationality or probability of likely causes and their corresponding
effects through deliberate mental processing.
Ever wonder how we psychologically choose elected political leaders? By now you might have accurately guessed it.
John Antonakis and Olaf Dalgas found in 2009 that
children with no knowledge of politics or parental choices can just as
accurately predict political winners in elections based solely on facial
photos of candidates.
Children pick attractive faces centred on both
their society’s views on attractiveness communicated down to even the
youngest children as well as biological preference for fair,
symmetrical, a proportioned faces.
Nathan Bowling and a team of international
researchers found statistically significant affects that workers tend to
offer social support to each other on the basis physical
attractiveness.
Further disturbing studies also show that investors
prefer to put their money in startup firms led by young attractive men
and teachers rate good looking children as more likely to perform well
than average looking pupils.
Even worse, Chiu, Babcock, Ahearne, Marlowe,
Jarvis, Olsen and dozens of other researchers regularly conduct in-depth
studies that delineate how attractive people receive far more
promotions, income, good performance reviews, and interview success than
average looking individuals.
Most men erroneously think that the negative bias on attractiveness only affects women employees. However, men also suffer significant bias from women as well as other men.
Most men erroneously think that the negative bias on attractiveness only affects women employees. However, men also suffer significant bias from women as well as other men.
The
effect is not a primitive medial prefrontal cortex sexual-based
preference on opposite gender colleagues, but deeper platonic non-sexual
mental processes on both genders by both genders.
The brain becomes more active when we see someone’s face that we view as attractive.
Researcher Knut Kampe studies the biochemical
reactions in the brain that occur when perceptions of prettiness in
faces. Subconsciously, we equate physical attraction to good leadership,
suitability, and competence even though attractiveness holds no
correlation with actual abilities.
Why? Evolutionarily we psychologically find beauty or handsomeness to mean someone possesses health, strength, and vigour.
What makes for an attractive face? Multitudes of
research uncovered three main attributes. First, the fairness of a face
whereby it remains free from any blemishes and displays tight skin
pores.
Second, facial symmetry proves critical in facial
beauty bias. Third, higher facial-width-to-height ratio is a key facial
feature of high performing CEOs whereby boards of directors retained
executives with the attribute.
So, if one side of your face looks different than
the other side of your face, or you have larger facial skin pores, or
your face is narrow or quite wide, you will face arbitrary bias in the
workplace for the rest of your life.
As Kenya, an already highly educated society,
becomes more and more educated with each generation, the illogical
effect will not go away.
Ran Hassin and Yaacov Trope sadly uncovered in
their research that the irrational bias towards equating physical
attractiveness to someone’s good character exists even in the most
educated societies in the world.
So what do we do to promote our own career and
abilities on the subconscious level to our bosses and coworkers?
Thankfully, overall attractiveness encompasses more than just physical
looks.
Attractiveness also incorporates a pleasant personality, humour, perceptions on caring abilities, etc.
But physical attraction does play a pivotal role.
So play off of your other strengths and display the positive
characteristics that make colleagues want to spend time around you.
Go out of your way with organisation citizenship
behaviours by putting in extra effort and helping out even when you are
not asked to do so. Act in a pleasant and cheerful manner. Utilise
humour to diffuse workplace drama.
These additional attractiveness traits will enhance
other people’s perceptions of attractiveness about you even though you
cannot control your facial features.
Managers on the other hand, become aware of why you prefer to promote or work with a specific employee. Write down their qualities. See if their actual abilities and accomplishments can stand on their own.
Managers on the other hand, become aware of why you prefer to promote or work with a specific employee. Write down their qualities. See if their actual abilities and accomplishments can stand on their own.
Educate yourself on your own psychological biases and realise
that those you might psychologically prefer to work with might not
actually give you the workplace results that you desire.
Share your history of unfair bias treatment in your
workplaces with other Business Daily readers through #KenyaFairness on
Twitter.
Professor Scott serves as the director of the
New Economy Venture Accelerator (NEVA) and Chair of the Faculty Council
at USIU-A, www.ScottProfessor.com, and may be reached on:
info@scottprofessor.com or follow on Twitter: @ScottProfessor.
In next week’s edition of Business Talk, we
explore “Empathy in the Workplace”. Read current and prior Business Talk
articles on the Business Daily’s website and
http://www.usiu.ac.ke/on-campus/blog .
No comments:
Post a Comment