Page 319 - Discrimination at Work The Psychological and Organizational Bases

DIPBOYE
286
physical appearance may be one of the few attributes on which decision
makers agree. The importance of appearance in determining appraisals
and promotions was demonstrated by Nykodym and Simonetti (1987) in
a survey of managers from Fortune 500 companies. Personal appearance
was ranked eighth in importance for surviving and succeeding in orga­
nizations, below items such as excellent performance record, personality,
communication skills, technical skills, human relations skills, work expe­
rience, and ability to stay cool, but above items such as your health and
energy, ability to judge people, power, a sponsor, an MBA degree, willing­
ness to relocate, high identity organizational activities, and working long
days.
Consistent with survey results, field studies have also have shown a
small to moderate bias in appraisals and promotions against unattrac­
tive employees (Bentz, 1985; Dickey-Bryant, Lautenschlager, Mendoza, &
Abrahams, 1986; Ross & Ferris, 1981). Ross and Ferris (1981) rated the fa­
cial attractiveness of male employees in two public accounting firms from
photographs. They then regressed salary, performance evaluations, and
likelihood of making partner on ratings of attractiveness and also weight,
tenure, academic training, marital status, rated motivation, attitudes, and
height. Weight was strongly related to "relative performance" (i.e., rated
performance relative to their cohort). The heavier the employees relative
to their height, the more negative the ratings of their performance. Both
height and facial attractiveness were positively related to the rated likeli­
hood of making partner, but failed to predict salary, achieved performance
appraisals, or ratings of relative performance.
Further support of the notion that appearance influences appraisal
comes from a validation of selection procedures at Sears (Bentz, 1985).
Potential candidates for managerial training were invited to participate in
a mini-assessment center where they were subjected to structured inter­
views. One of the dimensions on which applicants were evaluated was
their appearance ("the physical equipment they possess"). This proved to
be the strongest and most consistent predictor of performance on the job,
with significant correlations (p < .05) found between appearance and 23
of the 26 criterion ratings. In a follow-up study, appearance again emerged
as the strongest correlate of on-the-job performance.
Most studies found at least some evidence of bias against unattractive
persons (Hosoda et al., 2003) and the few failures to show the effect seem at­
tributable to weak manipulations (Greenwald, 1981; Jackson, 1983a, 1983b).
The findings of research on work-related judgments are consistent with the
conclusions of a recent meta-analysis of the social psychological research
(Eagly, Ashmore, Makhijani, & Longo, 1991), which found a bias in favor
of the attractive target person in 92% of the studies reviewed.