Do looks really get you a better job? Perhaps

[SEZ213]

I was reading the career section in today's courier mail, and came across this...

http://www.couriermail.com.au/ipad/b...-1226051373423

EMPLOYEES are being selected on their appearance over qualifications to suit the company image, writes Michael Lund.

How a candidate looks, dresses and speaks are all part of the "lookness" that employers are using to determine who gets the job.

And there's nothing candidates can do if they feel they have been discriminated against because of their appearance.

Professor Chris Warhurst says discrimination over race, sex, gender and disability during the recruitment process are all covered by the anti-discrimination legislation in Queensland and other states.

But employers are allowed to discriminate against a candidate based on their appearance, he says.

Employers are also allowed to discipline employees over their appearance if they fail to follow a dress code either written or implied and in some cases they can even be sacked.

Warhurst, an expert in employment studies from the University of Sydney, highlighted the issue at a career conference in Cairns during his talk on the importance of being attractive to employers.

He opened the talk with images of Hollywood actor Brad Pitt and the fictional character Gollum from The Lord of the Rings and asked the audience: "Who would you hire?"

He told the conference that studies showed people "perceived to be better looking" were up to five times more likely to be hired over others.

They had better careers and could earn up to 16 per cent more than others doing similar jobs.

Physical appearance also influenced perceptions of job competence and performance.

He said evidence showed this "beauty premium" existed for both men and women across all industries.

Warhurst tells CareerOne that recruitment based on appearance is nothing new but the practice is becoming more explicit.

With 30 per cent of the Australian workforce considered over-qualified, he says employers are looking at "soft skills" such as appearance to help decide who gets the job.

"The degree might get you to the interview but having good soft skills will get you the job," he says.

Warhurst says research in Australia and the UK found that employers favoured appearance and personality over previous job experience and having the right qualifications for the job.

The main reason given for preferring appearance was a desire to conform to a company or brand image.

Customer preference and the local managers' preference were also rated higher than any need to conform to employment law.

Warhurst says the worry for job seekers is that the value of a degree or other professional qualification is being diminished in favour of appearance and he warns that the "beauty premium" may become a "beauty bias".

Queensland's anti-discrimination commissioner Kevin Cocks says his office is often approached by people who believe they have been discriminated against because of their appearance but he is powerless to act under current legislation.

"They're concerned they haven't got a job or have lost a job, or they've been harassed because of their appearance," he says.

Common concerns are about height, weight and body shape. Some are also concerned about birth marks that may be visible or other physical characteristics.

"In Victoria, legislation there protects against discrimination on physical characteristics," he says.

"In Queensland we don't have that."

With the state's anti-discrimination legislation now 20 years old he says it is due for a review and he hopes to see some changes to protect against discrimination on physical characteristics.

However, he does accept that some employers should still be allowed to judge candidates based on appearance "so long as they can justify it as a legitimate requirement of the job".

Warhurst says part of the reason appearance is now rated so highly is a shift away from manufacturing to more service industries.

That means employees are more likely to have direct contact with a company's clients and customers.

"People who made cars on production lines didn't meet customers," he says.

Over the same period, though, Warhurst says there has been a drop in the teaching of basic deportment skills because they were seen as "politically incorrect".

"What's happening now is that employers are concerned that people haven't got these skills and are now offering training," he says.

He is quick to stress that there is no universal standard of appearance or behaviour, and employers are looking to match people to their own individual needs.

"It's not just good looks," he says. "It's about having the right looks."

The main focus is on three areas: • How people dress; • How people speak; • Body language and deportment.

Warhurst says candidates looking for an advantage should check out potential employers to see what value they place on appearance and other "soft skills".

"Go to the company and see how people are dressed," he says.

When it comes to language, Warhurst says most people have two speaking voices.

"You can have the way you speak to your grandmother, which would be very polite, and the other voice is the way you speak to your friends down the pub," he says.

The first voice is the one usually preferred by employers but he says too often candidates use their second voice during the recruitment process.

Warhurst says some CEOs and others looking to improve their career options will have voice training to change the way they speak.

"There's no reason why you can't have a different way of speaking when you're in the workplace," he says.

But he warns that any workplace voice should still be genuine and consistent.

He points to one employer in the hospitality industry that would always telephone candidates in advance of an interview.

"What they wanted to do was ring them up at home when they were not aware to find out what their telephone voice was like," he says.

read more at http://www.couriermail.com.au/ipad/b...-1226051373423

I know that some recruitment agencies do discriminate against people based on those things that are illegal, but very little can be done to prove it...

So what are your thoughts? Are appearances more important than skills, particularly when as Lund suggests that more than 30% of the workforce are actually over qualified?