Beauty pays. Or does it?

Beauty may only be skin deep but it can certainly charm the eyes. And if matrimonial sections and the huge billboards everywhere are to be believed, beauty is very much in demand. Most credit it to the aesthetic appeal it has. But is this penchant for beauty limited to the masses or has it seeped into the corporate world as well?

That's what Newsweek seems to think. The magazine claims we are "hard-wired" to give beauty a higher preference. Their report finds that handsome men earn, on average, five percent more than their less-attractive counterparts and attractive women make four percent more. The difference roughly translates into $250,000 more than a comparable, yet unattractive, employee.

How true is this in the Indian context? As cases suggest, there does exist some applicability. Chandrani Basu, who works in an oil and gas company, believes that having an attractive face can score you brownie points from the boss. "There are instances when the head goes easy on the attractive employee for any mistakes made. But when the same mistake is made by a less attractive employee, the reaction is a lot harsher," she says.  
 
The classified employment ads too, throw some light on what many dub as a social subconscious. A single theme is common in most such ads: "Candidate must have a pleasing appearance". While many describe these ads as shady, surprisingly, corporate sources admit to the bias. It exists mostly in occupations that are "client-facing" like retail banking, marketing, and even, the broadcasting industry, say those in the recruitment cells.

"I've even seen instances where a pretty face was hired even though there were others with better qualifications," says the marketing head of an Indian multi-business conglomerate. Interestingly, as sources confess, the bias is more towards women. Perhaps it's a cultural prejudice but pretty women score over handsome men, they say.

"The reason isn't very hard to understand," says Suparna Sen, who's worked in the HR of a reputed IT corporation. "People specially clients, respond better to someone who's easier on the eyes. Plus, attractive people are often perceived as more confident and efficient," she says.

Insiders seem to agree with Suparna although they stress that good looks should be complimented by a good personality. "People look forward to relating with others. Particularly when you're selling a product, whether it's on-screen or off-screen, the like-ability factor is what comes through," says Pranay Sharma, an advertising professional.

As far as pay cheques go, there doesn't seem to be a clear relation. Transparent answers aren't easy to come by. Most companies claim performance to be the ultimate deciding factor of how much you earn. The bottom-line, they say, is 'wealth'. Employees who generate most wealth generally get the furthest. However, some corporate professionals do reveal that there are employers who might give better perks to a good looking employee. "There are situations where an attractive employee is paid more than an employee with similar capability but who is not as pleasing to the eye," says an HR head.

So is beauty the ticket to success? There are those who belong to an opposing school. Capability, they say, is the only factor that is and should be taken into account. "Sectors that include public relations may require good looks to play a part but at the end of the day, it's about how well you know your job. The only basis for survival in the corporate world is your performance," says a senior media professional. "The only time your looks can get you any perks is when you also have a good ‘rapport’ with your boss. And that can't be built on looks alone.”

Perspectives of co-workers provide some interesting insights as well. As Chandrani's colleague Priya Sanyal says, "Attractive employees can be a distraction as well." Perhaps this may remind one of a recent Citibank controversy. The bank's Manhattan branch allegedly fired a 33-year-old employee because her good looks were too distracting to male co-workers.

While looks may not sound like a valid ground for dismissal, according to some, it may cause problems at work. As Priya explains, "Insecurities can play up in others which may lead to antagonism towards him/her. This is especially pronounced when the attractive employee is treated better by the boss. Also, I have observed attractive employees tend to rely more on their looks than performance. Of course, one shouldn't generalise but it does happen."

"Besides, hiring someone based on appearance is not the smart way to go," says Jai Banerjee, who works for a fashion magazine. "I've had to work with someone who was hired solely because of her looks. She turned out to be a liability. She was perhaps the most unproductive employee in our office. It disrupts the harmony in the office."  

Though a definite consensus on the subject does not seem to exist, certain cosmetic products point towards a possible trend. Take for example the all new men's fairness creams. The advertisements emphasize that good looks give one an upper hand when it comes to success. While many find the idea laughable, many others do acknowledge using such products. Rahul Sen, employee of an FMCG major, admits, "I have used such products for a long time. I take care of my appearance. Looks are an added advantage. There are bosses who give more attention to a good-looking employee. It's human nature after all."

"But," he sums up, "for any head whose primary concern is the growth of the organisation, an employee's looks will come second. When it comes to the success in the long run, only your performance will see you through."


ilovekolkata