Does The Beauty Advantage Pay Better Than Smarts?

A funny thing happened on the way to the Olympics.

Women got inspired. Not just by Greek Goddess physiques, but by the feats of fitness witnessed on Olympians, their lithe, strong, flexible bodies hurtling their way through track and field. Of course, the flip side was lists of the most beautiful. Lists that were chastised for reducing women to looks. It was an interesting parallel. One that reminded me of The Beauty Premium. It also coincided with my finding of an article in the Harvard Business Review about the New Rules of Executive Presence by Sylvia Ann Hewlett.

The Beauty Premium made its grand entrance in The New York Times in 2006 thanks to economists Markus Mobius from Harvard University and Tanya Rosenblat of Wesleyan University in an article that aptly begins, “Economists have long recognised that physical beauty affects wages, even in occupations where appearance does not seem relevant to job performance. It seems that attractive men and women are paid more than ordinary people for the same work. The question is why.” In comes hiring, promotions, and salary negotiations.

Online journal Taylor & Francis goes a step further in their 2024 research stating this as a social fact. “A good appearance benefits in a workplace and beyond, whereas not living up to standards of attractiveness is linked to severe social and economic penalties.” Something that a 2021 Springer journal seals in with “Being beautiful is beneficial. This is the quintessence of many years of research, as physically attractive individuals are expected to be more intelligent, benevolent and competent, and are thus more popular than unattractive individuals.”

Ouch!

But what, precisely, qualifies as attractive? The debate on universal beauty rages on. Even more importantly, why does it matter for a leader?

Ann Hewlett has an answer for that. But first things first.

Who Dominates Said Industry? 

The Beauty Premium is a bias prevalent across industries, including technology, where the male-dominated environment amplifies its effects. Studies show that women in leadership roles are often judged more harshly than their male counterparts, and their appearance can significantly influence perceptions of their capability and authority. This has certainly happened to Meg Whitman and Marissa Mayer.

Here is a sample. “… as CEO of even a huge public company, Meg Whitman is back to being a private citizen with a very public persona.  She, and other men and women like her, ought to give very serious consideration to getting assistance in managing her personal style, brand, and image because she’s still on a campaign to turn around her company. To be successful at this goal, it is going to take everything she has to make it work.”

Mayer launched a series of articles profiling “the style of well-dressed Silicon Valley executives and entrepreneurs” in a piece that dissected her, eventually concluding that her “… style may need to reflect the level of confidence that she would want investors to have in her. Her style seems to reflect a strong femininity that I don’t think should change.  We need to see more of this from female corporate leaders who pave the way for more women. But too much body consciousness or skin may not be a good fit for a CEO. Style does reveal one’s inner abilities, and from what I see of her style, she’s highly capable.”

A CNN opinion piece Why Shouldn’t Marissa Mayer Look Hot? The writer delved into the prolific and glamorous Mayer and her feature in the legendary fashion magazine Vogue saying “The truth is that we can’t blame Mayer, or Vogue, for society’s obsession with, and response to, appearance. Women, especially women who happen to be both beautiful and brilliant like Mayer, are very often reduced to, or at least measured by, their looks.”

Does Being Handsome Pay More Than Being Pretty?

But, and this is a huge one, there is a paradox. Most research on attractiveness bias finds a larger beauty premium for men than women. A University of Wisconsin-Madison study highlights how men deemed less attractive earn 9 per cent less than the male average per hour, while their attractive counterparts earn 5 per cent more. Surprisingly, attractive women earn only 4 per cent above the female average, while women deemed less attractive earn 4 per cent less than average.

It begs the question, should a woman even try…? As it so happens, there’s a chart for this.

So now we get to Ann Hewlett. Appearance matters. Just not HOW you think it does.

Attractiveness for executives is about having a polished look, authenticity (which, in my book, translates to personal style), fitness/vigour – putting you in the great physical energy and youthfulness space, “new normal” style of dress (which when combined with authenticity, I have found, translates into personal style) curation of your online image and a willingness to show up in person. These appearance traits add up, propelling a woman forward. It underscores your own brand of unique beauty blended with corporate inspiration.

How Much Do You Weigh? 

Fitness/vigour weighs heavily. “Women are 16 times more likely than men to face discrimination in the workplace for their weight—including pay discrimination,” said Suyong Song, the Associate Professor of Economics and Finance at the Tippie College of Business who recently conducted a deep machine learning study that emphasised how body shape directly correlates to income.

“We used data through the machine learning technique and found that body features that impacted salary differed across gender,” Suyong says. “For men, we found height was a significant feature, whereas weight was the main driver for female subjects.” The research discovered that women who earn $70,000 of family income receive $934 less for every unit increase in obesity (converted in BMI) – proof that skinny is the new smart…!

This article was first run in the August 2024 edition of CIO Africa Magazine.