Should Employees' Looks Matter?

9/10/2022

by David Hagenbuch - professor of Marketing at Messiah University -
author of Honorable Influence - founder of Mindful Marketing

Despite her aging appearance, Queen Elizabeth II kept her job for an unprecedented 70 years! A Canadian news anchor who let her locks go grey wasn’t as fortunate. Her seemingly heartless dismissal has aroused widespread empathy, including from some of the world’s leading companies, sounding an alarm against ageism. However, in an era when brand-building is of utmost importance, shouldn’t companies have a say in the looks of those they pay to be the faces of their firms?

Before she was “blindsided” by her abrupt termination, fifty-eight-year-old Lisa LaFlamme was “the face of the most-watched nightly news show on Canadian television.” Her 34-years of industry experience combined with a keen intellect and engaging communication style made her the Canadian equivalent of Katie Couric or Barbara Walters.

However, those talents and experience didn’t stop Bell Media from firing LaFlamme from CTV News. Mirko Bibic, the president and CEO of BCE and Bell Canada, denied that hair color had anything to do with LaFlamme’s release, but LaFlamme’s stunned reaction along with CTV News head Michael Melling’s question of who approved the decision to “let Lisa’s hair go grey,” suggest that hair color was at least part of the reason.

Known for speaking out on body image-related issues, Dove, subsidiary of the Dutch conglomerate Unilever, shared its opinion of the incident: Just a week after LaFlamme’s release, Dove Canada unfurled a #KeepTheGrey social media campaign that included the greying of its iconic logo across social channels “to show support for older women and women with grey hair who may face undue workplace discrimination.”

Fast food chain Wendy’s also took up the mantle, temporarily turning grey the red pigtails of its namesake logo.

It’s nice that brands like Dove and Wendy’s care enough to stand against apparent ageism—an often-overlooked issue, especially in societies that tend to glorify youth. But, what about the companies paying, in some cases very significant sums, to people to represent them and, in some cases, to be the faces of their franchises? Shouldn’t these organizations have a say in how their employees look?

When thinking of organizations that dictate their agents’ appearances, one of the first that comes to mind is Disney. At its theme parks, the company carefully curates a wholesome, family-friendly image that stems in large part from the looks and actions of its staff. Personal branding that’s edgy and provocative may have its place in other firms but not at Disney.

Is it legal for Disney to be so prescriptive with its employees’ looks? Yes, since “no federal law bans employment decisions based on appearance in general.” However, employers must ensure that their looks-related rules don’t intentionally or unintentionally discriminate against people because of their race, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, or genetic information.

Even then, though, there are legally acceptable exceptions if a case can be made that a specific personal trait is a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ). For instance, a film studio can exclude adults from auditioning for children’s roles, and a synagogue can stipulate that rabbi candidates must be Jewish.

As in these examples, for a BFOQ argument to be successful, the required personal characteristic must be essential to job performance. If it is, the discrimination is likely legal.

Of course, just because something is legal doesn’t mean it’s moral, but legislation related to employee looks does do a pretty good job of supporting values of decency, fairness, honesty, respect, and responsibility. For instance, if a certain personal characteristic is critical to job performance, it wouldn’t be fair to those hired or to those who rely on their work (coworkers, customers, shareholders) to disregard the criterion.

To determine what’s fair, honest, etc., organizations should consider three questions:

1. Are the firm’s performance assumptions accurate? A company hiring for a web development position might assume that only those 30 years old or younger have the skills and understanding needed to do the work effectively. It could be, though, that the best candidate is a 60-year-old who has many years of industry experience and has kept themself on the cutting edge of their field.

Similarly, corporations fail when they misinterpret what consumers really want. First, it’s important to emphasize that companies are under no legal or moral mandate to cater to customers’ discriminatory and irrational tastes, like only wanting a Caucasian waiter.

Firms sometimes wrongly assume how customers expect employees to look. Disney recently walked back its longstanding policy of no visible tattoos and now permits employees to display “appropriate” ones — an implied admission that it had fallen out of touch with what its customers viewed as family-friendly physical appearance.

2. Are their double standards? Even as America aspires for equality, there are sometimes conflicting norms for different people-groups, e.g., women vs. men, young vs. old, rich vs. poor, Black people vs. white people.

LaFlamme’s termination is a case-in-point. If she were a man, would it have mattered that her hair was gray? Men may face some stigma for coloring their hair, but when they go grey, they’re often described as looking mature, sophisticated, and wise.

Women with the same hair color enjoy few such positive associations; rather, like LaFlamme, they’re more likely to be the victims of age discrimination: “Because of ‘lookism,’ women face ageism earlier than their male counterparts.”

3. Can the firm help precipitate social change? Given that cultural values and norms are much bigger than any one organization, it’s understandable that companies often believe there’s little they can do to have a social impact, particularly with an issue as far-reaching as people’s appearances.

However, even small businesses can help move the needle on such perceptions with their affirming employment practices (e.g., hiring and retaining older workers), as well as by voicing their disapproval if/when their customers discriminate. Global brands like Dove and Wendy’s can have an even greater impact by virtue of their scale and scope.

In the end, the workplace should be a two-way street:

Employees should appreciate that they’re agents of the organizations for which they work and as such, need to respect reasonable appearance-related requirements, for their own benefit, as well as those of their coworkers and the organization on whole.
Organizations should treat their employees with respect and try to truly understand what appearance characteristics are critical to job performance and which are not, while also refusing to cater to customers whose tastes are discriminatory.

There could be a case in which a certain hair color is a BFOQ that a company could legally and morally require. However, that likely wasn’t true in LaFlamme’s situation. She could have reported the news just as effectively with grey hair, and although certain viewers may not have liked her look, many others probably appreciated her authentic appearance and would have welcomed the network’s support of her and other older women.

“Queen of England” shouldn’t be the only occupation accepting of grey hair. Looks matter to individuals and organizations, but requiring employees to change theirs for less-than-compelling reasons appears to be “Single-Minded Marketing.”

Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix.
Check out Mindful Marketing Ads and Vote your Mind!

27 Comments

Clayton

9/11/2022 07:52:52 pm

Excellent point on the double standard between men and women with grey hair. I also think the acceptance of everyone’s appearance should go much further in the workplace in general, that is to say: beards, long hair, tattoos, etc. In a largely WFH era, this is still a problem & prohibition of these should be considered an archaic practice with no real grounded foundational principles. “That’s the way it’s always been” is no longer sufficient reason.

Adam Klapper

9/12/2022 03:05:49 pm

This was an excellent analysis on the effects of ageism and lookism within the workplace. This does seem to be a big issue especially in the television and film industry. Many actors lose roles due to their looks and there's a reason that most famous actors are typically more objectively beautiful or attractive. Studios and producers and directors only care about what the consumers want and that can cause a lot of ageism.

Angel

9/12/2022 07:07:41 pm

This post was a great way to address an issue that can become easily overlooked at times. There should surely be a two way street when things like this come up in the workspace. At this point in society, it is good to question why there are certain rules when it comes to dress code, appearance, etc. Of course some of these rules are for "modesty" but that definition can be different amongst companies. Things like this should always be questioned, not necessarily for the sake of change, but for people like LaFlemme and any other employees who have been discriminated in the workforce.

Caleb Narber

9/13/2022 07:29:37 pm

I think that this post gives a great analysis of how people can be overlooked simply because of the way that they look or how old they are. I believe that we do see it more in the film and television industry because the actors have to fill a specific role. Many times, we see people try and apply for a job and they do not get hired, solely because of their appearance or age. I believe that jobs can require some set of "appearances" like a uniform but I do not think it is appropriate for a company to discriminate against a person based upon their age or physical appearance.

Cole Fisher

9/13/2022 07:43:45 pm

This article put in to perspective how ageism interacts with the legality of the control of an employees appearance in the workplace. I personally loved the three question model they had come up with in this article. I think employers should have their employees best interest in mind, and realize if something actually is critical to job performance. I certainly don't think that Lisa's hair had anything to do with her performance as a news anchor. I think there should be some legal parameters for what someone can be fired for, but I do realize that some occupations, like an actor, may be a different story. In my opinion, if there is no hinderance to performance, it is unfair to discriminate and fire an employee based on appearance criteria in most cases.

Christian Foltz link

9/13/2022 09:57:41 pm

When working for a news company, it is important to know that the number one thing they care about is views. Lisa was an accomplished news anchor, but it's safe to assume that her views were going down as she got older. Now maybe that's just because not as many people in Canada were watching the news anymore, but it is also true that more attractive people are more pleasing to watch. Now personally, I believe that the job should belong to the best person, not necessarily the prettiest face. There's no doubt that Lisa was fit for the job, and she didn't deserve what happened to her. But even if I disagree with the situation, I do know that's just a part of business. At the end of the day, most companies that are not Christ-centered really only care about success and not about their loyalty to their employees.

Haileigh Burget

9/13/2022 10:03:41 pm

This article shows how ageism is affecting the business world today. Its unfair and unethical of the treatment that the Canadian news anchor was receiving from her cooperation just because of her hair color. I think it was a great decision that Dove Canada started the social media Trent called keep the gray. I believed it started the discussion that this is diffidently an uprising issue in our economy today. I also agree with the claim that just because something is legal, doesn't mean its moral. To be treated unfairly and discriminated against because of your age shows selfishness within the company. Despite your age, you should be allowed to follow your dreams within your career field, and not let down by people who look at you as a number. Turning down people for your company and discriminating against them because of their age is not ethical, as those people could potentially create great value for your organization with their knowledge. This article has shown us how much of an issue this topic is today.

Kate Lefever

9/13/2022 10:48:12 pm

This was a very interesting and eye-opening article on a topic that is becoming increasingly prominent within our society and workplaces today. Many companies are too focused on the appearance and looks of those who represent them when they should be considering the qualifications and performance of an employee. I agree that it should be a "two-way street" and that both the company and employees need to be respectful and considerate of each other. With this, however, to some extent there are employment practices that could be changed to be more inclusive and positive.

Kaitlyn Naylor

9/13/2022 11:19:24 pm

Very interesting article on ageism as it relates to the familiar job of a news anchor. What makes the case with Lisa LaFlamme compelling to me is that she had 34 years of industry experience and was a well-known face yet CTV News still thought that her appearance was more important than the hard and soft skills she had and her reputation as a news anchor. I agree that societal values were not upheld in this instance, but I’m not convinced that this change created stakeholder value. When consumers are looked at as one of the stakeholders, a new face could change how much they like CTV News either in a good or bad way (or neutral). For instance, long-term consumers of CTV News might not like the change at first because they are used to how LaFlamme delivered the news and trusted her, while new or occasional consumers might not perceive a difference or find more value in a different news anchor even without comparison to LaFlamme. I do realize that organizations shouldn’t cater to customers whose tastes are discriminatory which makes it difficult to determine impartial stakeholder value yet I think generalizing all consumers as discriminatory is also unfair in resolving if a change meets consumers’ needs.

Rachel Hogan

9/14/2022 09:32:01 am

This article is a great analysis of how discrimination has become a prevalent issue in the workplace. In LaFlamme's case, I can agree that she was blindsided, and fired from her job with somewhat pitiful reasoning. While there may have been other reasons as to why she was fired, it seems that her age and color of her hair were large reasons. I think in certain circumstances, like for Disney, companies should be (and need to be) clear as to what they are looking for in an employee, so that they can accurately and professionalally portray the role they are hired for. From the content of this article, it seems that CTV News never made it clear to LaFlamme during her interview process for the job, that she was required to have a certain appearance. At the end of the day, I don't believe that any type of discrimination in the workplace based on appearance is ok, as it discourages people from finding a job, or being able to work in the area they desire to.

Emma Johnson

9/14/2022 10:10:19 am

I found this article to be very interesting. I think that this topic is very difficult area to discuss because employers should not base actions against their employee off of looks. I definitely agree that it is single minded to fire or hire someone based on how they look because instead it should be based on their ability to perform the job. I don't agree with all of the strict rules that Disney has about hiring their employees. While I do understand they need to hire somewhat based on looks so they employees look like certain characters I do not think that the employee needs to look exactly like the character in order to perform the job because once they have on their costumer guests in the park will know exactly who the character is and not pay attention to whether or not the employee looks exactly like the character.

Ethan C.

9/14/2022 11:46:35 am

I think that this article shows the unfortunate reality of aging for different people in the film industry. This also extends past just this industry but this article focuses on it the most so that's what I will focus on. I know lots of actors over the years have lost their job due to aging. When the new top gun came out everyone was raving over it and how Tom Cruise still looks the same he did when he was younger. This along with the examples in the text show how much people pay attention to how actors and people look. I think moving forward we will see more actors who will be older and not frowned upon because of that. Our culture is noticing this trend and I think that they are changing and becoming more accepting of older aged actors. Lastly just because they look older they're still the same person and just as good as acting as they always have been.

Tucker Williams

9/14/2022 01:35:29 pm

This was an outstanding analysis of the effects of ageism and lookism within the workplace system. This does seem to be a big issue for big name corporations, especially in the television and film industry. Many actors get denied roles due to their appearance and the way people perceive them and there's a reason that most famous actors are often more objectively beautiful or attractive when looking for a lead role in a big-time movie. Even if some “ugly” actor gets the main role in a movie it is often because they are perceived as funny and used as a comic relief. Studios, producers and directors only care about what the consumers want and that can cause a lot of ageism. At the end of the day no one should be discriminated against for the way they look in the workplace unless it is a dress code violation whereas in that case a supervisor needs to get involved. While still treating employees and people interested in working for the company with respect of course. Back to the dress code situation, I do believe it is important to set a standard of how your job is going to be completed along with “how are we going to present ourselves?” especially when dealing with costumer's face to face.

TJ Shay link

9/14/2022 02:16:41 pm

The article was an interesting read on if employees need to look a certain way. In the context of Lisa's case the firing brought up an interesting debate on if it was right to fire her or not. With news organizations its important to remember that the views are the #1 thing that makes the corporation money and that their news anchors and hosts are a critical part in the company's success. Now with saying that the firing was ethically wrong, but thats the fine line that company's have to draw. At the end of the day business and business and the company is going to do whatever it needs to do to produce profit. Also, with that being said, the three questions are big factor in producing a healthy marketing image.

Andrew Fretz

9/14/2022 03:01:11 pm

This was a very interesting analysis and report of something that often gets overlooked in todays culture. I think that employers should never be able to fire anybody based on their looks or age, and they shouldn't want to either. As stated in the blog post, there are reasonable exceptions to this theory, such as movie actors, and preachers having a specific religion. When it comes to more everyday jobs that most Americans have, they should not be hired or fired based on age or appearance. This would be unfair because for some people, it is very difficult to be the "poster child" of appearance for their age in the United States. Unfortunately, nobody can control their age, so that is not a good reason that someone should be fired. The only exception to age should be for safety reasons and skills needed to perform the job. Even if that is the case, they should be clearly stated in the application process. I think that that was part of the reason that LaFlamme was disappointed in the way she was released from the show she worked for. I imagine if she was told when she got hired that there were specific requirements that were needed to be on the show, she would not be as mad when she got released.

Delainey Gray

9/14/2022 03:16:34 pm

This was an interesting article which brings light to an example of the many instances of when society's new values come into conflict with the business world. We might deem LaFlamme's letting go a case of ageism (discrimination against a person for his/her age), but was it really unjust? I think we should remember that justice does not necessarily mean equality. For example, a just amount of water to consume in a day is 64 oz, while a just amount of poison to consume is none! Things are different, created with different purposes. For those things to accomplish their purposes, they must do different things, be taken in different measures. The same goes for people. Perhaps LaFlamme's firing should not be taken as an affront to people with age, but as a way to move onto her own next chapter of life while opening up new space for the next generation. If nothing in her contract prohibited such action, then she had no reason to suspect she would be with this company forever, and she had every reason to realize that the company had rights to let her go at any given moment in her career. Ultimately, I think we should recognize people's differences. If I applied to a job for which I had to do a lot of heavy lifting, and lost it to someone who can bench 300 lbs, in the end, it's for the best that this person can use his strengths to do a better job than I ever could---and I'll get a job where I can utilize my own strengths! That doesn't mean it can't be disappointing to not a have a job you wanted, but there's always a new door you can enter through.

Harrison Schappell

9/14/2022 04:20:43 pm

I think this article brings up a lot of good points. I would say a good example to look at for this is our president. Whether you like Joe Biden or not, one of the biggest arguments against him is that he is old and incapable of being a confident leader. In the instance of being president, I would say that looks matter a little bit, solely because they are the face of our nation. However, if you are a radio host, looks are not as important. A running joke in the entertainment industry is saying "you have a face for radio!" meaning not a good-looking face. Joke or not, this saying makes a good point.

Hannah Mark

9/14/2022 04:41:40 pm

This article does a great job of emphasizing the issue of ageism which is commonly overlooked by the public. I believe that ageism is an issue across all professions, not only in the film industry, although appearance in film is greatly looked upon. For example, some professions don’t hire employees of a certain age, and instead only hire the younger generation as they want a “fresh” look. Although I believe companies have the right to choose their employees, I think that the older generation is sometimes overlooked, when they have a lot of potential and should be valued more. Additionally, I believe that industries should respect employees and understand that you can only change your physical appearance to an extent, as we all age and change which is something out of our control.

Kevin Clarke

9/14/2022 06:30:17 pm

I think this article does a good job in addressing the changing issue of looks in a workplace. I think that if companies are going to hire/fire based on looks and standards, they need to make this clear when people are applying to job. Having your employee find out after they looked into a job/have the job that how they look is unacceptable, is a bad business practice.

Ethan

9/14/2022 08:17:41 pm

I definitely agree that there is some problems with how employees' looks are commodified in the work place. First, I think the problem stems from the way employers view their workers. Too often, working people are seen as tool to be used or cogs in the machine. Once they outlive their "usefulness," they are cast aside. That being said, it's tough to find the line where "attractiveness is a fair qualification to a job. In all honesty, sometimes being attractive, relatable, and youthful is part of an anchors job.

Edward Mendez

9/14/2022 10:38:20 pm

This was a very interesting and thought-provoking analysis. I’m glad this discriminatory issue of ageism against women is being more widely talked about and acknowledged. We live in a modern society where there is a fascination with looks and aesthetics.When you don’t meet those standards, you are discarded. This is a very prevalent issue in the entertainment industry and it mostly negatively impacts women. When it comes to men aging, the same standard is not held. Women are expected to stay “beautiful” and retain their youthfulness. The second signs of that fading become apparent, they are dismissed and forgotten. This is the pressure a lot of women in the industry feel. Female artists have to reinvent themselves time and time again to stay interesting or appealing to the public. Some, for example, even go to extreme lengths lying about their age. A good example of this is the actress Alexa Demie, who stars in HBO’s hit series Euphoria. She is thirty-one years old but plays the role of a seventeen-year-old on the show. Lying, she is twenty-four, she becomes more appealing to more casting directors in Hollywood. This is the sad reality many individuals have to go through due to societal standards and expectations.

Micaiah Saldaña link

9/15/2022 10:15:45 am

I appreciate this thoughtful discussion of to what extent organizations should dictate their employees’ physical appearance. It is sad to hear LaFlamme’s story; as previous commenters have noted, our society seems to become increasingly ageist.

I certainly agree that companies should only dictate aspects of employees' appearances that are critical to the job. In Disney’s case, requiring family-friendly appearance makes sense as long as the organization’s definition of family-friendly does not discriminate against race, gender, age, etc. Good reasons should be given for such guidelines.

For example, in the Army, both men women are required to adhere to specific guidelines regarding physical appearance. Women may not wear their hair loose while in uniform or wear their hair in hairstyles that interfere with the ability to wear headgear or protective equipment (https://www.goarmy.com/how-to-join/requirements/appearance.html). These requirements are related to job performance for a soldier; one does not have time worry about brushing one’s hair out of one’s face when one is facing life-threatening harm. Thus, I think that the Army definitely has good reason for requiring soldiers to have certain haircuts. However, it is debatable whether the same reasoning can apply to something such as the Army’s restrictions on unnatural hair colors.

 In the case of LaFlamme, I do not think that her having gray hair would affect her job performance. A person with gray hair may share news just as effectively as a person with purple or brown hair.

Joe

9/15/2022 10:30:05 am

I love this article and how you have tackled the double edge stigma of gray hair and aging all in one. Aging of course is natural and a progression of natural beauty follows suit, at least in the public eye for men. As older men gray they are deemed as silver foxes whereas gray for women is a sign of age. However I feel like even today this is contested and this idea has been changed and we can see this with the trend of millennial and younger women getting their hair dyed silver early in life. Also to note that age is relative to experience, not incompetence.

Nathan Bowman

9/15/2022 10:31:21 am

I think this article really makes one think about this topic. Part of me is thinking that companies should have no right to say what their employees can look like. I understand wanting their employees to practice general hygiene but not to the extent of making them dye their hair. The only possible reasoning behind this is simply due to the fact that it occurred for a news anchor who is sitting in front of television all day. I understand where the producers are coming from but still do not agree with the fact that they fired her over the matter.

Colbie Mason

9/15/2022 10:41:49 am

I found this article very interesting. I think the way you look can be overlooked in the work industry. I also believe that looking presentable in the workplace and taking care of yourself are essential. I also think you should never be fired for how you look or for becoming older.

Drew weaver

9/15/2022 11:22:51 am

This post gave a great analysis of the story behind a Canadian news anchor being fired and the issue of agism or discriminating in the work placed based on appearance. I think that although a company should get a say in the appearance of the people representing them, that doesn't mean they should be able to take advantage of them or fire them without good reason. I think the part of having respect for employees and employees having respect for the business is very important in the culture within a business. My take on this specific story is that although in some cases looks would matter or age like a specific acting role, in the majority of cases like the one presented to us looks should not play as big of a role as they do.

Logan Good link

9/15/2022 11:24:21 am

Before reading this article, ageism and looksim never struck me as something that might occur, especially when businesses are marketing to their customers. I think in the case of LaFlamme, there was an injustice done. If she was very good at her job, and the only thing wrong was her grey hair, she shouldn't have been let go. I do, however, believe that if an employees appearance goes against the comapany standards, i.e., inappropriate tattoos, too many piercings, etc, then there should be a conversation held and the employees should be asked to either change their appearance or find another job.

Should Employees' Looks Matter?

Leave a Reply.

Editor

Archives

Categories