The Question
I've been interviewing candidates for a research job and have had a very good shortlist. The two frontrunners are both excellent - they seem bright and keen and hardworking. One is reasonably good-looking; the other is exceedingly plain - obese and with bad skin. The role is not client- facing so looks should not matter. Yet I find myself inclined to hire the person who looks more prepossessing - which is unfair as the plain one surely needs a break. What should I do?
Manager, female, 38
Lucy's Answer
You should hire the fat and spotty one. This is not because you feel he (or she?) deserves a break - it isn't your job to play social engineer. It is because he is almost certainly better at the job than the one who is easier on the eye。
You claim that the two are equally skilled and industrious. If you are right, you should hire the looker as lookers are easier to have around. But I don't think you are right。
If you read the research, it will tell you that beautiful people are more successful than ugly ones. They are paid up to 15 per cent more and they advance more quickly. This might make one inclined to choose the cute one。
However, if you consider the reason for this discrepancy, the odds shift towards the fatty. Beauties outperform beasts mainly because we expect them to do so. If you show people pictures of job candidates, they rate the beautiful as more trustworthy, more intelligent and more diligent than the plain. Fat people score particularly badly. One US study had people rate the obese as awkward, lazy, uncooperative and unconscientious。
Lookist perceptions run so deep they even affect sport, where one might have thought performance would speak for itself. According to my colleague Simon Kuper's new book about football, hunks get picked more often for top teams as scouts are impressed by players who look the part。
Thus, for your plain candidate to have got so far suggests he is far better than the other one. You should hire him at once - indeed, I hope you did so weeks ago. The only reason for not doing so is if you feel the heavy, spotty one looks so dreadful that you physically shrink from him. Then mark yourself down and hire the looker。
Suggestions from readers
I've managed research teams for years, and can tell you there is absolutely no correlation between looks and skill. Some of the ugliest persons are brilliant, and some of the best-looking are stupid; and vice-versa. Engage the two leading candidates in further evaluation. It may take time but one candidate surely will emerge as the best colleague and researcher。
Anon, male
Depends if the candidates are male or female. An attractive woman will be a threat to you. I use my looks to get what I want and am not ashamed to do so - a well chosen short skirt always ensures a better bonus. If there are too many pretty girls around, it's harder to pull this off. An attractive man will be a pleasure to look at。
Hire the plain one! After the recession ends he/she will be offered fewer enticements to leave。
Consultant, male, 74
Hire the slim one. Obese people are more likely to take time off owing to illness. Obesity is a lifestyle choice and so you'd not be discriminating against a person with a disability by not hiring the fat one。
Anon, male
From personal experience, dealing with adult-onset acne makes one infinitely tougher and more resilient at work。
Anon, female
Winston Churchill was overweight, unfit, drank, smoked, wasn't very good looking . . . Got the picture?
翻譯：
問題
我在為一項研究工作面試候選人，並有了一份非常好的入圍名單。兩位候選人都非常優秀——他們看起來聰明、熱情而且勤奮。其中一位容貌出眾；另一位則過於難看——比較胖，而且皮膚不好。招聘的職位不是面向客戶的，因此長相併不重要。不過我發現自己傾向於聘用那個看起來更討人喜歡的傢伙—— 這有失公平，因為長相難看的人肯定也需要機會。我該怎麼辦呢？
經理，女性，38歲
露西的回答
你應該聘用那個臉上長滿粉刺的胖子。這不是因為你覺得他(或她)應該得到這個機會——扮演社會工程師不是你的職責。而只是因為他幾乎肯定會比那個更養眼的傢伙幹得更好。
如果你看到過有關研究，就會知道，漂亮的比醜陋的人更容易獲得成功。他們的薪水會高出15%，而且升遷的速度更快。這或許會讓人傾向於選擇那個討人喜歡的候選人。
你說兩個人都同樣有才能和勤勉。如果你說的是真的，你應該聘請那個容貌出眾的，因為容貌出眾的人更可能經驗豐富。但我認為你說的不是真的。
然而，如果你考慮一下造成這種差距的原因，機會就會轉向那個胖子。美女勝過野獸，主要是因為我們預計他們會表現出眾
以貌取人的觀點根深蒂固，甚至滲透到了體育領域——人們或許認為，在這一領域成績代表著一切。我的同事西蒙？庫珀(Simon Kuper)寫了一本關於足球的新書，書中提到，魁梧高大的男子更容易進入頂級球隊，因為球探們認為這種人適合踢足球。
因此，你那位長相難看的候選人能夠走到這一步，說明他遠勝於另一個人。你應該立即聘用他——實際上，我希望你在幾周前就已經聘用了他。拒絕聘用他的唯一理由是，如果你覺得一個滿臉痘痘的胖子看起來讓人感覺不舒服，會讓你躲著他。如果是這樣，降低標準，聘用那個養眼的人吧。
讀者的建議
1. 我有著多年的研究團隊管理經驗，因此可以告訴你：長相與才幹絕對無關。一些很醜的人非常聰明，而一些長得漂亮的傢伙卻十分愚蠢；反過來也是一樣。你應該進一步對這兩個候選人進行評估。這可能花費時間，但這樣做可能會招到最好的同事和研究人員。
匿名，男性
2. 這取決於候選人是男的還是女的。一位迷人的女性將會對你構成威脅。我憑藉自己的容貌得到我想要的，並不為此感到羞愧——一件精挑細選的短裙，總是能確保得到更多的獎金。如果周圍有太多的美女，搞定此事就沒那麼容易。一個英俊男子會讓人賞心悅目。
3. 聘用那個長的難看的！在經濟衰退結束後，他/她離職的可能性比較小。
顧問，男性，74歲
4. 聘用那個苗條的傢伙。胖人更可能請病假。肥胖是一種生活方式的選擇，因此你不會因沒有聘用胖人，而讓人覺得你在歧視殘疾人。
匿名，男性
5. 從我的個人經歷來說，與成年期粉刺做鬥爭會讓人無比堅強，在工作中適應能力更強。匿名，女性
6. 溫斯頓-邱吉爾(Winston Churchill)超重、不健康、酗酒、抽菸，長得不太好看……看過照片了嗎？