We like to believe a paycheck reflects what someone brings to the job: education, experience, talent, productivity and perhaps a little negotiating ability. But decades of research raise an uncomfortable possibility. Appearance may play a role, too.
Economists, psychologists and business researchers have studied what is sometimes called the “beauty premium” The idea that people perceived as more attractive can receive advantages in hiring, earnings and professional evaluations. The research doesn’t mean attractive people are more capable. Nor does it establish that changing someone’s appearance will increase his salary. What it does suggest is that human beings make judgments based partly on what they see and some of those judgments can have economic consequences.
For professional men thinking about their Business Face, that distinction matters.
Economists Have Been Studying Beauty for Decades
One of the landmark studies came from economists Daniel Hamermesh and Jeff Biddle.
Their 1994 paper, Beauty and the Labor Market, analyzed survey data in which interviewers rated respondents’ physical appearance. After accounting for demographic and labor-market characteristics, the researchers found that people rated as below average in appearance earned less than average-looking workers, while those rated above average earned somewhat more.
The researchers estimated a 5% to 10% earnings penalty for below-average appearance, which was somewhat larger than the premium associated with above-average looks. Interestingly, the effects were at least as large for men as they were for women.
That’s a provocative number. It is also one that needs context.
The study used data collected decades ago, and appearance is intertwined with countless other characteristics that can influence earnings. Better-looking people may be treated differently throughout their lives. They may develop different levels of confidence, social skills or professional networks. They may sort into different occupations. Employers or customers may respond differently to them.
Separating all of those factors is extraordinarily difficult. That is why correlation cannot simply be translated into causation. The research can tell us that appearance and earnings have been associated. It cannot tell a professional man that improving his appearance by a certain amount will increase his paycheck by a certain percentage.
The Pattern Hasn’t Disappeared
Later research has continued to find associations between appearance and economic outcomes.
One longitudinal study followed male high school graduates over decades and found a statistically significant positive correlation between facial attractiveness and earnings later in life. The relationship remained when researchers accounted for a wide range of characteristics, including IQ, family background, high school activities and proxy measures for personality and confidence.
But again, the word correlation matters.
Other research has produced more complicated results. A 2020 study using Canadian data, for example, found no evidence of an earnings beauty premium for men, although attractiveness was positively associated with the number of fringe benefits received by both men and women.
Taken together, these studies don’t support a simple rule that “better-looking people make more money.” They suggest something much more interesting: appearance can intersect with the labor market, but exactly how, and under what circumstances is complicated.
Appearance Can Influence Hiring Before Earnings Even Begin
The effect may start before someone receives a paycheck.
A meta-analysis published in Personnel Psychology examined experimental studies of physical attractiveness and job-related outcomes.
Researchers found an overall attractiveness bias favoring more attractive individuals across employment-related judgments. The weighted average effect size was 0.37, and notably, professionals making judgments were susceptible to the bias just as college students were. The researchers also found attractiveness was important for both male and female subjects.
This doesn’t mean hiring managers consciously think, “I’ll hire the better-looking candidate.” Bias is often subtler than that. A face may influence whether someone seems confident, approachable, trustworthy or competent before there is enough information to justify that conclusion. And that’s where the economics of appearance begins to overlap with the idea of Business Face.
Dr. Douglas Steinbrech has spent much of his career working with male aesthetic patients, including professional men thinking about how they present themselves as they age. He is the author of Male Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, a 614-page medical reference devoted to male aesthetic procedures, and currently serves as Treasurer/Secretary of The Aesthetic Society.
“Professional men have always understood the importance of presentation, but today that extends beyond the suit and the handshake. They’re more aware of how they present themselves visually, particularly in a digital business environment. That doesn’t mean appearance determines success. It simply means it has become another part of how some men think about their professional image.” Dr. Steinbrech stated.
What Does a CEO Look Like?
Perhaps nowhere is that distinction clearer than in research involving CEOs.
Researchers John Graham, Campbell Harvey and Manju Puri conducted experiments involving nearly 2,000 participants who evaluated facial characteristics of corporate executives.
Participants tended to rate CEOs as looking more competent than non-CEOs. CEOs of larger companies were also perceived as looking more competent than CEOs of smaller companies.
Even more strikingly, perceived facial competence was associated with executive compensation. At first glance, that might sound like evidence that competent-looking executives are simply better executives. Except for one problem, they weren’t. The researchers found no evidence that companies with more competent-looking CEOs performed better. As the researchers put it, the appearance of competence revealed very little about actual competence.
That’s one of the most important findings in the entire Business Face conversation. A person can look like our mental image of a leader without actually being a better leader.
When Visibility Enters the Equation
More recent research adds another wrinkle.
A 2020 study examining S&P 500 CEOs found that executives perceived as more competent or attractive received higher salaries, but not higher nonsalary compensation and the relationship was particularly evident at companies with greater investor, customer and media visibility.
Again, those favorable facial perceptions did not predict better company performance.
That finding feels particularly relevant in today’s business environment. Executives are more publicly visible than ever. Their photographs appear on corporate websites. They speak on earnings calls that become video clips. They appear on LinkedIn, podcasts, webinars, television interviews and social media. For entrepreneurs and sales professionals, the individual may effectively become part of the company’s brand.
Fifteen years ago, a professional might have needed one corporate headshot. Today, his face can be part of his daily business presence.
“As careers have become more publicly visible, men have become more conscious of how their appearance fits into their professional identity. They want the image people see online or on camera to feel consistent with who they are professionally and not to replace the experience and ability that got them there.” Dr. Steinbrech noted.
The Dangerous Leap From Research to Advice
This is where the discussion needs a very large caution sign. If studies find associations between appearance and compensation, it can be tempting to turn the research into career advice:
Look younger. Become more attractive. Earn more money.
The evidence doesn’t support that conclusion.
None of these studies demonstrates that a man who undergoes an aesthetic procedure will earn more money afterward. Nor can they tell us exactly why some appearance-related earnings differences exist.
Discrimination may play a role. Customer preferences may matter in certain occupations. Confidence, social experiences, health, grooming and socioeconomic background may intersect with appearance. Some characteristics may influence both appearance and career outcomes.
And even when appearance affects perception, perception may simply be wrong. The CEO research illustrates that beautifully: people saw competence in certain faces, compensation reflected some of those perceptions, yet the companies themselves did not perform better.
That isn’t evidence that we should become better at looking competent. It may be evidence that we should become better at recognizing our own biases.
When the Business Face Becomes a Workplace Problem
There is also an ethical issue buried inside the economics. If appearance influences hiring or compensation, the burden shouldn’t automatically fall on workers to change how they look.
Employers have a responsibility to evaluate candidates and employees on relevant qualifications rather than appearance. The beauty premium may therefore tell us as much about the people making professional decisions as it does about the people being judged. Aesthetic treatment can’t and shouldn’t be presented as a solution to workplace bias.
“The answer to appearance bias isn’t telling professionals they need to change how they look. Aesthetic treatment should always be a personal decision based on an individual’s own goals, not something someone feels he needs to do to compete professionally.” Dr, Steinbrech noted.
That distinction is particularly important when discussing successful professional men.
Someone may choose to update his wardrobe because he likes how he feels in it. He may improve his fitness, change his hairstyle, begin a skincare routine or consider aesthetic treatment for the same reason. Those choices can affect self-perception. But they aren’t financial instruments.
What the Economics Really Tells Us
So, can the way you look affect what you earn?
Research gives us reasonable evidence that appearance can influence professional judgments and is associated with some labor-market outcomes.
But that’s very different from saying appearance determines someone’s economic value. Perhaps the most revealing research isn’t the study showing that attractive workers sometimes earn more.
It’s the research showing that CEOs who look competent can be paid more even though their companies don’t perform better.
That exposes the real issue. Human beings sometimes confuse the appearance of a characteristic with the characteristic itself. We see a face and infer energy, we see maturity and infer experience, we see certain features and infer leadership. Sometimes those impressions may be right. Sometimes they’re completely wrong. That’s why the economics of the Business Face ultimately isn’t an argument for changing your face. It’s an argument for understanding just how much power we sometimes give one.
A résumé can document experience. Performance can demonstrate ability. Results can establish value. And a face can create an impression. The mistake is assuming they’re the same thing.
Be First to Comment