Employee voice and perceived attractiveness: are less attractive employees ignored in the workplace?

Abstract

PurposeThe paper aims to examine the effect of employees' perceived physical attractiveness on the extent to which their voices are “listened to” by management.Design/methodology/approachUsing an experimental research design, the paper estimates main effects of employee attractiveness and possible moderating effects of employee race and gender as well as the gender of their “managers.”FindingsThe results suggest that, with few exceptions, more physically attractive employees are significantly more likely to have their suggestions acted upon by managers than less attractive employees, pointing to a powerful form of workplace discrimination. This finding holds across races, with more attractive white, black, and Asian employees exerting a more impactful voice than their less attractive counterparts, although the moderation appears to be stronger for whites than ethnic minorities.Research limitations/implicationsThe results have important implications for the extant literatures on employee voice, diversity and discrimination.Originality/valueThis is among the first studies to demonstrate that less attractive employees suffer from an “employee voice deficit” vis-à-vis their more attractive counterparts.

Capturing the missing voices: A ‘fair go’ for sexual and gender minority employees in Australian workplaces

“…As does previous research (e.g. Colgan et al, 2007;Galea and Jardine, 2021;Guittar and Rayburn, 2016;Liyanage and Adikaram, 2019;Reneau and Love, 2021;Timming et al, 2021;Timming and Johnstone, 2015;Trau et al, 2013), this study confirms voluntary disclosure and speaking up as a major challenge for LGBTI employees due to workplace attitudinal, systemic and language barriers, which often give rise to stigma, fear of discrimination and a lack of safety. Thus, they are often compelled to manage their identity and remain an outsider group (e.g.…”

“…Voice outcomes have different effects depending on diversity and group membership of employees, as some categories of employees face more challenges than others (Timming et al, 2021; Timming and Johnstone, 2015). For example, Trau and Härtel (2007: 215) surmised that the decision to reveal or conceal sexual identity is often a difficult one for LGBTI employees and that a non-supportive workplace imposes ‘tremendous pressure’.…”

“…Despite the apparent significance of voice mechanisms in overcoming the marginalized status of LGBTI employees, this area of research has largely been overlooked in academia. Except for a few studies, employee voice literature itself largely disregard how social identity impacts employee voice (Timming et al, 2021). Among the limited studies on voice mechanisms relevant to LGBTI employees, some emphasize that organizations need to create a safe climate (Bell et al, 2011; Bowen and Blackmon, 2003; Colgan, 2011; Felix et al, 2018; Gates et al, 2019; Ladwig, 2022; Mara et al, 2021), while others (Colgan and McKearney, 2012; McFadden and Crowley-Henry, 2018; McNulty et al, 2018) have focused on LGBTI network groups as a collective voice for sexual and gender minorities.…”