When LOOKS replaces SKILLS, forget it. It's over. Pack your bags and get out. It's Idiocracy and it's here.
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
When Looks Replace Productivity
So people are now paying for plastic surgery to help them get jobs. But the most telling statement of the article and proof positive this economy will collapse is the following;
When LOOKS replaces SKILLS, forget it. It's over. Pack your bags and get out. It's Idiocracy and it's here.
When LOOKS replaces SKILLS, forget it. It's over. Pack your bags and get out. It's Idiocracy and it's here.
Two women are the final candidates for a legal assistant position at a prestigious law office. You are the hiring authority.
ReplyDeleteThe first is a 25 year old graduate from a small midwestern law school. She passed the bar in her home state and is preparing for the bar in your state. She had excellent grades, great references, and interviewed very well. She is very capable at legal research and types 60 words per minute, but she has no experience with dockets, legal files, or account billing. She can't find an attorney position due to a very tight job market. Her goal is to gain experience and prove herself capable of becoming an attorney with the firm when a position is available.
The other woman is 30 years old and has been a legal secretary for ten years. She has an associates degree and is one semester away from earning a BA in Political Science with a minor in Pre-Law. She has a paralegal certificate but has little experience in research. She types 80 words per minute and has extensive experience in legal filings, client billing, and appointment management. She is very down-to-business, detail oriented and focused on getting the job done. Her previous employer said he's sorry she had to leave as she was the 'heart' of the department.
Although it is illegal to ask, both women revealed they are unmarried with no kids and have no plans for children in the next few years. Both are focused on their careers for now.
Which one do you hire?
Naw, looks haven't replaced skill - this is just the latest extreme example of human insecurity.
ReplyDeleteLook, we all know that the point of an interview is to give the employer an opportunity to gauge your personality, your deportment, and your communications abilities. If jobs were awarded solely based on skill-sets, we wouldn't bother with interviews - just reading a resume would be much more efficient. So, of course, the interviewees fret about their appearance. They dress up. They get haircuts. They lather themselves in cologne. The women put on makeup, and wear high-heels and tight dresses. Everyone tries to appear calm, confident, organized, and respectable. When you go in for an interview, you are trying to sell every aspect of yourself - not just your technical experience and schooling.
Now, I'm not going to say that getting plastic surgery is the next logical step. It's not. It's extreme, and in most situations it will make no difference. If all other qualifications of two candidates are equal, some employers will hire the one who is more attractive. And some (like an old friend of mine) will hire the less attractive one, in order to avoid future problems. It's pretty much a crap-shoot, so I'd certainly never consider doing it myself ... but I can definitely understand why others might consider it.
And no, it doesn't signal the downfall of civilization, just like women putting on makeup for interviews didn't end in a catastrophe. It's just human nature.
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE53790N20090408
ReplyDeleteTo the first Anonymous, I'd hire the 2nd woman. More job experience and looks like she wants to stay in the position rather than move on when the first opportunity presents itself.
ReplyDeleteTo the first Anonymous, the one with the biggest boobs :)
ReplyDeleteMaybe this will put pressure on the companies where HR tends to hire more for looks than qualifications, and in turn speed up their exit from the market as all their smokin' hot but incompetent workers run them into the ground. Market share for companies who are NOT so idiotic increases and lets them expand in ways they couldn't before.
ReplyDeleteHeh, I think in this case I'm being WAY too faithful in markets.
Gary, in Edmonton, is CORRECT!
ReplyDelete- Anonymous