<p>A friend of mine just had an interview where a comment was made about part of the decision based on whether she was “Pleasing to the eye”. I was shocked - sadly, probably more that it was openly said than that it was an issue. I think she was as well. This was not for a barmaid job or as a model or a stripper or anything like that. It was a medical receptionists job and this lady has the ideal helpful and kind personality for the job. </p>
<p>Interested in other peoples opinions.</p>
<p>There is probably a better way to state what the interviewer was wanting to get across. I imagine that the interviewer was trying to say that the receptionist they hire will be the offices first impression to the public and they want to make sure the receptionst makes a good first impression. This type of thing is important for offices and they need to make sure they are represented in the way they want to be represented.</p>
<p>I agree with bajamm. It isn’t necessarily based on beauty , but on how one presents themselves and how they want to be perceived as a business. We once hired a friend of a friend who worked in our office , not interfacing with customers. His physical appearance wasn’t pleasant since he chose to adorn himself in a way that would attract unwanted attention . His phone voice and manners were great for what we hired him to do , but he wasn’t presentable to the public…this prompted us to introduce a dress code in our company</p>
<p>Hmm - I would completely understand if they had said the job required a neat and professional appearance. Pleasing to the eye has a quite different connotation to me. </p>
<p>As far as neat and professional appearance, many years ago back in England I co-interviewed someone once who was wearing very dirty shoes - not “damn, stepped in a puddle on the way to the interview” dirty, but never seen a shoe brush or even a damp cloth dirty - it put me off as I felt like someone who would make so little effort for the interview would probably be the same in the job. I was overridden and she was hired. Then fired. Her farewell comment to my shocked American bosses was along the lines of “having worked for this company, I understand how America lost the Vietnam war”!!</p>
<p>For a receptionist job it is very important that the person presents themselves well. They are the first impression a customer has of the business (medical office). If they aren’t well groomed, clean, etc. I wouldn’t use that dr’s office. I’m sure they didn’t mean that she has to be “beautiful” to get the job.</p>
<p>I think it is very reasonable that a large part of how a receptionist is percieved is how they look & sound.
They are the first face of the company, and so an attractive and professional appearance is important.
I think it depends on the company as to if they only will consider BYT( bright young things) or if they are more sure of themselves and look beyond age and consider someone who isn’t necessarily magazine cover ready.</p>
<p>Swimcatsmom, I would be appalled to hear that in an interview situation. Probably would have blurted out, “What is this, Mad Men?” or something along those lines if they had said it to me! It is fine to say they want some one who makes a good impression in terms of voice and professionalism, and is groomed (clean, doesn’t smell funny, reasonably professionally dressed). But that is really not what they said, is it?</p>
<p>As strange as it might be, looks matter…looks get noticed.</p>
<p>When my son was visiting campuses for his PhD program, a prof was so surprised by my son’s looks that he blurted out, “wow, we don’t get many fresh-faced students in math.”</p>
<p>As for a job that greets the public, I guess they’re thinking that this person will be the “face of the company”??</p>
<p>Well, of course they matter and get noticed. But it is highly unprofessional (and may even be discriminatory, depending on what the interviewer meant by “pleasing to the eye”) to discuss it in a job interview. I think the company’s HR department would probably be pretty uncomfortable with that phrasing.</p>
<p>Sadly there are businesses in which the receptionist is expected to be young and pretty. I worked for a place like that several years ago. When the (young,pretty) receptionist was promoted the office manager hired a woman who was smart, well organized, very pleasant, had wonderful manners both in person and on the phone. Some of the male “powers to be” so to say wanted her fired because of what they referred to as “the problem with her appearance”. She was neat, clean and not unattractive, but she was not the image that they wanted for the company. She was replaced with a beauty queen (literally). Needless to say, I did not work long for that company.</p>
<p>
<=exactly. Surprising that someone would be that stupid to actually say that… to the applicant!?!</p>
<p>Frankly, if it’s discriminatory to mention/discuss it, then it’s just as wrong to consider it at all. That’s the basis of many discrimination cases…the words were never said, but it’s obvious that discrimination came into play.</p>
<p>Totally inappropriate comment if professional appearance is what was meant. Not to mention it can and in fact may be intended to be interpreted as “and you’d better stay that way…”</p>
<p>“Pleasing to the eye” isn’t the best phrasing, but it isn’t the worst I’ve heard either.
But it might be typical of their mindset in which case it’s good to know upfront.</p>
<p>Pleasing is in the eye of the beholder, eh? That said, I truly believe that most anyone can buff themselves up and be presentable to the public. Other than those whose conditions cause natural alarm, and even they are such that we the public should do our best to overcome our natural reactions and interact in the most humane manner possible.</p>
<p>Because of the odd phrasing, I’d bet that English was not the interviewer’s first language. It’s quite possible that this is a direct translation of what otherwise would be a colloquial phrase in another language that might mean “be the face of the company” (itself a colloquialism that makes no sense if taken literally).</p>
<p>My parents were from Eastern Europe and made such semantic errors.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As as English-speaker (not American-speaker) it does not sound like odd phrasing to me.</p>
<p>But it could be fairly innocuous, I would not consider it equivalent to saying “sexy” or “hot”.</p>
<p>The general counsel of the company would have a heart attack if s/he heard this. However, I wouldn’t assume that the workplace is undesirable based on what might just be an innocuous policy, expressed poorly.</p>
<p>I agree it was dumb of them to say this to an applicant, but it was probably not illegal. In HR-speak, being “displeasing to the eye” is not a Protected Class - so companies are free to discriminate in employment decisions on that basis. That is unless it can be shown that their definition of what is pleasing to the eye results in de facto discrimination against another group that is a protected class. For example if their notion of pleasing to the eye resulted in the exclusion of candidates of a certain race, then they would have a legal problem on their hands. As it is they are simply foolish - their ill-advised comments will likely anger unsuccessful job applicants and inspire them to hire a lawyer to go on a hunt for illegal discrimination.</p>
<p>"“Pleasing to the eye” could be a euphemism for “young.” It would certainly bother me. Older people, male or female, between the ages of 45-60 are usually not labeled “pleasing to the eye.” I do think it sounds discriminatory against older individuals.</p>