for their beauty and this knowledge comes to them by whatever means, they would have no reason to work as hard as they would have in the opposite circumstances. As is human nature, they focus more on being attractive and remaining in that state as that is what got them the position in the first place.
Even though it is humanly impossible to overlook one’s attractiveness, it is important to try to analyze that in comparison to their skill set (Sartore, 2006). Hiring people based on their attractiveness does very little for the motivation of other employees. Employees should be made to direct their efforts towards increasing their productive ability. The observance that the management’s focus is in the opposite direction rubs off on them and sends them into confusion. The action of the one person in the management body affects the outlook of employees towards the entire body and not of that particular person.
In the case facing the College of Business Administration, the chairperson’s action could be interpreted as the stand of the entire management body, inclusive of human resource. The staff body usually works in parallel direction with the management. Therefore, if they not that the management focus is on productivity in terms of skills, then they equally focus on that. However if they find that other aspects such as beauty are more important they shift focus to that rather than to improving and sustaining their skills. From the same management-employee relationship perspective, Beautysim damages the faith of employees in their management. In whatever circumstances, the management is meant to illustrate integrity in order to establish faith and goodwill (Commisso, 2012). In the event that beautyism becomes a management’s limitation, employees begin to question other aspects of that relationship. Employees begin to worry that they could be biased on other aspects as well leaving them on the losing side.