How Does Appearance Affect Job Opportunities and Productivity Perception?

Impact of Personality on Job Productivity

First of all, I thank all those who spend their precious time reading my post. I am a postgraduate of Business Administration, and I am also an Islamic scholar. Therefore, I have a beard and always wear a cap. I completed my MBA with this appearance at one of the most popular colleges in Chennai. However, after finishing the course, I attended interviews at some companies, but they refused to recruit me for the positions they had available. From their initial expressions, I could tell that they were going to reject me based on my appearance. One recruiter even asked me directly about this, and I was rejected there as well. Currently, I work in Bahrain in a good job with a competitive salary package.

From the above passage, you may understand my question. How does a person's personality significantly impact their job productivity and the assessment of their competencies before being hired?

Evaluating Personality in Historical and Modern Contexts

Furthermore, if personality plays a crucial role in evaluating one's attitude and character, what kind of personality did Mahatma Gandhi have? How does our Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh's personality shine through, considering their own demeanor and attire in India?

I can provide numerous examples of individuals who have achieved a distinguished reputation in the country while wearing traditional clothing. So, why does the field of HR place more emphasis on personality rather than skills and knowledge?

Thank you.

Regards,
Deen Mohammed

Dear Deen Mohammad,

Well, gentleman, you have gotten confused between "personality" and "personal preferences." Your candidature was turned down because of personal preferences and not because of your personality.

India's Secular Nature

India is a secular country. Everybody is free to practice religion, but it should be done at home. There is no need to carry outside the symbols of one's religion unless it is absolutely mandatory, like in Sikhism, where it is mandatory to grow a beard or wear a bracelet.

India is a country, but it is also a sort of planet with many religions, castes, creeds, etc., living together. For employers, it is not possible to give prominence to one particular religion. Today, if you are permitted to come up with a beard, tomorrow someone will ask to come in black outfits because they are devotees of ____. Demands will go on endlessly. Should employers run their enterprise or keep on fulfilling the personal preferences of their employees?

Employer Rights and Religious Practices

Every employer has the right to frame rules of employment. As far as growing a beard is concerned, almost 20-25 years ago, the High Court of MP ruled that as per Islam, it is not mandatory to grow a beard. The verdict of the High Court does not mean that you should not practice your religion. Please practice it, but for the sake of this practice, do not blame the other side for not being accommodative.

Some European countries have gone even a step forward. They have banned women from wearing a veil in public.

Mahatma Gandhi's Example

Well, you have given the example of Mahatma Gandhi. It appears that you have not read his book "My Experiments with Truth." Please read it.

By the way, one's actions speak louder about one's religiosity. Look around, and you will find that religion has not helped in any country to bridge the gap between the rich and the poor. In fact, this gap is widening. Member countries of the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) are no exception. Therefore, the less we project our religion, the better!

Thanks,

Dinesh V Divekar

Somewhere, I agree with you. It's not related to our religion, whether we are Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, or Christian. Personality matters for everyone. However, I have also experienced this in North India—most people have fair skin color, and they sometimes don't give much importance to darker skin. But it's not exactly the case everywhere. Those who are well-educated, have a nice nature, and are serious about professionalism— for them, your talent and your qualities matter.

Discrimination in Recruitment Practices

While not delving into the subject of religious discrimination, we must accept that there is large-scale discrimination happening during recruitment. I have seen discrimination in various companies based on caste, where people of higher caste are given preference over those of lower caste; skin color, where a fair and presentable girl is given preference over a not-so-presentable and fair girl; and regional bias, where preference is usually given to the candidate who shares the same religion as their potential boss.

For this, I believe to a great extent the HR fraternity is to blame, as we tend to follow external and discriminatory rules rather than focusing on the competency of the person being interviewed.

Regards.

Clashes between personal and organizational preferences occur in one form or another in all places, including workplaces. In some jobs, such clashes lead to not being selected owing to the fear of how the clients or customers of an organization will react. I am sure that if another person had attended the interview with a dhoti and religious symbols prominently displayed on the forehead, he would not have been appointed. You say that you got a good job in the Middle East; I wonder whether I would get one if I went there in my dhoti!

Examples of Attire in Professional Settings

Coming to your examples of Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Manmohan Singh succeeding in politics, I wonder what attire the former wore when he practiced as a lawyer or a student in the UK! I am confident that he did not go about in his dhoti above the knee and a cloth to cover the top or topless. I have given lectures and seminars in Indian institutions. If I had turned up like Gandhi to such events, I am convinced that the institutions would not have hired me.

Dinesh Divekar has clearly explained the differences between personality and personal preferences, and I have nothing more to add to that.

Dear learned members, I noticed that a few members have expressed their opinions, stating that what happened with Deen Mohammed was "workplace discrimination." I beg to differ. Had Deen Mohammed's candidacy been turned down because of his religion, it could have been a case of discrimination. However, in his case, it is his preference to express his religion outwardly that has cost him this job. Giving differential treatment because of caste, creed, religion, race, etc., is workplace discrimination, not otherwise.

Employers have the complete right to maintain the workplace as they see fit. I have seen in some companies that visitors must remove their footwear before entering the office! Now, it is that employer's office, and they have made this rule. Whether to deal with this company or not is a personal preference of job candidates, vendors, consultants, etc.

Thanks,

Dinesh V Divekar

Appearance and Professional Standards in Interviews

First, they do not reject you based on your personality but rather on appearance and the standards you follow. When attending an interview, you must adhere to professionalism and etiquette depending on the job you are applying for. This is especially true for corporate jobs. Being religious is commendable, but overtly displaying it can sometimes cause issues. Companies have their own rules and regulations, and they have the right to reject a candidate if they find that the individual doesn't fit in or meet the company standards. Sometimes, it's a personal choice. Therefore, if you find yourself not aligning with the company's standards, it might be better to seek opportunities where your standards won't be an obstacle in securing a job. Companies and corporations are not going to compromise their standards to offer you a job based on the standards you follow.

Regards,
[Username]

Dear Senior Members,

Once again, I thank you all for posting replies to my thread. I am sorry if there has been any misunderstanding regarding my initial post. What I am trying to express is, as Mr. Dinesh mentioned, "There is no need to display outward symbols of one's religion unless it is absolutely mandatory like in Sikhism, wherein it is necessary to grow a beard or wear a bracelet." If something is deemed absolutely mandatory, it should be permitted in all organizations, ranging from lower-level positions to high-level corporate offices. Similarly, the wearing of a beard is mandatory in Islam as well. I am even willing to remove my cap in the workplace since it is not as significant. However, Sikh individuals, who wear large turbans along with beards, are employed in various organizations worldwide, not just in India. So, why are recruiters not allowing individuals of other faiths to follow their traditions?

Regarding the impact of personal preferences on one's job, as Mr. Dinesh stated, "Personal preferences" should not influence one's performance in the workplace. A person's productivity is not determined by their personal choices but rather by their attitude, skills, and knowledge that they contribute to the company.

I would like to address Ms. Couvery's comment: "While going for an interview, you must adhere to professionalism and etiquette based on the job you are applying for. For corporate positions, the same standards should be followed." What if a Sikh individual attends an interview with their beard and turban and gets hired, while another individual with a beard and cap or someone with religious markings on their forehead gets rejected, despite all candidates having equal qualifications? What reasoning can be provided for this discrepancy?

Thank you for your attention and consideration.

I was discussing this issue with a friend during our daily walk. He mentioned a saying in Kannada, "PAthrakke takkaMte vEsha," which means "Dress according to the role." He gave me an example: just because someone is a good actor and knows all the script, they can't wear a suit or a turban, etc., for the part of Mahatma Gandhi (MG). Ben Kingsley wore a dhoti like MG did, and the role was successful. Had he depicted MG with any other attire, the film would have been a flop. Similarly, if one has to act as Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad, he cannot be shown with a dhoti and a clean-shaven head. The same goes for the need to wear certain attire for certain jobs.

Though orthodox Sikhs wear a turban and grow a beard, etc., there are many Sikhs who do not do that and are successful actors. If these actors had grown a beard and insisted on wearing a turban, the number of parts they would have been chosen for would have been limited.

Without getting into semantics and right/wrong, let's see your query from a different perspective. You mentioned that you are working in Bahrain now and are pretty happy too. Now let's presume I am interested in working there—but I want to attend the interview in my traditional Indian attire. Will I be encouraged or considered? Please note that when I say 'attire' here, I mean the dress and everything else that the other person sees.

In a way, I think Dinesh and others have used the wrong words—though I am sure they meant the right thing, judging from their responses in CiteHR for a long time—the actual focus for anyone is on personal appearance, rather than 'personal preference.'

As the saying goes: "Be a Roman while in Rome" [Simhan used a Kannada proverb to highlight this point].

And please don't mix up 'personality' with 'appearance' or 'preference.' Since you seem to be spiritual (mind you, this is totally different from being 'religious'), let me mention a few aspects from that angle.

You took the examples of Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Manmohan Singh. It's human nature to give some semblance of leeway to those who have proved themselves in any arena of life or profession—and please note I am speaking from a global perspective. You are comparing yourself with Mahatma Gandhi's attire/appearance after he made his mark in the way he dealt with the British Empire through Non-violence, when the general accepted practice until then (and even today) has been through violence/war.

You are at the stage when Gandhi was an attorney, like Simhan mentioned, wearing a suit and tie. I am sure you will find many photos of that attire of Gandhi.

Forget about Gandhi—a more recent example would be that of MF Hussain, the world-renowned painter. He never wore shoes; at best, he wore chappals/slippers and many times not even those. But he surely had to face situations that can be, to put it mildly, termed absolute rejection. But that didn't deter him from focusing on what he believed in. And when he attained his place in history, everyone, right from top-notch persons in the world, never saw 'not wearing any footwear' as a flaw in him. I recollect seeing him in a 5-star hotel with top film stars discussing animatedly, and all of them were keenly lapping up his every word (he wasn't wearing any footwear when I saw him). But mind you, this was after, like I said, he made his mark. Another example from the global scene would be Albert Einstein. I am sure there would be many more.

So the moral of the story, if I may say so, would be to focus on what you aim for in your life/career—and the world will fall at your feet, no pun intended.

Since you seem to have just begun your life/career journey, I suggest you not get distracted in your goals with such situations. To repeat the very same example you mentioned of Mahatma Gandhi: had he focused on his horrible and distressing experiences (being thrown off the first-class compartment of the train being just one of them), would he have become what we all know now? The only thing you need to be careful about is your choice of your goal—just ensure it's something that benefits you and the society at large.

Now let me repeat that I am not even referring to the 'right' or 'wrong' aspects of the situations you mentioned. It all depends on how one views such situations. To take one recent, but extreme, example: The whole world was dismayed and criticized the Kenya Mall or the 26/11 Mumbai attacks—but ask those who perpetrated them? Or the local goonda throwing his tantrums? You know the answers.

Hope you get the point.

All the best.

Regards, TS

I understand you are hurt. I fully understand and agree with you that your outward depiction may not affect your work efficiency, but the rules laid in corporates need to be followed. I'm sure if you were the boss and while interviewing various candidates, as Nas said, if a candidate came in Dhoti, Choti, and tilak or in Gandhi attire, you would probably reject him, irrespective of his knowledge. In an interview, one judges a person in a few minutes only, and there his knowledge, experience, appearance, and confidence are judged in those few minutes. Hence, everything matters, including your dressing sense to some extent. As Nash very rightly said, "Wear as per the occasion."

The Influence of Attire on Professional Perception

When MG was studying in London or while he was practicing law, he wore Western attire only. It was only later, when he came to India and traveled around India by train to see the condition of the common masses, that he realized the poor state of these people; hence, he decided to wear a short dhoti and a piece of cloth for the upper body. What made him Mahatma was probably his thinking, his mission, his work, and very importantly, his "ATTIRE."

Understanding Perspectives on Professional Attire

Probably you are misunderstanding Mr. Devikar and Miss Couvery. Clear the clutter in your mind for a moment, then read their and Nash's answers; you would understand it better.

I'm working in an automobile manufacturing plant that was taken over by the present group from a different group 4 years ago. We have people from all castes, creeds, and religions working here. As it is a 26-year-old plant, almost every department had a small temple placed there with pictures of various deities as per the belief system of that department's people. Every Tuesday and Thursday, there used to be a big prayer session as well, depending on the deities.

Religious Practices in the Workplace

When the new management took over and saw this, they decided to go against it. All the temples were removed from shop floors. Even prasad and the use of agarbatties were banned. I'm myself very religious, but I totally am in favor of this ban. You are free to follow any religion personally, but inside a production hall, everybody follows only one religion, "Manufacturing," and I fully agree.

Do not take such things personally as you end up hurting yourself only, and that's a sin.

Regards,
Dr. Vikas Vikram FMO

As a Muslim, we should always believe in our religious obligations, which are already outlined for us. This includes praying five times a day and offering support to our brothers and sisters. However, it is important to note that as a professional, there should be a distinction between religion and work, and in your case, there was discrimination. My advice to you is to adapt yourself to the requirements of your job and the environment you are in. A good example to follow in life could be Dr. Zakir Naik.

Regards

Mohamed, I do not know exactly what type of company you went to or what you faced, since you chose to be vague in your post. Our members have given you lots of inputs. If I understand rightly (you didn't confirm it), you are alleging religious discrimination.

Perspectives on Discrimination

I see it from various perspectives:

1. Religious and regional discrimination is very common all over the world. The reverse is also true. Go to any office owned by a Muslim, you will find the majority of the employees are Muslim. They hire Muslim employees even if they are not the best choice available. Hindu-owned companies generally will not bother much about it. They will discriminate more based on region: Malayalam/Tamil/Bengali/Punjabi/Gujarati/Kachhi, etc. This happens in other countries also.

2. You got a job in the Gulf, in a Muslim country. Did you get it purely on merit? Were you the best candidate available? Or is it that Hindu candidates are given lower preference and lower salary there?

3. Most large companies prefer a secular environment. In a secular environment, they will avoid discrimination against a particular religion. But they will not allow a visible display of religious symbols. The recruiters have their own bias, not only on religion but also on skin color, language, etc., which the company is not in a position to deal with, since they can't review everyone's work. They will review if there is a specific complaint.

4. HR is generally a critical and visible function where independence from all obvious religious symbolism is best avoided, especially to avoid complaints of unfair treatment of a particular religion even where such unfair treatment does not exist. It's not only your beard and cap. They would generally avoid a Tamil with a big "U" marked on his head with Chandan each morning. Because it has the same effect - a visible manifestation of your possible inner bias.

5. You are free to follow your religion, and you are free to decide whether it's at home or to carry it to the office. But then you must be ready to have your scope of work and options available narrowed. You must then find a job in a place where your wishes to display your religion and preferences are welcome (as you have). If that is a loss of talent for a different organization or a loss of talent for India, it's not your problem.

Dress Code and Employment

But if you wish to work in a particular organization, you must adhere to their stated or unstated dress code. For example, if you are to be a successful merchant banker, you cannot dress in a kurta, even if you think they should allow Indian traditional clothes. If a lady wants to be a successful relationship manager in a bank, she cannot wear a burka or a ghunghat, though both are considered to be the required dress for a woman in many parts of our country. If they wish to wear that, then they must be willing to accept that their access to the job market will accordingly be curtailed.

Lastly, your question on Manmohan Singh was funny. He has always worn western clothes. He used to wear 3-piece suits all the time when he was the governor of the reserve bank. Yes, that is the reason why he was chosen, because of his clothes and personality when there were many better economists available. Of course, now it seems there was another set of considerations, but that is not the point of debate here.

Consider these points with an open mind. This is what the reality is.

I can't relate your post to the subject you have posted: "Is personality a factor in judging a person's productivity?"

Both variables are totally unrelated and cannot be compared. When you went for an interview, HR personnel didn't interview you to check your productivity. Productivity can only be measured after working for some time. So, if HR personnel wanted to measure your productivity, he would have hired you for 3-6 months and then checked your productivity. Since it wasn't the case, I would say he didn't discriminate, but it was his personal bias that came into the picture. I've seen lots of Muslim friends of mine who don't wear a cap or grow a beard, but I haven't seen a single Sikh friend of mine who goes out without wearing a turban (Turban is mandatory for older siblings, by the way) or a beard. So yeah, people who follow Sikhism compulsorily grow a beard and wear a turban, but that is not the case with Islamism.

He didn't check your productivity.

He didn't reject you based on discriminating ideas.

One can't judge productivity based on personality.

Both are totally different.

Hope my points are clear. All the best for your future. :)

Mr. Deen Mohammad,

I have seen umpteen cases where Indian Muslims are treated as B Grade Muslims in the Middle East. Despite the supposition that Muslims are supposed to be casteless, the Muslim society has all kinds of discriminations within the society and region-wise.

In the Middle East, non-Muslims are not permitted to be seen eating during the Ramzan time. Isn't that discrimination?

Anyways, coming to your story... It may be true that the company didn't select you based on your appearance. But also, I have seen so many Muslims, although rejected on the basis of competency, go on complaining about discrimination.

Indian companies are fairly secular in their culture as is the country, and it would be good if you stop looking at your Motherland through such a narrow prism. There is nothing wrong if a company expects its personnel to appear in a certain way.

I have served in the Indian Army for 21 years. Everyone is free to follow his religion, but everyone is expected to dress in a certain way. Yet the Army is the best secular model for the country.

Comparison with Sikhs or Gandhi is irrelevant. Yes, if you do something as great as Gandhi, then people will accept you for that. You can be a clean-shaven Muslim like APJ Abdul Kalam/Mohammad Yunus (Nobel Prize - Bangladesh) and contribute to the country/society.

Unfortunately, a number of youth find it fashionable to put on external religious symbols like a cap or beard and think that they are very religious. I think religion has more to do with deeds than dress and looks.

If you want to be remembered like Gandhi, then do something good for the world so that people remember you as a good human being. As Kennedy said, "Don't ask what the country can do for you... ask what you can do for the country."

Regards.

Dear senior members,

In the present scenario, a person's personality, including their appearance, body language, communication skills, conversational style, the way they express ideas, mental state when meeting strangers, ability to handle challenging situations, etc., holds significant importance for recruiters. Companies aim to hire the best employees to excel among the top competitors. Recruiters strive not to overlook any criteria in selecting skilled individuals.

However, selection should not be influenced by discrimination based on religion. Choosing candidates based on caste or religious discrimination is inappropriate. Selection criteria should not solely rely on theoretical knowledge acquired during academic studies; rather, it should focus on talent, work proficiency, and the necessary skills.

It is widely acknowledged that such discriminatory practices exist at the grassroots level. While not prevalent in all sectors, it is evident in some instances. Education plays a pivotal role in eradicating this issue. Promoting higher education nationwide is crucial to preventing such misjudgments. Uniform rules should apply to all individuals, irrespective of their religious affiliations.

Thank you.

The Importance of Personality in Job Roles

Today, a particular job is not just limited to skills, knowledge, or intellectual assets. Overall personality and intellect are considered. For example, a person working in show business or the service industry (such as hotels and tourism) needs to be well-groomed (clean-shaven, with cropped hair, etc.). For women, simple jewelry, a good face, and physical attributes are also important.

Dress Code and Employment in Religious Settings

Can a person be employed wearing shorts with their knees exposed in a mosque? No, they cannot because the prerequisite according to Islam is that the knees should be covered. Can a female employee be hired to work inside a mosque? No, as females are not allowed inside mosques.

Reason: Job descriptions and job specifications for the mentioned positions have certain prerequisites that need to be fulfilled. Similarly, the jobs for which you were interviewed might have similar prerequisites.

The Role of Personality in Job Productivity

"How does a person's personality play a major role in their job productivity and in judging their competencies before being recruited?"

Answer: To understand this, consider examples like Miss World and Miss Universe. Some winners of these titles were not fair in complexion (no offense intended to anyone for being black), yet they were chosen as winners. Mr. Obama is a fine example of this.

Personality is not just about outer appearance but also about a person's internal qualities. In every field, there are both good and bad people. Those who make you feel inferior due to your appearance are not professionals. Rejections are based on job specifications by professionals.

Thank you.

Best regards,

In addition to my previous post, I just want to clarify the definition of personality. All individuals are different; however, you are mentioning appearance here. Yes, appearance does matter. For instance, the examples you gave, MG or Manmohan Singh, were always well-dressed. The attire might be different, but both of them, or any successful individual, must present a pleasant appearance.

Human behavior is always affected by external appearances, whether we accept it or not. Just look around the matrimonials: "wanted tall, fair, good-looking..." Have you seen a matrimonial that says "good at cooking"? Even Saudi Airlines has young, thin, smart air hostesses on its aircraft for serving tea and coffee. The advertisement is attached. I am sure I can competently serve tea and coffee to passengers, but they wouldn't take me. In fact, you could probably write to them and ask them why this discrimination against:

- Men
- Not so beautiful women
- Overweight women
- Older women

We don't live in a perfect world, but that's how it is. Learn to go with the flow.

Humanity Over Superficiality

Humanity is more important than the superficial display of religion. Look for opportunities to cooperate and collaborate. Don't look for flimsy excuses to differentiate.

Regards

Request you to kindly refer to my view (attachment) in this same forum. You might be right, but I disagree with you. The things mentioned by you for the particular positions are prerequisites (job specification) for it. If this is so, why does a person with a beard only can be an "Imam" of a Mosque? Why not a shaven gentleman? Because the job specification or prerequisite for that position demands a beard. We should not take requirements for a job as discrimination.

Regards