Erotic Capital: feminist solution or hostage to fortune?

I feel it's about time for another feminist rant. I'm co-writing a  paper* about attractiveness in the work place, what advantages it confers on the beautiful and whether career practitioners should get involved in discussions around these kinds of issues.

Our starting place for this paper was a concept coined by Catherine Hakim - 'erotic capital'. We've heard of social capital and cultural capital, and Hakim suggests that erotic capital is similar, representing the advantages that can come with being attractive. She defines 'attractive' broadly, covering nice clothes, a good hair-do, posture, poise and charm as well as pure physical beauty.
Hakim is a sociologist and has written extensively on feminist issues in the past. She proposes the notion of erotic capital as a feminist one, but I'm not so sure about its long term contribution to equality. She acknowledges that women face considerable barriers in the work place, and suggests that women therefore should take full advantage of whatever assets they have. She says that research suggests that men rarely get enough sex, and therefore are often susceptible to the charms of a pretty lady.

Her point makes some sense in the short term. Women do indeed face unfair discrimination in the work place. They need to be better than their male counterparts to get the same rewards, and face prejudice in all industry areas at all levels. We've been trying for some time to get equality and haven't managed it - maybe it is time for a new approach? But I think we need to feel sure that a new approach doesn't do any damage.

One particular barrier which I think is pertinent to this debate is that women are assumed to be not as good as men in the work place. There is evidence from Neilsen and Huse (2010) that in the board room, people assume that women aren't going to make valuable contributions, and so are less likely to pay attention or rate their opinions. Schein's (1993) replication of her earlier Think Manager Think Male study (really interesting stuff - do google it if you haven't come across it before) showed that men still think that women in general don't have the skills you need to be a good manager.

So, my concern is this. If women go along with Hakim's suggestions, and make sure that they dress elegantly, spend money on expensive haircuts, and  flatter and charm male colleagues, it may indeed lead to  higher salaries and promotions. And who wouldn't want that? But what happens to all the stereotypes and prejudice in ten years time when the board rooms are full of attractive women who have got there by flashing their eyelashes and showing a well turned ankle, working side by side with men who have got their by merit? Are we not fueling the existing prejudice that women have less to contribute in the work place than men?

I'm not sure what the answer is, but I am concerned that this approach may compound existing prejudices in the long term.

Nelisen, S. and Huse, M. (2010) Women directors’ contribution to board decision-making and strategic involvement: The role of equality perception European Management Review 7 16 – 29
Schein, V. E., & Davidson, M. J. ( 1993). Think manager–think male: Managerial sex typing among U.K. business students. Management Development Review, 6( 3), 24– 28

* with Tristram Hooley from iCeGs

Occupational Prestige

I'm just reading some bits and pieces on occupational prestige. There tends to be pretty good consensus around which jobs are most prestigious, and there is a surprising degree of stability in rankings of occupational prestige, across time and culture. Doctors, for example, have held a high occupational status for centuries, in more or less all culture. But identifying what factors make one occupation more prestigious than another have been surprisingly hard to pin down.

There have been theories that suggest that key factors are influence and money - jobs which have a wide ranging influence, and those which are linked to financial power houses (NB I don't here mean high salaries, but people who have influence on how money is spent - budget holders and the like) are more likely to be prestigious. So power is usually important, but there are those who think that the causal relationship is the other way round - ie people in high prestige jobs are powerful, rather than that power leads to high prestige. I was thinking that academics are often asked to take on powerful roles (advisory committees, influencing policy etc) even though their jobs in themselves are neither powerful nor in charge of large sums of money.

Education and skill are other factors that are frequently mentioned. Most high prestige jobs require extensive training and / or high levels of education to enter.

So, I can reveal that the most prestigious occupations are:

1. Physician
2. Lawyer
3. Computer systems analyst 
4. Post-secondary teacher
5. Physicist or astronomer
6. Chemist 
7. Chemical engineer
8. Architects
9. Biological or life scientist
10. Physical scientist
11. Dentist
12. Judge
13. Engineer
14. Chief executive
15. Geologist
16. Psychologist
17.  Manager, medicine
18. Aerospace engineer
19. Clergy
20. Civil engineer

I think this is quite an interesting list. I can see that these professions all deserve a place here. It's all rather science-heavy (14 out of the 20). I think my personal list might include a musician or an author, although as one of my students pointed out to me recently, with the rise of e-books and self-publishing, anyone can be an author now, so that perhaps reduces the prestige that comes from a hard to attain job.

 Zhou, Q. (2005) The Institutional Logic of Occupational Prestige Ranking: Reconceptualization and Reanalyses American Journal of Sociology 111 (1) 90 - 140

Social class and careers

I've been thinking a bit lately about social class and the many and varied benefits that being middle class might have on our career paths.

There's some issues that are fairly obvious. We know that some fields (such as politics, the media and fashion) all but require a significant period of unpaid work experience, and managing this when you have parents who can support you financially is bound to be helpful. We also know how important networks are, and that the notion of 'social capital' is important. The middle classes are much more likely to have access to interesting opportunities for internships and jobs because of their well connected parents. Greenback and Hepworth (2008) conducted a great piece of research a few years ago into the impact that social class has on career decision making styles and had some interesting findings which illustrate the uphill struggle that working class kids face when competing with middle class kids. Working class kids, for example, tend to focus on their degree first, and then start thinking about jobs afterwards. This seems like a very reasonable approach in itself, but at job interviews, these young people are up against the middle class kids who have already may have notched up a number of relevant internships. Those middle class competitors will be able to talk with confidence about the skills needed in the workplace, commercial issues and can prove that they understand the behaviour needed in a professional environment.

But what I've been thinking particularly about is not the fact that being middle class can bring specific benefits (networks, the flexibility associated with money, approaches to employability) but that being middle class is an advantage simply because being middle class is more admired - not that it's associated with any particular qualities or behaviour, but just because it's more desirable to be middle class.

There is plenty of evidence that an attractive appearance is linked with a range of positive employment outcomes - more money, more promotion, more job offers etc. But what is interesting is that the notion of attractiveness, in much of this research, is much broader than basic good looks, including things such as 'tasteful' clothing, 'well applied' make up, and the ability to know how to behave in social settings. Which in many cases boils down simply to looking (or being) more middle class. I don't just mean that middle class people are more able to afford to dress 'well', it's more that society decrees that what we think of as 'tasteful' or 'well' dressed is simply the way that middle class people look.

I've also read something recently about accents (eg Rakic et al. 2011) , and essentially, a middle class accent is more likely to get you a job than a working class one - not because there is anything intrinsically better about it, but simple because it symbolises the middle classes.

Then finally, I've just been reading a really interesting article on the advertising industry (McLeod et al 2009) which essentially suggests that ad agencies favour middle class applicants in part because they are more likely to be fit in and be desirable to clients.

The impact of social class is deep, subtle and insidious. And I don't know what we should do about it. It's a complex issue (far more nuanced than I'm making it seem in this post). But you could argue that it's woven into the fabric of our society (maybe any society?) that being middle class is better than being working class. And whilst we, as a society or as a bunch of practitioners, can work with clients to change some of the issues - encouraging all clients to get involved in work experience early on, teach people how to develop and make the most of their networks, there are many symbols of class which are hard for individuals to change, and which are deeply ingrained in our society. And these confer advantages to the middle classes, simply by signalling that they are middle class.

Greenbank and Hepworth (2008) Working class students and the career decision making process: A qualitative study: Manchester HECSU

McLeod, C., O'Donohoe, S. and Townley, B. (2009)The elephant in the room? Class and creative careers in British advertising agencies  Human Relations 2009 62: 1011

Rakic, T., Steffens, m.C. and Mummendey, A. (2011) When it matters how you promounce it: the interview of regional accents on job interview outcome British Journal of Psychology 102 868 - 883

Freelance success

Many career coaches make their living as freelancers, so I was intrigued to read the findings of this study which explores the factors that make a freelancer successful.

Self-employment is, for many, a desirable career choice. It can provide autonomy and flexibility, and the financial rewards can be great. But we know that many small business fold within their first year, and many freelance careers fail to take off. Born and Witteloostujin (2013) examined the careers of a large number of freelancers and identified three factors which consistently seem to be linked to those who make a success of their freelance careers.

The first is networking. This is perhaps no surprise. We know anecdotally that work for freelancers often if not usually comes through word of mouth, so the ability to network is bound to have an impact. The paper suggests though that it's not just about numbers. What is crucial is how strategic an individual is in their networking - it's about targeting those you connect with and raising your profile with the right people in the right way.

The second key factor is establishing a niche. It seems to be easier to make a success of your business or freelance career if it's highly specialised. This is one that I didn't expect, but on reflection, it makes sense to me, and fits with many stories of successful freelance careers. My initial thoughts were that if your practice is generic, then you are more likely to appeal to a wider range of clients, and therefore will get more business. But I think the key is that from a client perspective, there is something very attractive about engaging the services of a real expert. Specialising in a specific arena both gives you the opportunity to become an expert, and gives a clear message to clients that you are one.

These two factors are useful ones for career coaches, and could lead to useful conversations that could provide clients with a valuable competitive edge.

The third factor is interesting too. The researchers found that individuals whose work life balance mattered to them were less likely to make a success of a freelance career. This does make sense, doesn't it? It is hard to get established in a new field, and presumably, you're more likely to get repeat business if you can say yes to any offers that come your way, and the more hours you can spend preparing, the better the quality of your work.

This factor I think could be particularly valuable for discussions with clients who are motivated by the flexibility that a freelance career can bring. As a freelancer, you can certainly take a month off work every winter to learn to scuba dive in Brazil, and you are free to arrange your time to make sure you're there to drop the kids at school every day. But I wonder at what cost to your professional success?



Born, A., & Witteloostuijn, A. (2013). Drivers of freelance career success. Journal Of Organizational Behavior, 34(1), 24-46

The Quarter-Life Crisis: does it exist, and does that matter?

I've been working with one of my career coaching graduates (Hiba Dabis) on a paper about the Quarter Life crisis, and I've come to the conclusion that this concept is a useful addition to the career coach's understanding of career development.

The quarter life crisis is something that some people experience early on in adult hood (there is also research into the "turning 30 crisis" which is very similar but where the turning 30 crisis relates specifically to age, the quarterlife crisis is defined more by experiences). It's a crisis of identity and usually occurs when people start to feel that the life they are leading is incongruous with the adult that they are. It's often seen in people who have ended up following a career path that was highly influenced by their parents, school or peer group, and in individuals who perhaps didn't have a high degree of self-clarity in their late adolescence. Those going through a quarter-life crisis experience self-doubt, struggle with self-esteem and question their decisions. This can lead to insecurity, confusion, loneliness and a great feeling of isolation.

Rossi and Mebert had a look at a group of young people in 2011 and found no support for the concept of a quarter life crisis. They found that all the different emotions associated with this time of life could be explained by other factors, with depression and levels of job and life satisfaction being predicted by social and family support, income and identity development. Their research concludes that young adults may be depressed or have low job satisfaction, but this is no different from depression and job satisfaction at any other stage in life.

But I can't help but thinking that Rossi and Mebert were asking the wrong question. From the perspective of a coaching practitioner, one of the really useful applications of a theory is that it can help clients to normalise their experiences, which in turn can help them to accept their situation, validate their emotional responses and can reduce feelings of isolation.  It is clearly helpful for practitioners to have some understanding of the antecedents of some of the emotional elements of the quarterlife crisis. If we know that social support is linked to enhanced life and job experience, and a clear sense of identity is likely to reduce depression, then these can point towards particular discussions and interventions to help. But I would also suggest that some of the feelings of isolation, self-doubt and the sense of failure experienced by many young adults might be softened a little by the understanding that their situation is not unique, and that the idea of a 'quarterlife crisis' is experienced and resolved by many.

Thinking back to my own crisis of identity in my mid-twenties, I can't help by think that knowing that my inability to define myself and my sense of loss and confusion were part of a tried and tested developmental path might have made me feel less isolated and less of a failure.

I do appreciate the importance of academic rigour when we try to identify concepts within psychology, but I also think it's incumbent on us as coaches to think about how we can use the academic research to best effect with our clients.


Dabis, H. (2013) Navigating the Stormy Seas of the Quarterlife crisis MA Dissertation University of East London
Rossi, N. E., & Mebert, C. J. (2011). Does a Quarterlife Crisis Exist?. Journal Of Genetic Psychology, 172(2), 141-161

How to identify your vocation?

The notion of a vocation is one that the career scholars have been thinking a lot about over the past decade. Dik and Duffy, who seem to be the academic leading lights on this topic, have recently published a paper summarising what we have found out and what is yet to come.

From a practitioners perspective, there is a huge gap in the research. It’s all very well knowing how marvellous it is for individuals who have found their vocation (and the list of benefits is huge - not only job satisfaction, but life satisfaction, better health and a whole host of others), but what we’re really interested in is how can we help clients to find theirs. The literature seems pretty sketchy on this point, but there are a few ideas put forward which we might be able to work with.

First it could be helpful for clients to simply know a bit about what it is. It might be useful for a client to know that one's vocation can be measure on a continuum - it's not something that you either have or don't have, but something that you can have a bit of, or a bit more of. It might seem a bit unrealistic for some clients to think that they ought to find their whole life purpose in their job, but moving a degree or two towards a vocation could feel a bit more achievable and could have some real benefits.

It could also be useful for clients to understand the three key elements of a vocation: First for it to be a calling, there must be a caller. Traditionally, this has often been conceptualised as a spiritual thing, but the caller could be anything - one's country, community, a group of people or a sense of destiny. Second for it to be a vocation, the purpose of your work needs to be very similar to you life purpose - so that the values driving the work-you, are the same as those driving the whole-you. And third there needs to be some pro-social element to the role - you need to feel that you are doing some good in some way - whether that is working with the vulnerable and needy, or providing bigger dividends to shareholders. 

Leading on from that last point, I think it's useful to remember that vocations don't need to be carey-sharey doing-good roles. Around a third of us have feel that we have a vocational orientation to our jobs, and this is pretty consistent for all occupations (surprisingly perhaps). I did hear one lovely story that illustrates this nicely. The cleaner at Nasa was asked what he did for a living, and his reply was 'I put people on the moon'.

So finally, just a few thoughts to bear in mind in discussions with clients. Duffy and Dik suggest that we should encourage clients to develop openness in new directions, to actively explore their interests, values and skills and think about how these match with potential jobs. Discussions around how jobs could connect with some kind of pro-social orientation could be fruitful - either thinking about what other jobs could have a pro-social orientation that chimes with their values, or thinking about ways to make their current jobs more socially orientated.

But there are still big gaps in our understanding of how interventions can help us identify our vocations. If anyone fancies doing a research project, do let me know!

Duffy, R.D. and Dik, B.J. (2013) Research on calling: what have we learned and where are we going? Journal of Vocational Behavior 83 428 – 436

How to be more successful at work

I've just been reading a paper that describes a meta-analysis of studies that examine the factors that make us successful at work. Of course the whole notion of what 'success' looks like in career terms is up for debate (one to return to another day), but for the purpose of this article, the researchers were looking at the factors that predict salary and promotion.

The first thing I found interesting was that there are apparently two identified ways to promotion in the work place. The first is known as 'contest mobility' which is promotion based on merit. Promotion is based on an open contest, and the most suitable person gets the job. The second is 'sponsorship mobility'; which refers to the idea that the person who gets promoted is the one who has been chosen by the organisation as a high flier. Early in your time in any organisation, the senior managers make a decision about whether you are the kind of person they want to promote. If you are the chosen one then you are likely to get the promotion regardless of whether you are actually the most deserving.

Contest mobility is (thankfully) the more common reason for people to get a promotion or pay rise, but I was interested to see that as well as leading to higher chances of promotion, being sponsored by your organisation is also a really clear predictor of job satisfaction. It seems that the feeling that your managers rate you and want to help you in your career makes you feel good about work, over and above its impact on objective factors such as promotion and pay.

In terms of top tips for clients (and indeed ourselves) looking to climb the corporate ladder, the strongest predictors of salary are:
1. Your IQ
2. Your education level
3. Your political knowledge and skills

And the factors most likely to lead to a promotion are:
1. The amount of training you get access to (strongly linked to the organisational sponsorship idea)
2. Your social capital
3. The hours that you work (the more the better).

The notion of organisational sponsorship is a good one to share with clients, as it seems that putting in a super human effort in the early stages of your time in an organisation to try and make the right impression, pushing for training opportunities and working long hours are likely to pay off.

Ng, T.W.H., Eby, L.T., Sorensen, K.L. and Feldman, D.C. (2005) Predictors of objective and subjective career success: a meta-analysis Personnel Psychology  58 367 - 408