Beauty and Appearance in Corporate Director Elections

We study the role of facial appearance in corporate director (re-)elections by means of director photographs published in annual reports. We find that shareholders use inferences from facial appearance in corporate elections, as a better (higher rated) appearance measure of a director reduces voting dissent. These heuristics are based on perceived competence, trustworthiness, likability, and intelligence, but not on physical beauty. The results are valid for director re-elections but not for first appointment elections as in the latter cases, shareholders may not as yet be familiar with a director’s looks. In firms with few institutional shareholders and more retail investors owning small equity stakes, the latter tend to rely more on facial appearance than institutional shareholders, presumably as institutions conduct more research on the director’s background and performance, and consequently rely less on facial appearance. While female directors generally experience lower voting dissent, their facial appearance does not affect their elections results.

[1]  D. Hamermesh.  Changing Looks and Changing "Discrimination:" the Beauty of Economists , 2005 .

[2]  J. Sullivan,et al.  The Political Psychology of Democratic Citizenship , 2009 .

[3]  Jie Cai,et al.  Electing Directors , 2008 .

[4]  A. Todorov,et al.  Inferences of Competence from Faces Predict Election Outcomes , 2005, Science.

[5]  M. Bar,et al.  Very first impressions. , 2006, Emotion.

[6]  J. Grundfest.  Advice and Consent: An Alternative Mechanism for Shareholder Participation in the Nomination and Election of Corporate Directors , 2003 .

[7]  Henrik Jordahl,et al.  The Looks of a Winner: Beauty, Gender and Electoral Success , 2006, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[8]  Eva Sierminska,et al.  Beauty and the Labor Market , 2015 .

[9]  Panu Poutvaara,et al.  The right look: Conservative politicians look better and voters reward it , 2017 .

[10]  Henrik Jordahl,et al.  The looks of a winner: Beauty and electoral success , 2010 .

[11]  Abigail B. Sussman,et al.  Competence ratings in US predict presidential election outcomes in Bulgaria , 2013 .

[12]  Andrei Shleifer,et al.  Corporate Ownership Around the World , 1998 .

[13]  Joseph T. Halford,et al.  Beauty is Wealth: CEO Appearance and Shareholder Value , 2014 .

[14]  Steven L. Neuberg,et al.  Beauty at the Ballot Box , 2013, Psychological science.

[15]  Henrik Jordahl,et al.  Faces of Politicians: Babyfacedness Predicts Inferred Competence but Not Electoral Success , 2009 .

[16]  Alexander Todorov,et al.  The efficiency of binding spontaneous trait inferences to actors’ faces , 2003 .

[17]  Tirta Susilo,et al.  Is voting skin-deep? Estimating the effect of candidate ballot photographs on election outcomes , 2009 .

[18]  J. Parkinson,et al.  The Combined Code on Corporate Governance , 1999 .

[19]  S. Skrabalak.  Committee on Corporate Governance: Final Report , 1998 .

[20]  Christopher Y. Olivola,et al.  Elected in 100 milliseconds: Appearance-Based Trait Inferences and Voting , 2010 .

[21]  S. Chaiken,et al.  Shallow Cues With Deep Effects: Trait Judgments From Faces and Voting Decisions , 2009 .

[22]  Janine Willis,et al.  First Impressions , 2006, Psychological science.

[23]  M. Klein,et al.  The frog pond beauty contest: Physical attractiveness and electoral success of the constituency candidates at the North Rhine‐Westphalia state election of 2005 , 2007 .

[24]  Timothy D. Wilson,et al.  The halo effect: Evidence for unconscious alteration of judgments. , 1977 .

[25]  Renée B. Adams,et al.  Women in the Boardroom and Their Impact on Governance and Performance , 2008 .

[26]  Stefano Rossi,et al.  Ownership: Evolution and Regulation , 2006 .

[27]  Ronald W. Masulis,et al.  Board Structure and Monitoring: New Evidence from CEO Turnover , 2015 .

[28]  Robert M. Kaplan,et al.  Is beauty talent? Sex interaction in the attractiveness halo effect , 1978 .