Receive free Leadership updates
We’ll send you a myFT Daily Digest email rounding up the latest Leadership news every morning.
The merry-go-round in jobs at the UK’s largest companies is whirling again. NatWest, BT and AG Barr are all getting new bosses. Heavyweight assessment of incoming chief executives will focus on experience, character and, of course, gender.
Gossip around company water coolers may include discussion of how tall or short the new boss is. Academic research suggests humans prefer lofty, imposing leaders.
UK Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer has mocked the stature of prime minister Rishi Sunak. Jacqueline Gold, who sadly died earlier this year, complained that in meetings people mistook taller colleagues for the CEO of Ann Summers. She actually ran the lingerie business.
There is a dearth of recent research on size bias in executive appointments. This may be because a much-quoted investigation almost 20 years ago ensured companies clammed up.
In 2005, writer Malcolm Gladwell polled half of the US Fortune 500 companies with questions about their predominantly male CEOs. He found the typical boss was three inches taller than the average US man. Almost three-fifths of the CEOs exceeded six feet compared with around 15 per cent of the broader male population.
The population of CEOs has changed since. Women, on average shorter than men, have achieved modest levels of representation, for example. But anyone who regularly meets CEOs notices how many stoop slightly to shake hands.
Paul Thwaite, who is tall, has replaced Rose at NatWest on an interim basis. Her predecessor, the politically-savvy Ross McEwan, was another tall man.
Research points to an earnings premium for taller people. In 2015, US investigators found that salaries were 9-15 per cent larger in the 75th height percentile than the 25th. In 2020, Forbes reported Chinese findings that each extra cm of height produces a 1.3 per cent increase in income.
There are at least three unprovable theories. First, that height is instinctively regarded as proof of good health and confers evolutionary advantage. Second, wealthy families breed taller kids and give them career leg-ups. Third, tall people receive deference that boosts self-confidence.
None of this reflects badly on tall people themselves. They endure regular encounters with toe-exposing hotel duvets and wags who think “getting enough oxygen up there?” is funny. But if hirers prefer candidates in proportion to their height, one wonders what other biases afflict them.
The Lex team is interested in hearing more from readers. Please tell us whether you believe there is “height premium” in the comments section below.
Read the full article here
