Given what we know about the predictors of leaders’ ability, facial appearance should play a small or a very limited role in observers’ selection of leaders; however, research convincingly shows otherwise. The more distant observers are from leaders or the less information they have about them, the more likely they are to use whatever information is available—including the target’s looks—to make inferences about a leader’s character and competence. In this article, we review which consequential leadership outcomes are predicted by facial appearance. We explain why observers are inclined to make heuristic decisions using facial cues, discuss whether facial appearance carries credible information, and identify the conditions that may attenuate face effects.
AntonakisJ.DalgasO. (2009). (See References). A short and simple read showing that children can predict election outcomes using only the candidates’ facial appearance.
2.
CalderA. J.RhodesG.JohnsonM. H.HaxbyJ. V. (2011). The Oxford handbook of face perception. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. A detailed handbook covering various research topics on face perception.
3.
GrahamJ. R.HarveyC. R.PuriM. (2016). (See References). Shows that a competent look drives CEOs’ salaries but not their performance.
4.
TodorovA.MandisodzaA. N.GorenA.HallC. C. (2005). (See References). One of the first major experiments to demonstrate face effects in political leadership.
5.
TodorovA.OlivolaC. Y.DotschR.Mende-SiedleckiP. (2015). (See References). A comprehensive review covering leadership and other domains.
6.
AhlerD. J.CitrinJ.DougalM. C.LenzG. S. (2016). Face value? Experimental evidence that candidate appearance influences electoral choice. Political Behavior, 39, 77–102.
7.
AntonakisJ.BendahanS.JacquartP.LaliveR. (2010). On making causal claims: A review and recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 1086–1120.
AntonakisJ.FenleyM.LiechtiS. (2011). Can charisma be taught? Tests of two interventions. The Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10, 374–396.
10.
AntonakisJ.JacquartP. (2013). The far side of leadership: Rather difficult to face. In BlighM. C.RiggioR. E. (Eds.), When near is far and far is near: Distance in leader-follower relationships (pp. 155–187). New York, NY: Routledge.
11.
BanksG. C.BatchelorJ. H.McDanielM. A. (2010). Smarter people are (a bit) more symmetrical: A meta-analysis of the relationship between intelligence and fluctuating asymmetry. Intelligence, 38, 393–401.
12.
BerggrenN.JordahlH.PoutvaaraP. (2010). The looks of a winner: Beauty and electoral success. Journal of Public Economics, 94, 8–15.
13.
BøggildT.LaustsenL. (2016). An intra-group perspective on leader preferences: Different risks of exploitation shape preferences for leader facial dominance. The Leadership Quarterly, 27, 820–837.
14.
CosmidesL.ToobyJ. (1996). Are humans good intuitive statisticians after all? Rethinking some conclusions from the literature on judgment under uncertainty. Cognition, 58, 1–73.
JacquartP.AntonakisJ. (2015). When does charisma matter for top-level leaders? Effect of attributional ambiguity. Academy of Management Journal, 58, 1051–1074.
17.
JudgeT. A.CableD. M. (2004). The effect of physical height on workplace success and income: Preliminary test of a theoretical model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 428–441.
18.
LawsonC.LenzG. S.BakerA.MyersM. (2010). Looking like a winner: Candidate appearance and electoral success in new democracies. World Politics, 62, 561–593.
19.
LenzG. S.LawsonC. (2011). Looking the part: Television leads less informed citizens to vote based on candidates’ appearance. American Journal of Political Science, 55, 574–589.
20.
LinkeL.SaribayS. A.KleisnerK. (2016). Perceived trustworthiness is associated with position in a corporate hierarchy. Personality and Individual Differences, 99, 22–27.
21.
MartinezL.FalvelloV. B.AviezerH.TodorovA. (2016). Contributions of facial expressions and body language to the rapid perception of dynamic emotions. Cognition & Emotion, 30, 939–952.
22.
OlivolaC. Y.EubanksD. L.LovelaceJ. B. (2014). The many (distinctive) faces of leadership: Inferring leadership domain from facial appearance. The Leadership Quarterly, 25, 817–834.
23.
OlivolaC. Y.FunkF.TodorovA. (2014). Social attributions from faces bias human choices. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18, 566–570.
24.
OlivolaC. Y.SussmanA. B.TsetsosK.KangO. E.TodorovA. (2012). Republicans prefer republican-looking leaders: Political facial stereotypes predict candidate electoral success among right-leaning voters. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 3, 605–613.
25.
OlivolaC. Y.TodorovA. (2010). Fooled by first impressions? Reexamining the diagnostic value of appearance-based inferences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 315–324.
26.
Penton-VoakI. S.PoundN.LittleA. C.PerrettD. I. (2006). Personality judgments from natural and composite facial images: More evidence for a “kernel of truth” in social perception. Social Cognition, 24, 607–640.
27.
PoundN.Penton-VoakI. S.BrownW. M. (2007). Facial symmetry is positively associated with self-reported extraversion. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 1572–1582.
28.
RezlescuC.DuchaineB.OlivolaC. Y.ChaterN. (2012). Unfakeable facial configurations affect strategic choices in trust games with or without information about past behavior. PLoS ONE, 7(3). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0034293
29.
RhodesG.ChanJ.ZebrowitzL. A.SimmonsL. W. (2003). Does sexual dimorphism in human faces signal health?Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 270, S93–S95.
30.
RuleN. O.AmbadyN. (2008). The face of success: Inferences from chief executive officers’ appearance predict company profits. Psychological Science, 19, 109–111.
31.
RuleN. O.AmbadyN. (2011). Face and fortune: Inferences of personality from managing partners’ faces predict their law firms’ financial success. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 690–696.
32.
RuleN. O.AmbadyN.AdamsR. B.OzonoH.NakashimaS.YoshikawaS.. . . WatabeM. (2010). Polling the face: Prediction and consensus across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 1–15.
33.
RuleN. O.MoranJ. M.FreemanJ. B.Whitfield-GabrieliS.GabrieliJ. D. E.AmbadyN. (2011). Face value: Amygdala response reflects the validity of first impressions. NeuroImage, 54, 734–741.
34.
SellA.CosmidesL.ToobyJ.SznycerD.von RuedenC.GurvenM. (2009). Human adaptations for the visual assessment of strength and fighting ability from the body and face. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 276, 575–584.
35.
SpisakB. R.GraboA. E.ArveyR. D.van VugtM. (2014). The age of exploration and exploitation: Younger-looking leaders endorsed for change and older-looking leaders endorsed for stability. The Leadership Quarterly, 25, 805–816.
36.
StokerJ. I.GarretsenH.SpreeuwersL. J. (2016). The facial appearance of CEOs: Faces signal selection but not performance. PLoS ONE, 11(7). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0159950
37.
SussmanA. B.PetkovaK.TodorovA. (2013). Competence ratings in US predict presidential election outcomes in Bulgaria. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 771–775.
38.
TodorovA.BaronS. G.OosterhofN. N. (2008). Evaluating face trustworthiness: A model based approach. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 3, 119–127.
39.
TodorovA.MandisodzaA. N.GorenA.HallC. C. (2005). Inferences of competence from faces predict election outcomes. Science, 308, 1623–1626.
40.
TodorovA.OlivolaC. Y.DotschR.Mende-SiedleckiP. (2015). Social attributions from faces: Determinants, consequences, accuracy, and functional significance. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 519–545.
41.
Van VugtM.HoganR.KaiserR. B. (2008). Leadership, followership, and evolution: Some lessons from the past. American Psychologist, 63, 182–196.
42.
Von RuedenC.Van VugtM. (2015). Leadership in small-scale societies: Some implications for theory, research, and practice. The Leadership Quarterly, 26, 978–990.
43.
WillisJ.TodorovA. (2006). First impressions: Making up your mind after a 100-ms exposure to a face. Psychological Science, 17, 592–598.
44.
WongE. M.OrmistonM. E.HaselhuhnM. P. (2011). A face only an investor could love: CEO’s facial structure predicts their firms’ financial performance. Psychological Science, 22, 1478–1483.
45.
ZebrowitzL. A.RhodesG. (2004). Sensitivity to “bad genes” and the anomalous face overgeneralization effect: Cue validity, cue utilization, and accuracy in judging intelligence and health. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 28, 167–185.
