As you enter a job interview you discover through instinct that the interviewer has already formed impressions about your leadership potential based solely on your height. Somehow this doesn’t seem reasonable. And it’s not paranoia or overthinking. The bias affects millions of people every day yet people avoid discussing it openly.

Statistics confirm that being short results in actual monetary losses. Studies in the Journal of Applied Psychology demonstrated that male workers earn higher wages by about 2 percent for each extra inch of height. A 6-foot-tall man earns more money than his 5’6″ counterpart annually due to height differences without any impact on their intelligence skills or work ethic.

The Hidden Discrimination in Plain Sight

Height discrimination also known as “heightism” stands as one of the least discussed prejudices in our contemporary society. The available data indicates that ninety percent of CEOs possess above-average height measurements and only three percent have heights below 5’7“. The acceptance of height-based leadership limitations continues despite our modern push for diversity and anti-discrimination practices. Why such an emphasis on height? Maybe it’s because instinctively it is associated with a number of urban myths or even evolutionary myths.

Our ordinary language perpetuates this discriminatory pattern. People who impress us physically stand above us while people we dismiss physically stand below us. People praise someone’s “towering intellect” and describe respected individuals as having “impressive stature.” When shorter individuals demonstrate powerful opinions people usually label them as having “Napoleon complex” while tall individuals show the same confidence without receiving such judgment.

Dr. Tanya Osensky who stands at 4’11” documented these personal experiences through her research on height discrimination. Her research demonstrates that people reject discriminatory attitudes toward short individuals because heightism continues to remain an unacknowledged legitimate discriminatory practice.

A Journey Through History’s Beauty Standards

The fixation on height has existed since ancient times but its intensity has never reached current levels. Throughout time beauty standards have transformed like shifting desert dunes. In ancient Greece, the perfect woman was characterized by her plump figure combined with wide hips and small breasts. The Renaissance era brought about a beauty standard which included large forehead sizes so women would shave their hairlines to create an appearance of greater forehead dimensions.

The 1700s and early 1800s emphasized physical balance because beauty standards required women to maintain proportions between their height and other body measurements. The cultural focus during this time centered on moderation rather than extremes. During medieval times, women who carried extra weight were considered attractive because it signified wealth while skinny women were linked to poverty or religious devotion.

During the 17th century, the Sun King, Louis XIV of France, who reigned for 72 years in France, earned his nickname “Le Talon Rouge” because he wore red-heeled shoes, which became the ultimate symbol of status and privilege across Europe. Today, of course, we have the uber-rich wearing red-soled shoes, Louboutin.

He mandated red-heeled footwear for anyone wishing to enter his luxurious Versailles court. Only nobles had the right to wear red heels, with their social status determining the maximum height of their heels. Louis XIV often wore heels that reached four inches, which heightened his already commanding presence.

These fashion choices served as tools for political influence. Don’t we still see certain expensive items as portraying importance and influence? The expensive red dye and impractical shoes indicated that the wearer possessed enough wealth to avoid both walking on dirt and performing manual labor. The sight of crimson heels gliding across marble floors signaled that authentic power was approaching. We’re not talking about ballet here when we say “The Red Shoes.”

The fashion trend expanded throughout Europe yet Louis XIV maintained his position as the most influential trendsetter who demonstrated that minor details reveal the most about true authority. I don’t know about you, but red-soled shoes seem highly impractical unless you never have to walk anywhere.

I wonder how my local shoemaker would have handled re-soleing those shoes. He re-soled plenty of my shoes when I was in elementary school. In fact, he re-soled them so often, they were like rockers on the bottom of my shoes. There is only so many times you can half-sole a child’s oxford.

Western society at some point established an unprecedented connection between height and power as well as success and attractiveness that previous civilizations never established. The belief in male stature superiority emerged from 19th century eugenic and Social Darwinist movements which developed pseudoscientific theories about tall men being superior.

The Psychological Impact of Being Short

The consequences of height discrimination extend well past financial losses. Research showed that height satisfaction rates were extremely low among short men reaching only 26% but very high among tall men at 87%. The enormous height satisfaction difference between tall and short men shows how deeply our height-obsessed culture affects their mental state. The more it appears that height is a definite advantage in dating.

Research conducted with Swedish men established that social class directly linked to height while showing height increases resulted in lower suicide rates. The combination of short stature and lower social standing made men more prone to suicidal thoughts which highlights the fatal nature of height discrimination.

Chinese research revealed that men who were unhappy with their height displayed avoidance behaviors when encountering height-related words which demonstrates how deep their psychological distress has become.

When Desperation Leads to Drastic Measures

People, seemingly men in particular, who experience severe height discrimination may choose to undergo dangerous surgical procedures to achieve minimal height growth. They are now choosing to undergo leg-lengthening surgery which costs $75,000 while requiring doctors to break their bones and stretch them apart over several months.

Doctors perform this procedure by placing telescopic rods into fractured bones and using external remote controls to extend them at 1 millimeter per day for two to three months. The medical procedure requires patients to remain bedridden for weeks and carries risks of infection alongside potential nerve damage and joint complications.

According to research it has been revealed that one in ten young men between 16 and 24 years of age considered undergoing leg-lengthening surgery. It would seem a rather drastic way to handle something that may not be related to height. For example, look at some of the world leaders and their stature. Leader of the Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskyy is 5 feet 7 inches, while Ireland’s Michael D. Higgins is 5 feet, 3 inches, UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is 5 feet, 6 inches, and France’s Emmanuel Macron is 5 feet, 7 inches.

The goal of some of these leg-lengthening procedures is to grow from 5 feet 7 inches to 6 feet and an ultimate goal of reaching 6 feet 2 inches. According to one patient, his depression stemmed from his height while he acknowledged that undergoing the “very painful, very hard” procedure led him to believe his new height would help him “reach everything in life.” The sad fact is, it may have nothing to do with his height at all.

The Professional Price of Being Short

Height bias at work generates specific measurable consequences that have substantial impact. Research shows that taller men and women receive more leader-like perceptions from others while being perceived as intelligent and healthy than their shorter colleagues. The recruitment process favors taller candidates because recruiters consider them more skilled and employable. Then, of course, there is “the beauty effect.” There is even a scale to determine who is more culturally acceptable as beautiful and who is not. I Out the validity of the scales since it was on a very small sample in Nepal. But beauty does get people certain advantages, and the beauty market will prosper as a result.

The Chinese government has outlawed height requirements for employment yet certain positions including bank staff and lawyers and airline personnel must have a minimum height of 5 feet 7 inches. Research in China during a ten-year period demonstrated that employees with shorter stature earned reduced wages than taller employees who held similar positions.

Breaking the Height Ceiling

Society faces a significant political and social challenge because of income loss caused by short stature particularly when short stature emerges from childhood poverty and malnutrition plus the effects of ADHD medications. However, there is a bit of blowback on the latter. According to research well-nourished and healthy childhood development leads to both physical and cognitive success.

The process repeats itself when economically disadvantaged children fail to achieve their complete height because of inadequate nutrition leading to height-based discrimination in adulthood which maintains social inequality.

Standing Up for Change

Surgery or accepting discrimination do not provide the solution because we need to transform how society views height in relation to leadership. It seems that we have already crossed that bridge in international politics. Employers now understand that remote work can help decrease height bias since height cannot be easily assessed through video conferencing.

But real change requires more than corporate policies. Each person needs to analyze their own prejudice. When you unconsciously believe taller people have more capability and shorter people have less authority, take a moment to evaluate if your judgment is based on genetic makeup.

Height discrimination survives through the lack of open discussion. The first step toward building an equitable society begins with open dialogue about height bias because we should judge people based on their character and contributions rather than their physical height.

Throughout history, influential figures such as Napoleon, Martin Luther King Jr. and Mother Teresa demonstrated that true stature exists beyond physical height because their impact on the world determined their actual size. I wonder how tall Jesus was.