Dashing. Dewey-eyed. Six-pack. Handsome. A razor-sharp jawline paired with a suave, boy-next-door charm and classic clean-cut good looks.
Any guesses as to who the individual I am describing might be?
Well, if you guessed anything other than the test captain of India, you’re wrong.
But why would you in your right mind guess that the test captain of India would be described in this way?
Well, because that’s the criteria for being test captain of India nowadays, or so it seems. Oh and also, ads. Let’s not forget those!
Now don’t get me wrong–I’m not here to say that Shubman Gill, test captain of India, is not talented. But simply looking at his numbers in this format, the possible competitors he had for the captaincy berth, and a few other factors, I think that this decision was not made on merit, but marketability.
Aside from the rage that enveloped me as a passionate cricket watcher, this led me to ask the question: do we often choose our leaders because of marketability?
When it comes to the marketability criteria, the driving factor for this is obviously money. What doesn’t sell doesn’t make you money, and what’s good to look at–well, it does.
This concept doesn’t necessarily apply to humans either. The entire world of luxury brands work on the premise of style over function. Bose sells $250 earphones that struggle to last a year compared to something like RealMe at just $25, lasting for 2-3 years.
But I digress. This argument goes beyond Indian test captains and earphones; it connects with human psychology. Consider “The Halo Effect“, a cognitive bias where a positive of an individual in one area unconciously influences the perception of them in another, 0ften unrelated area. This is similar to how people assume Shubman Gill possesses great leadership qualities because he fits the “dashing” image.
This phenomenon extends to countless other fields. For instance, politicians are often chosen because of their height, signalling to voters that they may be more commanding and decisive. Actors are chosen based on appearance because casting directors believe they will be charming on-screen.
It’s clear that the soft skills of an individual can create the perception of competence. And as a society, we seem to fall for this marketability trap a lot. This could be for a variety of reasons, including:
- The media’s role in amplifying certain images: Sensationalizing certain individuals in the media tends to create the effect that they are the cream of the crop in everything they do
- Commercial Incentives: Good looks sell better, we all know this. A charismatic on-screen personality will make for a better endorsement/sponsorship choice. Advertisement revenue is king now, and whichever individual can drive that better for corporations is likely to be favoured, even in roles where advertisement revenue is not supposed to be the primary objective.
- Unconscious human biases: We’re all wired to be drawn to what’s conventionally attractive.
Resultantly, we watch the consequences of these marketable, yet, incompetent leaders unfold.
In politics, this could be in the form of a lack of trust created. Furthermore, meritocratic principles seem to fade away from the picture entirely, almost eroding from consideration. It is also important to consider what happens to those who do have merit but are overlooked, despite being deserving, for these “marketable” characters. Often they are simply discarded by society, representing a significant loss of potential.
Or in sports, like in Shubman Gill’s case, you lead your side sub-optimally in a test match, and fail to defend 371 runs on day 5.
Are we truly selecting the right leaders, or simply the best marketed ones?
blog 