Appearance over Substance

[jj]

Is the suggestion to 'wear a suit' to a job interview (in which one is not interviewing for a job as a news anchor, or men's clothing salesman, or something of the sort that requires one to wear a suit in order to function in the job) (n.b. "function" does not mean "look like everyone else because that's how it is") reasonable?

There are two variables:

The first is: "should suits be required for interviews that don't involve appearing before the public?"

The second is: "is this meaningful, or is this just putting appearance over substance?"

 

[jj]

Ok, those options are NOT what I typed into the original options!

This poll is hereby broken.

 

[Luke T.]

I took a great class when I was about to retire from the Navy. The Navy gives this class to all people who are fearful of the transition from 20+ years in the military to the corporate world.

The advice they gave, and that I have found to be right on, is to look at what the "corporate uniform" is.

For instance, at a job fair, if you are interested in a company, take a look at what the people in that company's booth are wearing. That is the "corporate uniform" and should give you an idea of what you should wear to a job interview for that company.

Very few companies have suits as the corporate uniform any more.

Khaki pants, a collared shirt. Maybe a tie.

 

[Jas]

I think wearing a suit to an interview is indicative of the type of substance I'd be looking for.

 

[jj]

I think wearing a suit to an interview is indicative of the type of substance I'd be looking for.

How would that, for instance, show the substance behind the interviewee's claim that they can buy and sell stocks and make a lot of money?

 

[TragicMonkey]

I generally go one step up. If the job I'm applying for would entail wearing business casual, I wear a suit to the interview. If it's jeans and a tshirt, I wear business casual.

This approach is my compromise between dressing how you'd dress in the job and dressing nicely to demonstrate professionalism and interest in making a good impression.

 

[Lisa Simpson]

I closed the poll, rather than deleting the thread since people have responded.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

 

[Luke T.]

So this kid bums a cigarette from me on the street one day. He has about 15 pieces of metal in his head, including some kind of bar through his nose.

He begins bitching about the difficulty in getting a job and that it is all Bush's fault.

Somehow, I kept a straight face.

 

[Jas]

How would that, for instance, show the substance behind the interviewee's claim that they can buy and sell stocks and make a lot of money?

Because they're smart enough to figure out what's expected of them, and are willing to put a few minutes of effort into making a good impression. In other words, they're more focused on getting results, than in making a statement.

ETA: Like I'm going to hire someone who can't even figure out how to dress for an interview.

 

[jj]

I closed the poll, rather than deleting the thread since people have responded.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

Ok. I'd SWEAR that wasn't the questions I typed in.

blblbllblblbl

 

[Lisa Simpson]

I can try to fix it, if you PM the responses you want it to have.

 

[jj]

Because they're smart enough to figure out what's expected of them, and are willing to put a few minutes of effort into making a good impression. In other words, they're more focused on getting results, than in making a statement.

So, wasting a half-hour and being uncomfortable, and doing what's "expected", then, are more important than the substance of what they need to do?

Bear in mind I've worked with a lot of very highly qualified, well-known-in-their-field people, and very few of them wore suits, ties, dress shirts, skirts, heels, what-have-you.

And many of them were at the top of their fields, and recognized for it. When I was a "distinguished lecturer" I lectured in a comfortable shirt appropriate to the temperature, cargo pants, and sandals.

One group of people may have felt somewhat surprised. The rest didn't seem to notice.

Most of those people were ALSO not far from the top of their field.

So what would dressing in a suit and tie (which implies that I will also be wearning a neck brace tomorrow) do for me?

You wouldn't hire me, yes, I get that, no matter what job you needed to fill. I get that. I accept it. What else would you miss?

 

[TragicMonkey]

It's not logical, but then, people aren't.

I attempted to persuade one employer that requiring "business casual" dress code four days a week was irrational; if dressing up really did improve the work, then why were they willing to sacrifice the quality of twenty percent of that work by allowing "Casual Fridays"? Management isn't interested in logic or rational thought, though.

 

[Jas]

So, wasting a half-hour and being uncomfortable, and doing what's "expected", then, are more important than the substance of what they need to do?

I assume that the 'substance of what they need to do', includes being able to read a situation well enough that they can figure out how to dress more it. Most people have this ability by the time they hit junior high.

Bear in mind I've worked with a lot of very highly qualified, well-known-in-their-field people, and very few of them wore suits, ties, dress shirts, skirts, heels, what-have-you.

If they've gotten to that point in their careers, or are in an industry that accepts that, then all the power to them.

And many of them were at the top of their fields, and recognized for it. When I was a "distinguished lecturer" I lectured in a comfortable shirt appropriate to the temperature, cargo pants, and sandals.

See above.

So what would dressing in a suit and tie (which implies that I will also be wearning a neck brace tomorrow) do for me?

You wouldn't hire me, yes, I get that, no matter what job you needed to fill. I get that. I accept it. What else would you miss?

Where did I say that? I've stated in other threads that it's obviously industry and job-dependant. And that's part of presenting yourself well in an interview: that you have the basic skills to figure out what your appearance needs to convey. It's a very very basic lifeskill.

 

[Lisa Simpson]

Is that correct jj? I hope so, because I re-opened the poll.

 

[jj]

Is that correct jj? I hope so, because I re-opened the poll.

Yes. Now it actually has 5 options instead of 3, two repeated! THANKS!!!

 

[jj]

I assume that the 'substance of what they need to do', includes being able to read a situation well enough that they can figure out how to dress more it. Most people have this ability by the time they hit junior high.

So, then, you argue for a form of conservative confirmism, "do what other people do". Furthermore, you argue that people who see things differently have yet to show the skills expected of a junior high school person.

That's my understanding of what you're writing, basically, "just accept it and live with it, and figure it out, and don't try to change it".

I really think that's not a very good recipe for any society that needs to evolve, and every society needs to evolve (or in the case of the USA present, apparently devolve. Perhaps D.E.V.O. was right.).

If they've gotten to that point in their careers, or are in an industry that accepts that, then all the power to them.

Why? What's the point? I'm talking about people who work in offices and labs, not people who work in factories, in case that's not clear. Why, again, should somebody who never meets the public be forced to dress either up or down from what is functional and comfortable? (N.B. I'm not talking about extremes here, or disruptive kinds of attire, i.e. no speedos at a baptist convention, so to speak)

See above.

I did. My point remains. These people who lead the industries I'm referring to do not dress up. Many of them EVER. Most of them, like me, take a "take it or leave it" attitude.

If you're hiring brain power, why do you care about the package?

Where did I say that? I've stated in other threads that it's obviously industry and job-dependant. And that's part of presenting yourself well in an interview: that you have the basic skills to figure out what your appearance needs to convey. It's a very very basic lifeskill.

Why do you insist that appearance conveys much of anything. People who argued against rights for blacks argued that appearance mattered. People who argued that Japanese people were subversive in 1941 argued that appearance mattered. Suits and ties are even more trivial, they are an option, they don't even have to exist, so why should they convey anything?

In other words, you argue that appearance matters, and you have insisted, repeatedly, that people should conform.

To which I ask two questions:

1) Why does appearance matter (in this context of somebody who does not go out into the public where there are expectations)?

2) Why should people conform to this? Of what value is it to know that the person conforms to the 'coat and tie' mentality?

 

[Melendwyr]

When the Way is lost, there is goodness.
When goodness is lost, there is morality.
When morality is lost, there is ritual.
Ritual is the husk of true faith,
the beginning of chaos.

Therefore the Master concerns himself
with the depths and not the surface,
with the fruit and not the flower.
He has no will of his own.
He dwells in reality,
and lets all illusions go.

Tao Te Ching, Chapter 38

 

[luchog]

I've found a very good heuristic for interviewing for jobs, at least in the IT and online retail industry, with regard to the "style over substance" issue.

If I'm interviewing with an HR person, headhunter, department manager, or other professional interviewer, then it's going to be about style. That person knows little to nothing about the job, so the emphasis is going to be on physical appearance; certifications and other paperwork; jargon and buzzwords; as well as a series of hypotheticals, "thought experiments", and whatever other touchy-feely management fad is popular at the moment. Experience will be measured mainly in abstract numbers, rather than actual job duties and conditions; and will only be a secondary consideration. Actual skill is not considered at all, since the interviewer has no way of evaluating it. With this sort, it doesn't matter if you could teach system administration to God. If you aren't wearing at least "business casual", and use an "-ize" word in ever third sentence, you're not getting past that interview. I've passed interviews for jobs that I wasn't qualified for (and didn't really want), just on the strength of my appearance and ability to BS in the appropriate dialect.

If I'm interviewing with my direct supervisor, senior tech, or anyone who actually did my job and did it well, then it's going to be about substance. As long as I don't looks like a complete slob, then it doesn't matter too much what I wear. They're not going to be even slightly impressed by the certifications I have (particularly since, in this era of cram programs and brain dumps, they're usually worthless anyway); they're going to grill me on the nuts and bolts of the job and make sure I have the experience, intelligence, and drive necessary to do it well. I've gone into interviews with this type wearing a kilt (usually a utilikilt, but occasionally a more traditional one), tshirt, and all my visible facial piercings. Went to one interview in full Renn-Goth regalia, and got the job.

 

[Jas]

So, then, you argue for a form of conservative confirmism, "do what other people do". Furthermore, you argue that people who see things differently have yet to show the skills expected of a junior high school person.

That's my understanding of what you're writing, basically, "just accept it and live with it, and figure it out, and don't try to change it".

Not necessarily. But first impressions count. And if you're in the position where you're applying for a job (as in, not being sought desperately), then you're in the position of supplicant. Which generally is not a good place to make a stand. Wait until you're in a position of authority, and where you've established your credibility to the point where you can make those changes.

Pick your battles. I don't think that one's preferred style of dress is worth losing a job over.

Why? What's the point? I'm talking about people who work in offices and labs, not people who work in factories, in case that's not clear. Why, again, should somebody who never meets the public be forced to dress either up or down from what is functional and comfortable? (N.B. I'm not talking about extremes here, or disruptive kinds of attire, i.e. no speedos at a baptist convention, so to speak)

Because if the person who's signing your cheque says that that's how they expect you to dress, then you have a choice - either dress however you want, or get over it, and take your money.

I did. My point remains. These people who lead the industries I'm referring to do not dress up. Many of them EVER. Most of them, like me, take a "take it or leave it" attitude.

Then they're either in an industry that accepts it, or they're at the point in their careers where they're able to do what they want with regards to personal appearance.

If you're hiring brain power, why do you care about the package?

Because I find that the package is often indicative of such.

Why do you insist that appearance conveys much of anything. People who argued against rights for blacks argued that appearance mattered. People who argued that Japanese people were subversive in 1941 argued that appearance mattered. Suits and ties are even more trivial, they are an option, they don't even have to exist, so why should they convey anything?

Last I checked, people don't choose their skin colour. You're comparing apples and oranges.

In other words, you argue that appearance matters, and you have insisted, repeatedly, that people should conform.

Not quite. My opinion is that people should realize when and where they can make a statement, and when it's worthwhile to make that statement. A job interview, is, for the most part, neither the time or place.

To which I ask two questions:

1) Why does appearance matter (in this context of somebody who does not go out into the public where there are expectations)?

2) Why should people conform to this? Of what value is it to know that the person conforms to the 'coat and tie' mentality?

Personally?


I rather like money.