Appearance over Substance

[jj]

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

Well, you see, I have a couple of very odd neck vertibrae, my x-ray looks like somebody scrambled eggs on it, basically. The relevance is that a collar that isn't about the size of a hefty steamship will give me a couple of pinched nerves, and I'll be uncomfortable and in a neck brace sooner instead of later. Not only that, the spasms will continue to pinch the nerves. Getting it to STOP is not that easy.

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.

Hm, do you want to work for a person who puts appearance over substance? How well will their business do?

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.

Hmmm. How do you reconcile the statement above this with the statement below this. They are quite contradictory.

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

Please see my previous comment. If the "package" is indicative of brain power, yet many of the established people donot present a very attractive "package", there's something wrong here.

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

You're arguing for mandatory dress codes. Mandatory is mandatory. In one case people can't change it thanks to biology, in the other case people can't change it due to a direct order.

I find the second one just as egregious (although different) than the first, and neither is optional, at least in your presentation.

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.

The ability to do a job should be measured by a willingness to be uncomfortable? Why?

Personally?


I rather like money.

That answers neither question.

Not to go Clausual on your or anything, but:

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?

 

[toddjh]

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

It's not about conforming, it's about adapting. Someone who can learn what's expected of him in different contexts and adapt to it has qualities which may be desirable for many jobs.

Or, to put it more realistically, someone who hasn't learned to adapt in such a fashion by their twenties has qualities which may be undesirable for many jobs.

ETA: To be more specific, consider the case of a person who doesn't wear the expected attire to a job interview. Either he's too stupid to know that he should, or else he's demonstrating an unwillingness to respect the policies of his potential bosses. The latter quality may have some value if he's running his own business, but it's hardly the sort of thing people look for when hiring others.

 

[Mycroft]

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?

Uhm, if you're highly qualified and well known in your field, then you have a reputation that speaks for you and the clothes you wear are a lot less important. If you're not someone who would be recognized, then it's a different story.

 

[Mycroft]

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

You know Jas, mostly I agree with you, except on this. When I go on a job interview, I'm not just trying to impress the people judging me, I'm also making a decision if I want to work for them. I think rejecting an employer over a dress code is completely appropriate.

 

[jj]

It's not about conforming, it's about adapting. Someone who can learn what's expected of him in different contexts and adapt to it has qualities which may be desirable for many jobs.

That's a curious definition of 'adapting', in that it means that "one should adapt to conform", apparently.

Is that your intent?

Or, to put it more realistically, someone who hasn't learned to adapt in such a fashion by their twenties has qualities which may be undesirable for many jobs.

Could you be more specific. I see much alluding to "undesirable" qualities, but not any real meat here. Would you like to explain more clearly what appearance has to do with substance?

It would seem that you mean that appearance IS substance. If so, I'd like to hear a justification for that particular idea.

ETA: To be more specific, consider the case of a person who doesn't wear the expected attire to a job interview. Either he's too stupid to know that he should, or else he's demonstrating an unwillingness to respect the policies of his potential bosses. The latter quality may have some value if he's running his own business, but it's hardly the sort of thing people look for when hiring others.

(um, fallacy of the excluded middle, anyone?)

Then again, he may have 3 messed up neck vertabra, should he have to explain that. He may know that the job in question has nothing to do with appearance, say rather it has to do with mathematics. Is this "stupid", "unwilling" or simply "informed".

For that matter, define "expected", and explain how, actually, one can explain what is "expected".

Now, yes, if you're at a job fair you get to observe people. If you know employees, you have a clue about the company. Oh, say, when somebody flies you in from 1000 miles away, what kind of clue can you have?

 

[jj]

You know Jas, mostly I agree with you, except on this. When I go on a job interview, I'm not just trying to impress the people judging me, I'm also making a decision if I want to work for them. I think rejecting an employer over a dress code is completely appropriate.

Personally, I think that dress codes often can reflect other problems in organizations. I must question (bearing in mind we are not talking about jobs in this context where being before the public in an expected form is an issue) the wisdom and long-term survival potential of any employer who places too much emphasis on appearance.

Again, people have argued that not wearing a business costume is "not adapting" and may indicate other "undesirable" traits.

I would like to hear what such traits are.

 

[Jas]

Well, you see, I have a couple of very odd neck vertibrae, my x-ray looks like somebody scrambled eggs on it, basically. The relevance is that a collar that isn't about the size of a hefty steamship will give me a couple of pinched nerves, and I'll be uncomfortable and in a neck brace sooner instead of later. Not only that, the spasms will continue to pinch the nerves. Getting it to STOP is not that easy.

Well, obviously, if you have some sort of physical condition which keeps you from wearng certain clothing (as you've pointed out in numerous threads), then that's a different issue than choosing not to dress a certain way because you don't want to.

Hm, do you want to work for a person who puts appearance over substance? How well will their business do?

Like I said, appearance is an extension of an individual, and can be indicative of numerous personality traits, which may or may not affect one's job performance.

Really, you have to look at these things on a case by case basis.

Hmmm. How do you reconcile the statement above this with the statement below this. They are quite contradictory.

Please see my previous comment. If the "package" is indicative of brain power, yet many of the established people donot present a very attractive "package", there's something wrong here.

No, they're not.

I'm not saying "t-shirt + jeans = dumbass", or vice versa. But it's the basic knowledge of when such attire is appropriate, which is what's important.

If you're at the top of your field, and you know it, then you are aware that you're in a position to dress how you please, conventions be damned. But if you're at the bottom of the heap, so to speak, you end up looking either arrogant or daft.

You're arguing for mandatory dress codes. Mandatory is mandatory. In one case people can't change it thanks to biology, in the other case people can't change it due to a direct order.

I find the second one just as egregious (although different) than the first, and neither is optional, at least in your presentation.

I'm not arguing for mandatory dress codes. I'm saying that people should be aware of how their appearance will alter others perception of themselves. And if you haven't realized that, then frankly, I'm not willing to risk that you, as an employee of mine, will be unfamiliar with other basic societal norms.

The ability to do a job should be measured by a willingness to be uncomfortable? Why?

Not that I would put it that way, but in a way, sure.

If I'm looking for an employee, I don't want one that will give me headaches. If they aren't willing to do something so basic as looking presentable for a job interview, then frankly, that's not the sort of employee I want. If they're raising red flags at the interview, I'm not going to hire them unless I absolutely have to.

That answers neither question.

It does, but in a rather cryptic way, I'll admit.

Not to go Clausual on your or anything, but:

Off topic: Do you think Claus counts as a meme?

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

Because I believe that it's indicative of the respect level that they have for their company and fellow employees. Notice the 'I' in that sentence. I realize that not everyone conveys respect in the same manner.

I also think that it's indicative of the effort that they are willing to expend. If someone isn't even willing to put up with something as inconsequential as attire which they dislike, well, then it makes me wonder what else they're going to complain about, and why they view their clothing as such a big deal.

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

For the first question: Because if the person who's signing your paycheque expects it, then it would behoove you to pay attention.

For the second: From an employers standpoint? Again, if they can't pick their battles wisely, then really, I don't want the headache.

 

[Jas]

You know Jas, mostly I agree with you, except on this. When I go on a job interview, I'm not just trying to impress the people judging me, I'm also making a decision if I want to work for them. I think rejecting an employer over a dress code is completely appropriate.

If you're in the position to do so, then all the power to you.

But if you're not in a position to be rejecting employers, either financially or professionally, then, frankly, I'd rather have a roof over my head than have blue hair. But that's just me.

And, if those are your requirements for a company, then those are your requirements. I don't think that there's anything wrong with that.

What I don't agree with, is when someone seems to think that somehow companies should sacrifice their freedom to make their own hiring decisions based on whatever requirements they feel suits them. If you don't agree with a company's dress code, then don't work for them. But you have to decide which is more important to you...working for a certain company, or wearing what you want. Sometimes we have to make decisions in life, and choose between the lesser of two evils.

Besides, guys in suits are hot.

 

[jj]

What I don't agree with, is when someone seems to think that somehow companies should sacrifice their freedom to make their own hiring decisions based on whatever requirements they feel suits them.

Holy moley, Jas, do you know where that led?

Should religion be an ok requirement? Race? Creed? Sex? Gender? Sexual preference? Should all of these be ok requirements?

If you don't agree with a company's dress code, then don't work for them. But you have to decide which is more important to you...working for a certain company, or wearing what you want. Sometimes we have to make decisions in life, and choose between the lesser of two evils.

Besides, guys in suits are hot.

Well, I think you still need to explain what a company gains by hiring only people in suits (for non-public-appearing jobs, of course). (People in jobs before the public might wear suits, uniforms, whatever, to a substantial extent that's not what I'm concerned about, although I do wonder what the guy who Hooters reputedly had to hire wore at work... No, please don't tell me, I don't want to know.)

 

[69dodge]

Again, people have argued that not wearing a business costume is "not adapting" and may indicate other "undesirable" traits.

I would like to hear what such traits are.

How about, you probably won't be willing to put up with all the other silly rules that the employer has instituted for no good reason either.

More seriously, it looks like people are kind of talking past each other here. One question is whether there are good reasons for an interviewee to wear a suit if that's what the interviewer expects. A different question is whether there are good reasons for an interviewer to expect interviewees to wear a suit in the first place. If there aren't, then they shouldn't expect it, and then no one has to bother worrying about the first question at all.

 

[Jas]

Holy moley, Jas, do you know where that led?

Should religion be an ok requirement? Race? Creed? Sex? Gender? Sexual preference? Should all of these be ok requirements?

Fine. They have to pay attention to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well, blah blah blah.

Well, I think you still need to explain what a company gains by hiring only people in suits (for non-public-appearing jobs, of course). (People in jobs before the public might wear suits, uniforms, whatever, to a substantial extent that's not what I'm concerned about, although I do wonder what the guy who Hooters reputedly had to hire wore at work... No, please don't tell me, I don't want to know.)

Who cares what they have to gain?

 

[RandFan]

I'm with ya Jas. While I think that a suit in the case of the OP is style over substance, after having a really tough year financially I would gladly put on a suit for a good job. Hell, a business suit would be damn easy. I'd contemplate a bunny suit if it would pay $60,000.

 

[peptoabysmal]

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?"

When I have to hire people, I first look at their qualifications. If all things were exactly equal, I'd pick the man or woman who was better dressed. However, things are hardly ever exactly equal. A neatly laid out resume might trump a better dresser, it depends on the position being applied for.

I look for things like communication skills and attitude. I have picked persons who looked like they really wanted the job over people slightly more qualified.

What others do, and why, I can't say.

 

[jj]

Who cares what they have to gain?

I think the employee has a very strong right to know what the employer wants, and also why.

Do you disagree?

 

[jj]

I look for things like communication skills and attitude. I have picked persons who looked like they really wanted the job over people slightly more qualified.

In short, you look for people who look like they'll do the job and stick around. This seems, well, rational, really....

 

[Jas]

I think the employee has a very strong right to know what the employer wants, and also why.

Do you disagree?

Hey, as an employee, you're free to take your services elsewhere, just as the employer is free to take their money elsewhere.

ETA: And everyone in the world can complain. It doesn't make you special. That looks like a non sequitor, but it kind of fits in with this thread, in my head. Can't quite articulate why just yet, as it's time for bed.

 

[jj]

Hey, as an employee, you're free to take your services elsewhere, just as the employer is free to take their money elsewhere.

How does this reply to the thought that the employee ought to know the reasoning behind the employer's policies?

Hint: It doesn't. You seem to be of the 'Take it or leave it or else' stance. I wonder how you reconcile that with any kind of employee rights? There is some history here, should we get into the pinkertons, the wobblies, the steel "riots", the railroad laws, etc?

 

[toddjh]

That's a curious definition of 'adapting', in that it means that "one should adapt to conform", apparently.

In this context, conforming to established policies is beneficial. So yes, adaptation and conformity align in this instance. The point is that employers will be more likely to assume you're capable of adapting in other situations as well.

Could you be more specific. I see much alluding to "undesirable" qualities, but not any real meat here. Would you like to explain more clearly what appearance has to do with substance?

You seem to have difficulty with this; I don't know how helpful an explanation will be if you just don't agree with the basic idea. Employers want employees who will work within the guidelines they set. Someone who does not even exhibit this behavior in something as important and obvious as a job interview is not demonstrating the qualities they're looking for.

Then again, he may have 3 messed up neck vertabra, should he have to explain that.

Yes, if there are unusual circumstances which might result in the employers misunderstanding the situation, it should be explained.

He may know that the job in question has nothing to do with appearance, say rather it has to do with mathematics. Is this "stupid", "unwilling" or simply "informed".

It's "unwilling." They decide what the job entails, and no job is completely free of social interaction. If they decide that your improper dress is indicative of an attitude problem which may affect your work or your ability to interact with other employees, then it's absolutely their prerogative to say "Sorry, we don't think you'll work out."

Of course, you might also get lucky and land in a job where they just don't care. Good for you if you do, but in that case the question is moot.

For that matter, define "expected", and explain how, actually, one can explain what is "expected".

I'm sure you have access to a dictionary. And you learn what's expected at a job interview by applying common sense and through experience, just like everything else. It probably won't take long to determine that wearing nice clothes will yield better results.

Now, yes, if you're at a job fair you get to observe people. If you know employees, you have a clue about the company. Oh, say, when somebody flies you in from 1000 miles away, what kind of clue can you have?

Well, I would start by assuming that the kind of company that would fly me in for an interview would probably expect me to wear a suit -- and even if they don't, they probably wouldn't be offended if I wore one anyway. Not a difficult decision.

 

[The Don]

Wherever I have imposed a dress code it has been for one of a number of reasons:

- The individuals are customer facing
- Although not customer facing, the individuals are in an environment where they may encounter customers
- To enforce discipline (specifically "I'm the boss and you'll do what I say"), usually when encountering a new team

I've also noticed that in commercial environments those people who dress up a notch (suit rather than smart casual) tend to get on better. Whether this is cause or effect, I couldn't tell.

 

[Wudang]

I've also noticed that in commercial environments those people who dress up a notch (suit rather than smart casual) tend to get on better. Whether this is cause or effect, I couldn't tell.

In my experience in most teams there is at most one star, a lot of people who are good at their jobs, a so-so worker or two who gets routine stuff done and at most one duffer. The appraisal systems have to put people in bands so vague impressions from the manager start to count and someone who dresses a bit smarter tends to create a slightly more positive impression so is more likely, other things being equal, to get the slightly higher rating, the new project that will get him noticed. These little differences add up.