Appearance over Substance

[luchog]

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.

I'm going to have to challenge this.

Disliking a required (either explicitly or implicitly) attire is not inconsequential. In many jobs, it's a significant factor in how the employee will perform. The main reason that many IT corps are loosening up on dress codes, and why so few small businesses have them at all, is that an employee's comfort level is a significant factor in job performance.

Furthermore, a company where the managers base their judgements so strongly on appearance is one where many other judgements are going to be based more on superficialities than on actual job performance and employee ability. Promotion and recognition will involve a lot of politics; and truly creative, hard-working, and competent people will eventually run into a wall. They might be able to overcome politics, but the farther they go in the company, the less they'll be able to do without incorporating some form of non-job-related characteristics.

It also indicates that those in management positions, and the company in general, are going to be more strongly indicative of the Peter Principle, and both the company and it's employees will show the results of that.

 

[Jas]

I'm wondering where the line is, then, between "going to do what I say" and "incapable of independent thought or initiative."

That obviously depends on the position you're hiring for, and the industry that you are in.

Because one of the things that I've seen posed as a trick question in some interviews is to ask the candidate what changes they would make in [such-and-such], where such-and-such can be anything from an advertising campaign to a zither concerto.

There are organizations that have been around so long and have procedures that are so iron-clad that no deviation from "what I tell you to do" are permitted. There are also organizations that are so disorganized -- or so fluid -- that the best top management can ever do is to issue "suggestions."

Sure.

But very few organizations are simultaneously so rigid that no change in procedures can be permitted and also so perfectly organized that no change in procedures ever need be contemplated. And (back-room) dress code is one of the obvious ways where over-rigidity has little measurable impact on the bottom line, but will have a trememdous effect on employee morale and hence on hiring and retention -- which does have an impact.

We actually found that imposing a backroom dress code (in administration), increased moral and productivity. Not to mention in other 'backroom' departments (such as parts and service), dress codes are incredibly important in terms of safety and liability.

If you are really saying "I want to test to see if you are going to do what I say, against all reason and judgement," then you are definitely not looking for people smart enough (and with a long enough track record) to trust their own judgement. If that's not what you're saying, then why are you so hung up about it?

Like I said, if you're at the point where you can dress how you want, then that's fine. Although I don't see where I said anything about going 'against reason and judgement'. Please show me where I said anything about that.

The problem is that the smart employee probably wouldn't make a fuss about it, and wouldn't sit down and discuss it. They're just as likely simply to leave after six months because they didn't like the company culture in their workgroup.

I don't think I've ever known anyone who quit a job just because they had to wear a tie. I've known several -- dozens, if not more -- who have left because they didn't like overbearing management that felt entitled to dictate policy on business-irrelevant matters, and then when asked for examples, cited mandatory dress code as an illustrative point.

If you're the sort of person that insists on a tie just to prove that the person will do as he is told -- well, smart employees don't do things as they're told to. They do things correctly, instead (which is what makes them smart).

And companies are free to go bankrupt if they so choose. No one is forcing someone to work anywhere.

 

[luchog]

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.)

Think "Castro-clone".

 

[Jas]

No. Quite the contrary. JAS appears to be assuming that an unwillingness to follow established procedures represents an attitude problem, to the point that JAS is perfectly happy refusing to explain the reasons for such procedures -- as a test of the employee's cooperation.

There are lots of reasons for not wanting to follow procedure, starting from a belief that procedure is often wrong, out of date, or simply not responsive to circumstances (which most intelligent people believe, to some extent).

I have a ton of tools at my disposal for sorting out the candidates who are genuinely intelligent. It doesn't appear that JAS has -- or is willing to use -- such tools.

Similarly, JAS is insisting that "the person signing the cheques has the right to make those decisions, which may very well end in disaster," apparently preferring to reign in hell rather than to work cooperatively in heaven. Hiring people smarter than oneself and then listening instead of telling can be a very effective way to stave off disaster.

JAS suggested that : "I also figure, that if someone doesn't have the rudimentary intelligence to figure out who's signing their cheques, why should I pay attention to anything else they say?" -- again, note, discounting the possiblity that the person might be intelligent instead of merely having a bad attitude. They might be trying to tell you a way that you could make the pile of money from which to sign cheques larger. But you won't know, because they're not interested in working for you....

Of course, you could address me directly, instead of in that particularily snarky tone. That might be a 'tool' to add to your box.

 

[drkitten]

And companies are free to go bankrupt if they so choose.

I think you're missing a central point.

Companies do not "choose" to go bankrupt except in incredibly unusual (and mostly fraudulent) circumstances. Companies go bankrupt against their will, largely because they made bad decisions at some point back along the road.

For this reason, making bad decisions -- even if they are decisions that companies are free to make -- is generally regarded as a bad thing. Companies go to tremendous lengths to avoid making those bad decisions and to identify them in advance to avoid making them.

So a company of course is free to demand, explicitly or implicitly, that all employees must wear suits at interviews as a condition for employment.

But it's a bad decision that will hurt the company's long-term profitabiilty. And so it shouldn't be done, even if it legally and morally can be.

 

[jj]

Of course, you could address me directly, instead of in that particularily snarky tone. That might be a 'tool' to add to your box.

Ok, look.

Jas, I find your position on these matters puzzling. You have said over in the other apparal thread that you're quite unconventional. On the other hand, you expect others to be conventional. Note I'm not talking about wearing a hardhat on the construction floor, here, but about fashion/clothing/suits/uniforms imposed outside of safety and customer issues.

I'm having trouble understanding your dual position.

 

[Jas]

I'm going to have to challenge this. ....

Hey, I agree with you for the most part. I think I phrased my comment there poorly.

As I stated earlier, if someone has an issue with something like a dress code, there are ways to go about it. But if they have the poor judgement to complain about something like 'I have to wear a tie', before establishing their credibility, well, that doesn't reflect well on them.

For example, if someone has been an employee for a week, and waltzes into the manager's office, and complains about their tie feeling like noose around their neck, the first thought that is going to go through their head is.."Who the hell is this guy? We're about to hit the busy season, he hasn't even figured out the computer system, isn't able to pronounce the names of half our suppliers, hasn't produced anything of worth, and he's already telling me, who has thirty very successfull years of experience, how to run the company?"

Now, compare that with someone who's established their role within the company, has consistently produced, and hasn't caused any headaches for management.

 

[Jas]

I think you're missing a central point.

Companies do not "choose" to go bankrupt except in incredibly unusual (and mostly fraudulent) circumstances. Companies go bankrupt against their will, largely because they made bad decisions at some point back along the road.

For this reason, making bad decisions -- even if they are decisions that companies are free to make -- is generally regarded as a bad thing. Companies go to tremendous lengths to avoid making those bad decisions and to identify them in advance to avoid making them.

So a company of course is free to demand, explicitly or implicitly, that all employees must wear suits at interviews as a condition for employment.

But it's a bad decision that will hurt the company's long-term profitabiilty. And so it shouldn't be done, even if it legally and morally can be.

I didn't miss the point. By 'choose' I meant 'through making bad decisions', which I thought was apparent. Apparently not.

And if asking that people wear suits to an interview is a bad decision, then they're free to make it.

But if you need a job, and you choose to make a statement at the interview about what you think of the company's hiring practices, well, that could also be seen as a bad decision for your personal finances, could it not?

 

[luchog]

We actually found that imposing a backroom dress code (in administration), increased moral and productivity.

Many other companies, particularly in IT (which I'm guessing isn't your field) have found just the opposite; particularly with regard to their tech folks.

I've never worked for a growing, dynamic, expanding company that has ever had a dress code more extensive than "wear clothes".

Not to mention in other 'backroom' departments (such as parts and service), dress codes are incredibly important in terms of safety and liability.

You seem to be fond of red herrings and non-sequitors. No one has ever denied the potential importance of a dress code prefaced on necessity (coveralls, hard-hats, no loose clothing, etc.). The reasons for these dress codes are highly relevant to job performance, and I don't know why you keep dragging in these non-issues.

I have had dress codes on several jobs. One of those was a tech job where I had to crawl around a lot, haul around a lot of computer hardware, and so on. The dress code was limited to safety concerns, and I didn't have a problem with it since it was more or less common sense.

Other jobs I've had a "business casual" dress code for a job that entailed me doing nothing more than sitting at a computer in a dark room for 8-9 hours a day. That one was completely pointless; and the company was rife with other mind-meltingly stupid regulations as well. AAMOF, it got so bad at one point that not only was there an employee rebellion over some of their more egregiously nonsensical policies; but even middle-management rebelled as well, and that one was, fortunately, dropped. It was also one of the worst places I've ever worked, and they treated their employees like crap. The fact that they were, and still are, sliding down toward bankruptcy is no coincidence. There were massive layoffs, which disguised the losses for a while; but their stock has continued to slide and still remains in the toilet. It didn't help that the CEO was a hardcore Scientologist.

A friend worked at a company that was bought out during the dotcom era, because they were a valuable property; profitable and competitive, with a huge customer base in an area the parent company wanted to expand into. They went from very casual and highly profitable. The parent then began to make it more corporate, imposing a lot of ridiculous rules and regulations, including a dress code (almost none of their empoyees ever dealt with the public). Most of their best and brightest left, with a few die-hards sticking around. Within a year, both my friend's employer and the parent company were on the verge of bankruptcy, and sold out to a larger corp at a significant discount (the parent decided that there wasn't enough worth salvaging, and gutted it, retaining only the infrastructure and losing a good chunk of the customerbase).

The most ridiculous one was a small lab environment where we were expected to dress "business casual". After watching my manager have several expensive shirts ruined by the various lab processes, I pretty much said screw that. Being that they were a small business who were having problems hiring and retaining employees, and I was one of the best people they'd had, I got away with it pretty easily.

 

[drkitten]

But if you need a job, and you choose to make a statement at the interview about what you think of the company's hiring practices, well, that could also be seen as a bad decision for your personal finances, could it not?

Depends on how badly I need the job, of course -- and specifically if I'm looking for a job, or I'm looking for a career (to put it broadly). If I need money tomorrow to pay my bills, then prudence dictates that I take whatever I can get to keep the lupine pest from the door.

But if I have the luxury of being able to indulge in long-term planning, I'd rather pick something that is in line with my long-term goals and plans, and a place that I feel comfortable enough that I would be willing to stick around for a while. Taking a job that I know I'm not going to like is probably a bad decision for my personal finances even in the short term, since I'll probably just hop into this job and then hop out again.

But, oddly enough, this is one of the few areas where the employer's interests and mine are congruent. There's a lot invested in a new hire, and a new hire who leaves after only six months is often worse for the company than leaving the job empty for that period would be. So it's in the company's long-term best interests to make employees feel comfortable --and to make job candidates feel comfortable so they'll accept the jobs in the first place.

The two most critical jobs for any supervisor are to recruit and retain good people. A job-irrelevant mandatory dress code hinders both.

if asking that people wear suits to an interview is a bad decision, then they're free to make it.

Nobody's saying that they're not free to make it. I'm saying that they shouldn't make it, that it's an error to make it, and that an employer who makes that decision is acting foolishly and against the long-term best interests of the company.

 

[drkitten]

"Who the hell is this guy? We're about to hit the busy season, he hasn't even figured out the computer system, isn't able to pronounce the names of half our suppliers, hasn't produced anything of worth, and he's already telling me, who has thirty very successfull years of experience, how to run the company?"

As far as I can tell, that's it right there.

You don't want employeers who are smarter than you.

The reason I say that is because what you describe right there is one of the skills that I offer, on a professional basis. As a consultant, I need to be able to walk into an office and suggest process improvements without waiting thirty years. As an employee, I offer the same skillset, at a substantially reduced hourly rate.

I'm not impressed by the fact that you've run the company for thirty years, because I already see a way that you can run it better. And as to who I am? -- I'm the person that you hired to make this company as profitable and successful as it can be, without regard to how many years you've been warming a chair and blocking process improvements because the people who could come up with them couldn't be bothered to put on a tie.

 

[bluess]

There seem to be two different issues at hand.

The first one I see is whether it is appropriate for an interviewer to make judgements about an interviewee based on what they chose to wear to a job interview. I don't see where this is an issue. If I am hiring you, I will make judgements based on your appearance, your grammar, whether you were punctual and if you smell. Drilling down, appropriate dress depends on the job. Interviewing at an office job? Wear a suit. Interviewing as a cashier at the hardware store? Wear clean casual clothing.

The second issue I see is workplace clothing. I work at a software house and also at a property management company. On a given day, we have everything from full suit and tie (sales staff, client site visits) to paint-stained shorts/tshirts (anyone hanging in the office for the day). I personally do not think shoving everyone into formal business wear every day improves morale. But IF I worked in a place where it was required, I would meet the dress code. The employee policybook should articulate what type of clothing is appropriate.

 

[Jas]

Ok, look.

Jas, I find your position on these matters puzzling. You have said over in the other apparal thread that you're quite unconventional. On the other hand, you expect others to be conventional. Note I'm not talking about wearing a hardhat on the construction floor, here, but about fashion/clothing/suits/uniforms imposed outside of safety and customer issues.

I'm having trouble understanding your dual position.

It's not a dual position. I established my credibility before colouring my hair pink (or at least, showing up for work that way.) I also know that when you're a young female in my position, it's probably best to leave the liprings at home (this also applies to border crossings, btw, as I discovered at the age of 14.)

 

[Jas]

As far as I can tell, that's it right there.

You don't want employeers who are smarter than you.

The reason I say that is because what you describe right there is one of the skills that I offer, on a professional basis. As a consultant, I need to be able to walk into an office and suggest process improvements without waiting thirty years. As an employee, I offer the same skillset, at a substantially reduced hourly rate.

I'm not impressed by the fact that you've run the company for thirty years, because I already see a way that you can run it better. And as to who I am? -- I'm the person that you hired to make this company as profitable and successful as it can be, without regard to how many years you've been warming a chair and blocking process improvements because the people who could come up with them couldn't be bothered to put on a tie.

And you see no difference between someone whom I've hired as a consultant (and if someone is being hired as a consultant, it's pretty safe to assume that they've already established themselves) to help me run the company better, and some $20,000/year clerk who's barely been in the office a week?

If there's no difference btwn the two, why on earth would I pay a consultant? I could just have all the data entry clerks tell me how to run a company.

 

[Jas]

Depends on how badly I need the job, of course -- and specifically if I'm looking for a job, or I'm looking for a career (to put it broadly). If I need money tomorrow to pay my bills, then prudence dictates that I take whatever I can get to keep the lupine pest from the door.

Hence my saying 'if you need a job.

But if I have the luxury of being able to indulge in long-term planning, I'd rather pick something that is in line with my long-term goals and plans, and a place that I feel comfortable enough that I would be willing to stick around for a while. Taking a job that I know I'm not going to like is probably a bad decision for my personal finances even in the short term, since I'll probably just hop into this job and then hop out again.

But, oddly enough, this is one of the few areas where the employer's interests and mine are congruent. There's a lot invested in a new hire, and a new hire who leaves after only six months is often worse for the company than leaving the job empty for that period would be. So it's in the company's long-term best interests to make employees feel comfortable --and to make job candidates feel comfortable so they'll accept the jobs in the first place.

Note the posts earlier where I said that this is dependant on market, and the point in someone's career that they're at.

The two most critical jobs for any supervisor are to recruit and retain good people. A job-irrelevant mandatory dress code hinders both.

Nobody's saying that they're not free to make it. I'm saying that they shouldn't make it, that it's an error to make it, and that an employer who makes that decision is acting foolishly and against the long-term best interests of the company.

I understand that you're sayiing that. I'm simply saying that from an employee's perspective, the employee that needs a job, there are certain ways to increase your hireability. Complaining about a dress code isn't one of them. I'm not talking about retaining employees or keeping them happy.

 

[The Don]

I'm not sure what benefits this kind of "enforcing discipline" is supposed to produce. Depending upon the circumstances, if you really are a new boss, I might not want to do what you say simply because you say it. If things have been going well for this team under the old strictures and discipline structure, messing with it just because you want to leave a mark is likely to reduce team performance, not increase it.

It really depends at some level what kind of "new team" you're encountering. When I work as a consultant, almost by definition I only get called in when the existing team has been demonstrably unable to handle a problem. They pay me to get results as quickly as possible, no matter how many people I tick off in the process. I'm perfectly willing to throw my weight around as necessary.

Similarly, if you've been hired to "put some stick about" in a dysfunctional work group, anything that you can do to shake them out of their complacency is probably beneficial.

But if you've been brought in to replace a planned retirement in one of the top-performing groups in the company, and the first thing you do is ill-informed tinkering, then telling me what to wear is not likely to make me respect you more....

As someone (Wudang ?) put it earlier, there are very few people in this workd who are so good at their jobs that they are indispensible. Most others are OK. In my experience there's nothing technical people like more than putting in their 2c regardless of how useful. Also, they like to provide what they consider a 100% solution regardless of doability and quite often if you have 3 techies you have 4 opinions.

What I want is their input but when I've taken it and made my decision I don't want them whining or not implementing the chosen solution because it's not what they want to do. I find that dress code is a good indicator of likely porblems in that area

 

[The Don]

As far as I can tell, that's it right there.

You don't want employeers who are smarter than you.

The reason I say that is because what you describe right there is one of the skills that I offer, on a professional basis. As a consultant, I need to be able to walk into an office and suggest process improvements without waiting thirty years. As an employee, I offer the same skillset, at a substantially reduced hourly rate.

I'm not impressed by the fact that you've run the company for thirty years, because I already see a way that you can run it better. And as to who I am? -- I'm the person that you hired to make this company as profitable and successful as it can be, without regard to how many years you've been warming a chair and blocking process improvements because the people who could come up with them couldn't be bothered to put on a tie.

In order to get someone to listen to your pearls of wisdom, you need to establish your credibility. If this person has run their business the same for 30 years they are likely to be quite conservative. If you turn up dressed in t-shirt and jeans they are not going to listen to you, you have failed, even though it's their prejudice which is preventing them from listening (and yes it's the same if they won't listen to the young, blacks or women).

You have to give them as few reasons for not listening to you as possible. If dressing in a formal way helps then do so. If later you manage to establish sufficient credibility then you are free to behave as you wish.

The reason I feel confident about offering this advice is that I've been through this loop from both perspectives.

- I started as a young man fresh out of college working for one of the "big n" management consultancies. I was full of p155 and vinegar and was telling people who had run successful businesses for 20-30 years how to run them better based on book learning and was surprised that they didn't hang on my every word
- I went through a "guru" phase where I really was an expert and could pretty much name my price and conditions for work. I was amazed that although I was incredibly competent some people still didn't take me seriously
- I worked on the other side of the fence and saw the previous incarnations of myself come though the organisation with a similar lack of success
- I'm now back as a "guru" for hire but because I dress and act like "them" I find that I'm actually able to effect more change in organisations because more senior people are willing to listen to me

In short, my success rate has increased.

 

[Melendwyr]

In order to get someone to listen to your pearls of wisdom, you need to establish your credibility. If this person has run their business the same for 30 years they are likely to be quite conservative. If you turn up dressed in t-shirt and jeans they are not going to listen to you, you have failed, even though it's their prejudice which is preventing them from listening (and yes it's the same if they won't listen to the young, blacks or women).

Then don't work for them and let them fail.

Not listening because of someone's dress is stupid, and people deserve to experience the consequences of their actions.

The reason I feel confident about offering this advice is that I've been through this loop from both perspectives.

Ah, so you're a superficial bigot who bases your judgments on facile and meaningless characteristics?

 

[The Don]

Ah, so you're a superficial bigot who bases your judgments on facile and meaningless characteristics?

Absolutely I am and rare is the person who makes no judgements based upon superficial characteristics.

If your job is to assist organisations, then it is beholden upon you to make that as simple as possible for those organisations. A track record of failure (because no-one listened) or storming out of clients (because they won't let you dress and behave as you like) is unlikely to result in further business. In other words, if it's more important to you to wear jeans than it is for your client (or employer) to listen to what you have to say then you're not the typeof person I would like to employ.

I have found through painful experience that employing people who are too "precious" to conform with dress or behavioural codes is a way to make your life harder than it needs to be.

 

[Wudang]

Absolutely I am and rare is the person who makes no judgements based upon superficial characteristics.

Indeed, the field is called "attribution theory" if anyone fancies googling on it. It's amazing how quickly people make evaluations of others and then evaluate further evidence in the light of that initial evaluation.