Appearance over Substance

[Ed]

There are lots of reasons for a dress code, some good some stupid. I think that if a person came in to see me and looked like a street person it would tell me a fair amount about that person's judgement and would raise issues about whether I could trust him with a client. It is sort of like being on time. Does five minutes matter? Not really but it speaks to a persons respect for you and willingness to do what is expected without a whole lot of explination.

While I agree that a star can get away with more than the average employee, you reach a point where it simply isn't worth it. A person that prides themselves on their propensity to show up at interviews looking "different" has, IMO, a bit of a self obcession and that is a warning sign. Similarly if a person opts, given ignorance, to dress down when the environment is more formal I would guess that the person took a guess as to what was appropriate and guessed wrong. In general, one cannot go wrong by being too formal.

Naturally if your interviewees are right out of college they may not own a suit. No harm, no foul. Personally, I would far prefer to see a person neatly dressed casually than in a crappy, ill fitting, off the rack piece of crap suit. But that's me.

 

[jj]

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.

And I know at least 3 organizations, all 3 of which I've worked with, in which you might find yourself uncomfortably dressed, and perhaps not fitting in. I think two of three of them would overlook the suit, or tell you to "lose the tie" in a reasonably kindly fashion, the third might react negatively.

It's not as simple as you suggest. I will say in defense of the third company the interview instructions say "come dressed as you would prefer to be dressed at work" explicitly.

 

[jj]

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

- The individuals are customer facing

I don't think anyone is arguing about this issue.

- Although not customer facing, the individuals are in an environment where they may encounter customers

Or this one.

- To enforce discipline (specifically "I'm the boss and you'll do what I say"), usually when encountering a new team

Interesting. Who do you lose, the troublemakers, or the people who just want to get the job done, or both? (Or neither). Note, I don't expect anyone to defy the rules outright, but I might expect some people to quietly hand in their own pink slips a few weeks later. Does this happen?

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 commercial environments dealing with the public, some kind of dress code (well, I'm not sure about Abercrombie and Fitch's, really, though, the guy without a shirt posing by the front door in January is a bit much, eww) is generally called for.

While I'm obviously against mandatory suit/tie/whatever for jobs that don't involve the public, you notice I've restricted the issue here to people who don't deal with the public. Having seen what some people do wear, (no, Jas, I'm not talking about you, either, I'm not talking about highly unusual dress or grooming, rather about a lack of one or the other) I don't advocate total freedom. Just so that's clear. Yes, I can imagine. (twitch)

 

[jj]

There are lots of reasons for a dress code, some good some stupid. I think that if a person came in to see me and looked like a street person it would tell me a fair amount about that person's judgement and would raise issues about whether I could trust him with a client.

I have tried to exclude people who deal with customers. For this, I agree.

It is sort of like being on time. Does five minutes matter? Not really but it speaks to a persons respect for you and willingness to do what is expected without a whole lot of explination.

You know, I've only worked at 3 places in my life in any career sense (I don't count the coal yard I worked in, or the gas station.) and all three, I suspect, would drive you up the wall. People waltz in at 11, of course they go home at 10pm, too. People wear jeans, ripped t-shirts, suits, ties, ties with t-shirts and jeans, dresses, kilts, blouses, barely-blouses, barely-dresses, sweats, bike riding gear, motorcycle gear, you name it.

But they do their job.

While I agree that a star can get away with more than the average employee, you reach a point where it simply isn't worth it. A person that prides themselves on their propensity to show up at interviews looking "different" has, IMO, a bit of a self obcession and that is a warning sign.

Have you met many of those? I really haven't met many people who are deliberately different, well, other than a few goth types, a punk type or two, and that was more amusing than anything else. (N.B. I am probably out of touch with what they call themselves today, so it goes.)

Similarly if a person opts, given ignorance, to dress down when the environment is more formal I would guess that the person took a guess as to what was appropriate and guessed wrong. In general, one cannot go wrong by being too formal.

That's actually not my experience, mostly on the interviewer end of things. (Let's see, I didn't interview for my first job at Bell Labs, got hired on as a permanant person w/o interview other than "welcome to Bell Labs" by an hr flack, didn't interview when I moved to AT&T Shannon Research labs, and did interview when I came here, with interview instructions that said 'be comfortable'. My interview experiences really don't count for much, do they?) In all three places, people who were overdressed got a bit of a funny look.

Naturally if your interviewees are right out of college they may not own a suit. No harm, no foul. Personally, I would far prefer to see a person neatly dressed casually than in a crappy, ill fitting, off the rack piece of crap suit. But that's me.

I'll go along with that if it's a part of the job. If the job is in a coal yard, no. If the job is in a factory, no. I'd rather see a hardhat and coveralls.

 

[drkitten]

To enforce discipline (specifically "I'm the boss and you'll do what I say"), usually when encountering a new team

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....

 

[rwguinn]

And I know at least 3 organizations, all 3 of which I've worked with, in which you might find yourself uncomfortably dressed, and perhaps not fitting in. I think two of three of them would overlook the suit, or tell you to "lose the tie" in a reasonably kindly fashion, the third might react negatively.

It's not as simple as you suggest. I will say in defense of the third company the interview instructions say "come dressed as you would prefer to be dressed at work" explicitly.

My philosophy is this:
I am well-established in my field--lots of experience--and thus, age(!) To any interview, I carry a suit, a sport coat, and slacks. Upon arriving, I evaluate past what I already know--I look at the weather. In Texas, July--ain't no way that suit is going on me! In Denver, in October, It depends on who I am interviewing with. Under any circumstances, the coat can be jettisoned, the tie can come off. It's a lot easier to remove than add, once you're there.
At one interview, I showed up in slacks, Oxford shirt, tie, sport coat (it was summertime), and on pulling into the parking lot, observed the HR people coming in to work, as I was early. Never dress better than the HR department! I ditched the coat and tie, and ended up gettting an on-the spot 10% raise offer after the day was done.

 

[Ed]

I have tried to exclude people who deal with customers. For this, I agree.

You know, I've only worked at 3 places in my life in any career sense (I don't count the coal yard I worked in, or the gas station.) and all three, I suspect, would drive you up the wall. People waltz in at 11, of course they go home at 10pm, too. People wear jeans, ripped t-shirts, suits, ties, ties with t-shirts and jeans, dresses, kilts, blouses, barely-blouses, barely-dresses, sweats, bike riding gear, motorcycle gear, you name it.

But they do their job.

I was talking interviews in an office environment. My dress code was "clothing optional". But that was for employees.

Have you met many of those? I really haven't met many people who are deliberately different, well, other than a few goth types, a punk type or two, and that was more amusing than anything else. (N.B. I am probably out of touch with what they call themselves today, so it goes.)

A couple. Mostly for the sake of theater I suspect. I had a woman working for me that got her ears pierced in >1 place and I asked her how many of our female clients did that. The point is that getting loot out of people is hard enough without adiing to the variables in the decision process.

That's actually not my experience, mostly on the interviewer end of things. (Let's see, I didn't interview for my first job at Bell Labs, got hired on as a permanant person w/o interview other than "welcome to Bell Labs" by an hr flack, didn't interview when I moved to AT&T Shannon Research labs, and did interview when I came here, with interview instructions that said 'be comfortable'. My interview experiences really don't count for much, do they?) In all three places, people who were overdressed got a bit of a funny look.

To the best of my knowledge most of the big clients I had are casual now. OTOH if I were meeting with a divisional president whom I had never met I would probably dress up a bit. Same reason it is a good idea to do so when interviewing.

I'll go along with that if it's a part of the job. If the job is in a coal yard, no. If the job is in a factory, no. I'd rather see a hardhat and coveralls.

As my sainted mum used to say "a toff in a coalyard is like a turd in a punchbowl". Had a way with words, my mum.

 

[Jas]

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?

The employee has the right to leave their job at any time. I do have a 'take it or leave it' stance. If a company would like to retain employees in a competitive job market, they might have to modify some of their expectations.

However, if I'm looking for an employee, I want one that is going to do what I say. I want someone that is going to do the job I'm paying them for, and give me a minimum of headaches. If they're going to complain about something as inconsequential as dress, or start some sort of little 'rebellion', you know what? I don't need the headache. They've obviously decided that they care more about their clothing than they do about receiving a paycheck. Fine with me.

If the employee feels that they 'ought to know the reasoning' behind the employers policies, and the employer disagrees, well, then maybe they aren't suited to each other.

Essentially, an employere is saying, "You do this, this, and this, and I will give you this." An employee can either accept the offer, or find employment elsewhere. I don't see why this is a difficult concept.

 

[jj]

Essentially, an employere is saying, "You do this, this, and this, and I will give you this." An employee can either accept the offer, or find employment elsewhere. I don't see why this is a difficult concept.

I don't think anyone is questioning your right, outside of safety and health issues, to say that as an employer.

I am, however, questioning the wisdom of such a stance. Do you think that in fact it's a bad idea to have informed employees?

 

[Jas]

I am, however, questioning the wisdom of such a stance. Do you think that in fact it's a bad idea to have informed employees?

I never said if it was a good idea or a bad idea. But frankly, the person signing the cheques has the right to make those decisions, which may very well end in disaster.

 

[rwguinn]

.......

However, if I'm looking for an employee, I want one that is going to do what I say. I want someone that is going to do the job I'm paying them for, and give me a minimum of headaches. If they're going to complain about something as inconsequential as dress, or start some sort of little 'rebellion', you know what? I don't need the headache. They've obviously decided that they care more about their clothing than they do about receiving a paycheck. Fine with me.

If the employee feels that they 'ought to know the reasoning' behind the employers policies, and the employer disagrees, well, then maybe they aren't suited to each other.

Essentially, an employere is saying, "You do this, this, and this, and I will give you this." An employee can either accept the offer, or find employment elsewhere. I don't see why this is a difficult concept.

you are obviously not involved in hiring people for positions that require innovation and thinking.
If all you want are folks who believe that "We've always done it this way" is all the explanation required, there are a number of seat-filling warm bodies out there, looking for a way to kill time 'till Social Security (or its 'furrin' equivalent) kicks in....
And quite a lot of them look really good in suits.

 

[Jas]

you are obviously not involved in hiring people for positions that require innovation and thinking.

If you want to think that, that's fine.

 

[jj]

you are obviously not involved in hiring people for positions that require innovation and thinking.
If all you want are folks who believe that "We've always done it this way" is all the explanation required, there are a number of seat-filling warm bodies out there, looking for a way to kill time 'till Social Security (or its 'furrin' equivalent) kicks in....
And quite a lot of them look really good in suits.

I have to point out that many corporations in the USA right now do want somebody who just does it the same old way, and that people who think and innovate are frankly not that welcome.

Look at the state of basic research, eh?

 

[drkitten]

However, if I'm looking for an employee, I want one that is going to do what I say.

In other words, you don't want an employee who is smarter or more knowledgeable than you?

That's usually a recipe for mid- to long-term disaster.

 

[Jas]

In other words, you don't want an employee who is smarter or more knowledgeable than you?

I didn't say that.

Hey, smart employees are fabulous. But the smart ones know when the time and place to make a statement is, and to pick their battles. Someone who is going to sit there and make a fuss over a necktie, is just a headache.

And, if a smart employee did have a serious problem with the dresscode, and felt that it was worth it to complain, then they would wait until they have established themselves as valuable individual to the company, then sit down, in an adult manner, and discuss why they feel that the dresscode is redundant.

That's usually a recipe for mid- to long-term disaster.

ETA: And as I said earlier:

... frankly, the person signing the cheques has the right to make those decisions, which may very well end in disaster.

ETA2: 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?

 

[toddjh]

In other words, you don't want an employee who is smarter or more knowledgeable than you?

You're assuming that an unwillingness to follow established procedures represents intelligence rather than just an attitude problem. That's not an assumption I'd be comfortable making.

 

[rwguinn]

I have to point out that many corporations in the USA right now do want somebody who just does it the same old way, and that people who think and innovate are frankly not that welcome.

Look at the state of basic research, eh?

Yepper. I have had to work for micro-managers before. Usually they wear suits .
I tolerated it just long enough to make other arrangements.

 

[drkitten]

I didn't say that.

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

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."

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.

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?

Hey, smart employees are fabulous. But the smart ones know when the time and place to make a statement is, and to pick their battles. Someone who is going to sit there and make a fuss over a necktie, is just a headache.

And, if a smart employee did have a serious problem with the dresscode, and felt that it was worth it to complain, then they would wait until they have established themselves as valuable individual to the company, then sit down, in an adult manner, and discuss why they feel that the dresscode is redundant.

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).

 

[drkitten]

You're assuming that an unwillingness to follow established procedures represents intelligence rather than just an attitude problem.

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....

 

[jj]

You're assuming that an unwillingness to follow established procedures represents intelligence rather than just an attitude problem. That's not an assumption I'd be comfortable making.

I'm comfortable saying that it could be either, and therefore worth looking into.