I do better work when I’m comfortable. If i had to wear a tie to work - well, I’d have never taken the job, but hypothetically, if I had - I’d be fidgeting with my collar all day long.
It’s got nothing to do with personal expression. I do that at home. Hell, you should see my cubicle. Everybody jokes here about it, saying they’re not sure anyone works here. It’s about comfort and useless, outdated ideas of respect based on dress.
Hey man, Park Avenue leads to…wait, that’s not right…
Meet me at Gabes.
Bring $5.
Er, no. She’s saying that it is a very simple criteria by which to measure an applicant’s measure of a) interest, b) effort, and c) awareness of job requirements. Clothing standards (and particularly neckties) are largely arbitrary for most jobs, but in an interview that lasts, say, half an hour, you have only a short amount of time to assess the candidate’s sincere interest and willingness to perform the job tasks and be responsible.
Showing up appropriately attired (not too causual nor too formal) indicates that you understand, at least on a superficial level, what is expected in the position and that you have it sufficiently together to be clean and neat in appearance. It’s not a causative valuation, but I’d argue that showing up smartly dressed and on time is strongly corrolative to an employee that will routinely clock in on schedule, perform the expected tasks, and will show respect to customers and coworkers, whereas someone who comes to an interview looking as if they just climbed out of bed is more likely to be they guy who doesn’t get in until 10.00am, takes a long lunch, and ignores his coworkers’ requests for cooperation.
It’s an imperfect measure to be sure, but one that can be assessed in a short interview. Frankly, if I could I’d wear a kilt to work all the time, and I don’t think it would impact my work at all (though my cow-orkers would be freaked out about it, no doubt), but I don’t think it would reflect so well on the company when a visiting colonel or MDA executive sees me walking through the halls barefoot in t-shirt and tartan…so I tough it and wear “the uniform”, i.e. chinos and a button up shirt. (No ties here, thankfully, unless giving a presentation to some muckity-muck.)
But if I ever get a gig as a screenwriter, I’m definitely doing the bathrobe and swimming trunks thing, complete with White Russian, unkempt hair, and sunglasses. Think The Dude. “Hey, careful, man, there’s a beverage here!”
Stranger
“That rug really tied the room together.”
I’m sorry I didn’t address this in my last post, but yours hadn’t shown up yet.
I agree with you totally that this is elitism. Thing is, when I’m looking to hire, I’m not looking for ‘good enough.’ I’m looking for the best, the elite. So how is it improper? All things being equal, I want someone that can both do the job and present the image I want projected of my business. Given the glut of applicants out there, there’s no reason I shouldn’t get what i want.
As far as superficial…I think it’s a lot less superficial than you think. An unwillingness to do the small things that get you the job are often signals of personality traits that make you unable to keep the job. Getting a ‘good fit’ is often as important as getting the most talented applicant.
I must say that photography never struck me as a really dressy profession to begin with. There is a creative-arts quality to it, even when it’s child portraiture, and creative fiellds tend to strongly play down the importance of looking like you’re about to make the New York financial world sit up and take notice.
IMO, expecting photographers not to wear jeans is like asking studio stage hands to wear gabardines.
Of course, I always say, there’s jeans and there’s jeans, and they should be neat, clean, and fit right.
Okay, let’s not get bogged down in a tie/no-tie cluster fuck. The OP is talking about knowing enough to at least look interview-appropriate. I’m sure that when you went to your interviews, you may not have been wearing a tie, but you weren’t wearing something offensive, either. And even if you were wearing jeans, you weren’t wearing your worst pair. (And if you were, you’re one lucky bastard.)
And, on the whole, I agree with you about how dress shouldn’t make the man (or woman). I’ve worked a high-level job that allowed me to wear jeans/t-shirt/tennis shoes every day if I felt like it. It didn’t affect my ability/professionalism at all. Obviously, this was working at a company where the owner himself felt as you do. (So, there is hope for us after all! Except maybe not, because they eventually changed their dress code!)
But in this scenario, it comes down to competing against those who all want what you want. And if you’re smart, you’ll give yourself that extra little edge. It doesn’t take much and gets you what you want. If all it takes is a clean collared shirt and a pair of khakis, you’d be stupid not to.
Oh, and lastly (god, I use that term in practically every post I make!!), yeah I think it’s stupid that my co-workers have to wear ties when no one sees them but other co-workers. And that’s why I eventually will not be in this type of environment. I’ll either move to a different sphere where it’s not important, or I’ll create my own sphere. It’s not like the traditional business world is the only game in town.
It doesn’t say anything to me about whether the person thinks the interview is important or not. However, it does say that this person refuses to make a trivial compromise and show up in a jacket for an interview. I wonder what other small compromises they won’t be willing to make.
We’ve had several people who are damned good at what they do, but their lack of flexibility has made them more trouble than they’re worth. For example, we’ve had copywriters who produce really excellent work, but they throw a hissy fit when we request minor changes changes based on some company bigwig’s comments. Were those minor changes neccessary? Not usually. However, they don’t take away from the end product at all and appeasing the bigwigs is worth changing a word or two. I’d much rather work with the copywriter who receives the comments, laughs with me about how everyone thinks they’re a writer, and makes the changes with no fuss. We can get damned good copywriters who are willing to make minor compromises. So why should we hire one who shows signs of causing trouble?
And DING! we have it all right here.
For the record, I used to be a boss, and now I’m just another peon.
My employer doesn’t pay me to show up and sprinkle my talent and inherent genius around the workplace. My employer is buying my services and skills. My employer is the customer, and has the right to expect whatever it wants to expect when plunking down the money.
I’m very happy for you that you’ve been offered a job from every interview you’ve ever had. Most of the rest of us aren’t that lucky and have to remember that we are selling ourselves during the interview. If it takes a prettier package than we normally dress ourselves in, then that’s what it takes.
Your quote of the Big Lebowski will buy you no mercy from me, this day.
I say it shouldn’t be a requirement. You say it should, because it demonstrates the applicant’s interest in the position, effort for the position, and awareness of the requirement itself. Obviously, I don’t have to explain to you how the third item is circular. You’re a smart guy.
Let us take two applicants, fairly typical human beings of two very different personalities. Bob is a recent college graduate, a little socially inept, but it’s not like he’s eating paste, not since third grade, anyway. He’s a brilliant widget designer. Dave, on the other hand, also a recent college graduate, comes from an upper-crust family - not so great at widget design, but good enough to get by - his goal is to be employed long enough to hop to a better company with some experience on his resume, so his somewhat wealthy parents won’t cut him out of the will. Dave’s an expert schmoozer.
Bob’s clearly the guy you want for widget design. Who’s more likely to dress up as a shorthand way of demonstrating or faking interest and effort? Dave. Dave’d be great if it were a sales-type position, sure. But not the guy you want.
There will be some who rail about the specificity of my examples, but it’s just a longhand way of getting to my point - because business attire is so touted as important in an interview, it’s the first thing the useless phonies hook onto. I’ve seen so many of them in my short, short time - people whose only competence is delegation of work and fabrication of excuses.
I bet they dressed really nice.
You’re assuming they’re aware of the requirement. Some people really aren’t. They’s smart, they’re good at what they do, and yet, coming out of college, they don’t know that huge numbers of employers will not hire them, despite qualifications, because they weren’t dressy enough.
Just because in MY case it’d be an act of defiance, doesn’t mean it would be in every case.
I’m at work and wearing jeans and steel toes. That’s how I dressed for my last job as well.
I met the owner of the company I work for now over breakfast for my interview. We met early because I still had to go to work (at what’s now my old job.) He knew that. I apologized twice for wearing jeans and steel toed boots to the interview. He understood, but I wanted him to know that I aknowledged the fact that it wasn’t approporate interview attire.
Every little bit helps.
My mother, who runs a government office with about 90 employees was making a very similar complaint not to long ago. Granted, the job wasn’t great - a part time janitorial position, but the majority of the applicants came in sweats and were visibly unwashed. Her reaction - “If you can’t keep yourself in an appropriately presentable state for a job interview, how can I trust you to keep my building presentable on a daily basis.”
For most jobs for which I’ve interviewed, I’ve asked beforehand what kind of dress was/is required for the job. Most of them (because of the types of jobs for which I’ve applied) tell me “casual.” No need to dress up, but I always make sure that even though I’m wearing casual clothes to the interview, they are:
Clean
Not holey or ragged
For a few jobs, I knew I would have to dress business (when I worked in a bank), so I dressed in business attire.
But the lunch interview I’m going to on Friday…the interviewer herself told me she’d be dressed in a trench coat and a beret, like always, which aren’t exactly business attire in this area of the country. So I told her I’d be wearing what I normally wear: a blouse, a skirt, and sandals. All clean, not ragged. She was fine with that.
I never wore makeup and very little jewelry to my bank job, and I didn’t catch flak from the managers, or from the customers for it–but boy howdy did I ever catch it from my fellow peons, who wanted to know if I was “some kind of hippie” or “part of a church that didn’t allow women to wear makeup.” I think I was the only female there who never wore makeup–not because I think it’s wrong, but because I genuinely DON’T like to wear makeup, and I resent people telling me I look “unprofessional” without makeup.
I think it would have been a more effective example if Dave had also been a child molester or serial bed wetter.
You automatically seem to assume that slovenly appearance = misunderstood genius. This just isn’t so. All things being equal, given two applicants of similar skills, I’d want the one that has made an effort to show me that he can fit into my corporate structure.
Whether it’s from ignorance or defiance, why would I want to hire someone that fails to make this effort? For that matter, defiance? wtf?
I’m very happy that you’ve been fortunate in your job search so far, but defiance is really not something most employers are looking for- and to tout it as a virtue is naive.
As I specified, the example isn’t the meat of the objection. But I have met a lot of the business-phonies.
No, I don’t assume that. Nowhere did I even mention misudnerstood genius, or slovenly. In fact, I’ve repeatedly stated that standards of cleanliness and general "kempt"ness are A-OK. Please review the thread to date if you don’t believe me.
All other things being equal, I’d flip a coin rather than decide that one guy gets a job because he wore a suit and tie and the other applicant wore a polo shirt and casual slacks.
I used the word defiance as a joke - but at the same time, given your reaction here, I’m very glad you weren’t one of the founding fathers. ‘Eh, let’s just give the British their taxes. That’s how it works.’
Let’s assume, for one minute, that I’m not Dilbert’s manger. Let’s assume that I am, dispite my reffering to a ball-peen hammer as balltine, a reasonably intelligent man looking for qualified applicants for a job to photograph children.
I’m asking you to get the jist of my op. I’m not being impressed by these applicants—in any way, and their dress is just part of the problem.
Also for the record, we’re going to hire somebody. I wasn’t the only person in the office giving interviews. I’m not out to hire an incompetent boob because he/she is dressed nicely. I’m just surprised that no one seemed to make the effort.
For everyone getting involved in this thread, thank you. You’ve put a smile on my face-ten miles wide.
It boils down to this:
It is my company. If you want to work for me, you’ll do what I have decided is in the best interest of my company. If not, thank you for stopping by, but I have other people to interview.
That’s not elitist - it’s business.
I don’t understand the whole makeup thing; maybe it’s just me, but frankly I don’t think most women look better with makeup, 'cept perhaps for a few highlights. The caked-on, fluourescent, “Working Woman”-esque look just looks gaudy and slightly tarted to me; not professional at all. Professional (to me) is a nice blouse and skirt, or pantsuit, some non-flashy jewelry, and a bare minimum (if any) subdued makeup.
But then, I think Jane Goodall is more of a professional than Carly Fiorina any day. Professional is about doing a job competently, quietly, and completely, without pointless flash or excess. Steve “Monkey Boy” Ballmer is about as far from professional as you can get, and I’d rather run a cyanide-coated rapier through my naval than work for that jackass.
Stranger
Well, first of all, it’s the sort of thing someone is going to pick up on in a brief interview. If you are, say, a IC chip designer and are absolutely, irreplacably brilliant at what you do, heck, you can probably get away with wearing a turban and speaking only Punjab, as long as the interviewer has it on good faith that you are the best at what you do. But for most jobs in the mid-level corporate world, or jobs that are seasonal/part-time the interview has only a few minutes to make an assessment of you, and as superficial as appearance may be, it is all he’s really going to have to go on. Certainly, they’ll miss out on the guy who’s a little grubby but a genius hacker, or the girl with a studdering problem but who can put together outstanding business cases and presenations, but then in the mid-level cubical farm where homogeny is prized above all else these people would be “disruptive influences” anyway.
As many people have noted, by taking a job where image/customer relations don’t dictate working for a more personal employer who was willing to take the time to know them and/or doesn’t grade them by such a superficial method they were able to find an environment more lax than the norm. But it takes more time or luck, and a willingness, perhaps, to accept other tradeoffs (less pay, less chance of advancement). You can rail against it all you want and complain about how it “should be”, but that isn’t going to change anything. On the other hand, when you are CEO of your own Fortune 500 company and you make the dicta that all employees are required to come to work dressed as comfortably as possible then you’ll cause other companies to change their policies, or lure away their best workers. G’luck to you, but I’m not holding breath for it.
Stranger