Eighteen interviews for an advertised position does strike me as a small number. Even more, eighteen interviews out of over 150 initial contacts strikes me as an awfully high rate of attrition, especially given the quality of applicants that *did * show. What are you doing, challenging them to a duel over the phone?
Peace, AndyPolley, I really do understand your frustration. Bathing, dressing nicely, and fumigating one’s portfolio before an interview certainly seem like things everyone would know to do, don’t they? I can understand your shock that even the older job-seekers ignore the basic protocol involved. But I can’t help thinking that you’re in the same position as a consumer complaining about the shoddy quality of goods available at the five & dime. Somehow, you’re not getting to the segment of potential employees that you want, either because you’re not offering enough or you’re advertising in the wrong place or you’re sending the wrong message about what you need or you’re somehow weeding out good candidates before the interview (some of the 180 must have owned a clean shirt), or the pool of available candidates simply doesn’t offer what you want (this seems the least likely explanation).
No mocking, honest. But if none of your applicants are minimally acceptable, there has to be a reason for it that you can address, even if you feel the burden shouldn’t be yours.
Maybe I should challenge applicants to duels…hmmm…
Just to nit pick, 18 interviewed by me personally…probably closer to 40-45 interviews all told, so that rate of attrition is a little more than you thought. The interviews conducted by the other manager seem to have been of a higher quality.
But otherwise, you’re right. I don’t deny it. I’m frustrated. I can take a little mocking over it. It’s cool Soup…it’s cool.
It doesn’t sound like CandidGamera has had to make that decision yet. And, if he’s lucky, he will never have to make it. At some time, most people have to compromise their less important principles to accomplish their greater goals. 'Course some people continue to have freedom of dress as one of their important principles. And if you are really lucky, you never need to put it to the test and can find someone to hire you regardless of the jeans, tshirt or long hair on men.
Personally, I’d wear a gorilla suit to work if it was what I need to do to feed the kids and pay the mortgage. But then, I’m old enough that when I started in the work world I wore a suit with nylons and heels to work every day - in IT - and then unboxed and set up computers wearing that getup. I figure the slacks and sweaters that my coworkers consider dressy now ARE casual and quite comfy.
Dude, societal standards of dress have existed ever since there has been a society. Workplace standards of dress have existed ever since there has been a workplace. You can think we’d be better off without them, but don’t pretend that anybody is making this shit up on their own. If anything, the standards have been getting looser over the years.
The following is not directed at anyone in particular, but is a nugget of wisdom to be shared. If you really want change:
If you disdain dress codes, you have the right to create your own dress code at your own business and take down the company that rejected you. For your sake, I hope your customers will be sympathetic to your cause though.
I had to read that three times before I realized it didn’t say “Personally, I’d wear a gorilla suit to work if it was what I need to do to get the kids to pay the mortgage.”
You can often get away with ratcheting down the dress code after you are someplace and understand it. (Not always.) We’re just talking about an interview here. If someone is morally opposed to dressing up for an interview, how about a wedding or a funeral?
But a boss who requires suits for people when it makes no sense is a jerk, and I can see refusing to work there unless it was absolutely necessary. Andy is not a jerk.
BTW, Andy, what were the reject resumes like? Didn’t know which end of a camera is which or something? People do apply to places where they have no hope of getting a call, I know that.
You do realize that I said I wear a tie if it’s the company dress code, right? You’re back up to 5,999,999,999.
Funny story about how one company went casual for a year:
Any Bostonians/New Englanders in this thread? Remember back around 1997 or so when we had a huge rainstorm? When there was one T station (Kenmore, I think) that flooded with about 6 feet of water? You can still see the high water mark on the walls. At that time I was working as a consultant at an insurance company. This place didn’t insure piddly shit like people or cars or doctors. Nuh uh. They only insured big businesses, and sold big policies. Big corporate stuff. Big Big stuff.
One place they insured was a lumber/logging company in Maine. This company had an expensive piece of machinery that was very sensitive to moisture. Even a tiny bit of moisture could wreck this machine. And during that rainstorm, the machine got drenched. Ruined. So the insurance company had to pay the claim, which amounted to several million dollars.
Bummer for the company. And bummer for the employees. No bonuses for an entire year. The company could no longer afford it. So as compensation, they declared casual dress for that year. Which was fine by me. I wasn’t going to get a bonus either way, so I got something for nothing.
Count me in on the “dressing appropriately matters” side of the fence. Whether it’s an interview or a date, when I am going to a special occasion, I think about how I am going to present myself.
Oddly enough, for several years, when I was working in advertising, wearing a tie to meetings with important clients would have lowered my credibility. The account execs were wearing ties and blazers, and I was wearing jeans and a Devo t-shirt. I was the writer, or the Internet guy – I was supposed to be creative and crazy.
And that’s the core of what I’m arguing. It seems like you don’t like the suit-and-tie mentality any more than I do. That’s great. You disagree with it. So you and I are in agreement.
Absolutely not. There’s nothing wrong with aesthetically pleasing forms - when the goal is to be aesthetically pleasing, and not to fulfill a widget manufacturing quota.
It’s a lovely post, but it doesn’t address “Why are suit-and-tie dress codes a good thing?”
To respond, depending on what the dress code is, I’d go with #1 or #2. Business Casual? #1. Business casual is comfy enough for me to get through the day. Suit and Tie? #2. I keep looking for a job, because if I were wearing a tie, or a blazer, or sportcoat, or dress shoes, I would get exactly zero work done. When I’m wearing one of those four things, all I can do is fidget with them.
I personally don’t want it to change. And I don’t imagine a lot of other people do, either, or it would have by now.
I think it’s only respectful to show up in appropriate clothing for an interview, and if I’m the interviewer, I get to decide if what they wore is appropriate. It’s up to them to try to dress appropriately (and it’s been mentioned they can find out ahead of time if they actually give a shit about getting the job.
I’m not looking for a three-piece suit for an entry-level IT job, but slacks and a nice shirt is not too much to ask. I’m the customer who may be buying their services and if I don’t like the packaging of the product, and I have several people to look at, I may not bother looking further at the contents if the packaging of one or more doesn’t meet my approval. Yes, maybe I’d miss some good people, but it is up to the applicant to sell themselves to me.
Bolding mine. I’ve no problem with that. In fact, I said several posts ago that the business-casual polo shirt and casual pants would make an excellent middle ground. It’s saddening to me that it’s so important to you, but at least it’s a moderate concession to comfort.
It’s important to me that they make an effort to impress. Dressing appropriately is making an effort to impress, as would be presenting a nicely done resume, giving a decent handshake (unless culturally inappropriate) and making eye contact.
Well roger thornhill,…there was one interview with a homosexual who drew a gun on me. It was after I said the word “evolution.” Sadly, I was referring to the Journey tribute band that often plays in the area so it was a terrible misunderstanding.
Although, with the Warrant discussion in this thread, I wonder if a pitting of a Journey tribute band would have legs?
Does this post count as a bit about you?
Oh…CandidGamera, backpeadlling? Why I oughta…
Actually…Let me ask you a question from the other direction. If you were offered twice as much to do the same job you currently do, the only difference being that it was a different company & you were required to wear a suit, would you accept it? Your duties & interaction with the public are the same as they are now. All that’s different is a suit requirement & your salary. What say you, CG?
Twice? It’s possible. At that point, I’d be so overpaid (for my job, for this area) as to be able to afford a platinum-coated neck-guard that could keep the infernal collar of the shirt from contacting my neck. And a specially ventilated sportsjacket. And dress shoes with little pads inside the back heel so they wouldn’t slice upon my flesh as dress shoes usually do. Clip-on tie, of course.
It’d still be iffy, though. Now, at three times the salary, it’d be likely.
I have, at my core, a mercenary nature. There is a dollar amount at which I feel compensated for the discomfort level.
But I don’t see the point of the turned around query - if it’s to try and point out some inconsistency in my position, it doesn’t really work - I don’t blame the individuals who take the suit-and-tie jobs. I did make a comment earlier about not me accepting a job with a suit and tie requirement, but I was assuming remotely appropriate compensation for my duties.
