Well, I wasn’t thinking along those lines, just that the job I had that paid the least expected me to dress the best. I’ve had some “middle of the road” (still shitty, but better-paying) jobs and their dress codes were far more lax. But it seems like if they are paying you pennies, by damn you’d better be dressed up! Cheap bastards.
It depends on the field, but I think in general, the more money you make, the better you are expected to dress. The mailroom guys generally don’t have to wear $60 Oxford shirts or dress pants from Brooks Brothers. They can typically get by on $10 Old Navy slacks.
I worked nearly seven years at Biosphere 2. It underwent some major changes in that time but from private business to it eventually becoming an extension campus of Columbia U the dress code was pretty lax. Cargo shorts, T-shirts and Teva sandals were the uniform of the day except when it was snowing or one had to work in a hard hat area. By the time I left my hair was down to the small of my back. No mullet, it was that long from my hairline back. I knew that I’d needed to adjust to the corporate world but didn’t get a haircut before interviewing. When I interviewed for the job I took my last stop was the CIO. I was warned that he’d have a problem with my hair. I was prepared and during the interview I could see him trying to get a look at my ponytail and suppressing the urge to cringe. Toward the end of the interview I noted that my hair probably wasn’t a good fit in the corporate world and that I was prepared to cut it for the right offer. He later told me the fact that I brought it up put him at ease. He said he didn’t want me to compromise my integrity. I thanked him for that and said that while I like my hair it was not my identity.
Get a haircut and get a real job
Clean your act up and don’t be a slob
Get it together like your big brother bob
Why don’t you get a haircut and get a real job
George Thorogood
I can’t say I have ever faced true discrimination but I don’t think haircuts are the same thing. I guess it comes from my parents raising me to understand that I have to make my way and that the world doesn’t owe me shit.
That’s just another case of a customer facing job. In big companies, your customers are often internal, but you need to treat them as well or better as external ones.
OTOH, in the companies I’ve worked for, an internal person wearing a suit talking to internal customers would not be taken seriously. Jeans would be cool. Long hair, as long as it is need, would be cool also. I think neatness always counts, but different fields have different standards.
Well, you have the right to enforce whatever damfool dress policy you want. 
But there is a difference between wearing jeans and being skanky. Our CEO, who could buy your company a thousand times over, wears jeans to work, as do many here. We all seem to get the job done. I know people who wear shorts to work (which I’d never do, being an old fogey) who are damn good designers. I’m happy to say that in Silicon Valley no one objects.
Am I selectively editing you here, m? Or would you basically agree with the above?
Some of the most effective companies don’t enforce homogeneity. Why are they successful, do you think?
One day around 1994, my office was abuzz with the news that Steve Jobs would be coming for a meeting (I work for a government agency, and we had purchased a large number of his ill-fated NeXT computers). He was coming to answer high-level questions and give a pep talk.
I was invited to the meeting by my boss, but was cautioned by a number of colleagues that I wasn’t dressed appropriately (I was wearing a long-sleeved black pullover shirt and blue jeans).
Not wanting to miss a chance to meet someone famous, I stood my ground and went to the meeting.
Jobs arrived about fifteen minutes late. He wore… a long-sleeved black pullover shirt, and a pair of blue jeans.
Not in Silicon Valley! And that is being rich in the way that really counts.
Maybe the guys who own the companies or were lucky enough to start before it went big are rich. I’m willing to bet that the average tech worker in Silicon Valley makes about as much as the average tech worker in New York or Boston’s rt128 loop.
I don’t mean homogenious in terms of looks or racial background. There is a school of thought that many successful companies are succesfull because they are homogenius in thought, values, and culture. Examples would be Disney, Apple, Amazon, Bain, Microsoft, HP, IBM and Nordstroms. Basically, the mentality is that they hire as much diversity as they can, however it is all in the framework of their “core values” and an almost cult-like culture that is manufactured by management. An almost epic lore is created around the upper management. Mission statements are repeated almost like a mantra. A special vocabulary is created to describe the mundane (all Disney employees are “cast members”). If they dress a certain way, it’s by design. (ie IBM used to be “old blue” because they would only wear blue suits and white shirts. Apple, on the other hand as a statement of their defiance of the old guard of tech firms like IBM would wear ultra-casual.)
Basically, they are the kinds of places where diversity and individuality is welcomed…provided you are just like everyone else. If you aren’t, you will likely either be “councelled out” or you will get frustrated and leave on your own.
As for the effectiveness of such a mentality, I think it’s mostly horseshit. Sure a like-minded organization can be very effective. It can also become blind to changes in the business landscape and lack the ability to adapt.
True. We have a location in the 128 area, and people there get paid the same as here - and dress the same way also.
Lots of companies have very strong cultures. But in some cases not having a dress code is part of this strong culture. Sometimes the ability to go off in every which direction is part of the culture. It is the place I work now, and that’s the reason I like the place so much.
And he thinks buyers trust car salesmen without beards? Seriously?
In my experience, the jobs that had the least draconian dress codes are the job where I was enabled to do my job to the best of my ability. The same goes with jobs that did not require random drug tests, needless “on call” periods and other things that serve little purpose but to weed out the headstrong.
As someone that has managed others a bit, I understand the troubles that come with working with a less-than-trustworthy workforce. But if you do invest in your employees, train them and make an effort to retain them, they will surprise and reward you. Employees will work towards your expectations, and what expectations are you setting when you don’t even trust them to get dressed in the morning? Not using your employees to their full potential (which is what you do when you take away any hint of on-the-job autonomy) is bad business and is probably the number one reason why so much customer service sucks ass nowdays.
That is so not true; I work for or closely with at least 4 of the major companies (not Disney, so I can’t speak of them) you mentioned, and ‘diverisity’ is not just a watch word that’s overruled by mission statements. Sure, lots of people are similar in outlook and nature, but that is more to the nature of the work than any other reason. Consultants act like other consultants, sales all kind of look and act the same, marketing folks all speak the same language and learned the same things in college, etc… but that similarity is due to the nature of the work and the particular type of person attracted to that work, not due to any sinister plot on the part of upper management to make us all look the same. Process-wise, there are a set of processes that must be followed to ensure compliance with things like Sarbanes-Oxley. But that’s where the ‘clone’ culture ends.
The cult-like culture certainly used to be there in some of these big companies, but since the dot-com bust and the recession, definitely not anymore. People used to join “the cult” because the benefit was there - stock options would make you rich, even if you didn’t get in in the first years, and if you worked your ass off for 10 years you could retire to Bali with your trophy wife and live in your 6-bedroom house on the beach with a ferrari in the drive. But those days are gone gone gone now, and a lot fewer people are getting rich in this industry, especially the lower-echelon folks. It’s just a job, now. A good one, but still just a job, and people aren’t investing the same amount of heart and soul anymore.
Very interesting thread. As to long hair in a manufacturing environment, it can be quite a safety hazard.
On Sunday of this week, I was invited to my wealthy, rabidly republican sister’s house for dinner. A very wealthy, retired army officer rabidly republican friend of hers was also there and during a conversation, he expressed an extreme (really extreme) distaste for long hair on men. I asked why he felt that way and he said that long haired men had no respect for themselves, were invariably incompetent, and would never be succesful (rich, in his view) in life. I pointed out the existence of long haired doctors, lawyers, CPAs, etc., etc. and his only response was that none of them would ever enjoy his business because he didn’t trust long haired men. I think it would be safe to say that he would never hire one, either. I don’t believe his attitude is all that uncommon, especially among men of his (and my) generation.
I can understand dress codes but I don’t see why the dress code that works in one part of the country is enforced everywhere. (e.g. People who work in Seattle dress the same as those here in Houston.)
It doesn’t make any sense for me to wear what they wear in Seattle. Today is December 21. It’s going to be nearly 80 degrees but I have to work outside in long pants and a suit jacket made of navy blue, non-breathing polyester. We are never allowed to wear shorts, even when the temp hits triple digits because that’s not the company dress code. The only concession I get is that I can wear a short sleeved Oxford instead of a long sleeved one.
Think Global, Act Local, you morons! :mad:
And don’t get me started on the shoes…
You are partially correct. The “cult” culture of many companies has been replaced by fear of losing ones job. It’s difficult to maintain the illusion of one big family when half that family gets outsourced. But there are companies (and there are industries other than “tach”) that do actively try to manage their culture. I was watching a show on marketing and advertising the other day on PBS. They gave an example of an airline (Delta I think) spinoff they called “Song”. It was given as an example of the kind of high-minded abstract marketing that seeks to create a “lifestyle” around the brand. Favorable job candidates were described as “he’s so Song”.
Bottom line is a lot of companies still try this “lifestyle” concept in creating brands or corporate culture. 90% of the time, however, it doesn’t work.
Our N-F-P expects us to wear business casual. Now, in the office, we can usually get by with casual stuff, but whenever we go to meetings with the Bog Boss we have to wear nice stuff - and that gets expensive. And they don’t pay me enough.
Really? You mean everyone doesn’t work on computers and software? Huh…
I can only speak of the two industries I have had a proper career in (fast food doesn’t count! :)) - the military and hi-tech. The military definitely has a personality cult-attitude about it, necessarily so. But I really do feel tech is different. People are similar because they come from similar backgrounds and educations and whatnot, not because of some overriding management hiring strategy.
I don’t fear losing my job. I am a skilled and dedicated professional, who brings great value to my employers. But if I was to become unhappy in my career, you can bet your bippy I would be gone like a fart in the wind to try something else. I think that is the difference - people in my industry for sure and many other industries that I work with are no longer slaves to the company because there are other opportunities, even in other industries, that are open.
As to industries attempting to arbitrarily create a culture for their workers, I can see how many would struggle with that and also understand how it would fail - it’s not a natural state of affairs and would take a huge amount of cost and wasted energy to maintain.
I work in a “silk stocking” law firm. I wear bow ties every day that I am required to wear a tie. Moreover, I am one of three attorneys out of 170 in this office that do so. Perhaps bow ties are more common in the South. Still, I think you’ve overstated their taboo.
I too once had long hair. To this day I have shaggy hair (generally over the ears, though it’s curly so it’s not as noticeable). I also once dressed in attention calling manners. Despite this, I can find nothing “wrong” with an employer telling its employees how to dress. Employers may have silly policies or arbitrary policies. The employees’ solution to dealing with such policies . . . find a different job. If the policies are that silly/arbitrary, then the employer will continue to lose employees and suffer from the inability to find competitent staff. It will then either change or fold . . . witness adaptive evolution. There is no legitmate analogy between tatoos, piercings, hair color/length discrimination and race, religion, or sexual orientation discrimination. So the tatoo is permanent now? Well, it wasn’t before you got it. Maybe you shoulda’ thought that one through. So the piercing will close up? Well, it’s the pericing or the job, your call. Someon ealrier made a very valid point regarding the business suit in the tatoo parlor. Just so happens that tatoo parlors aren’t quite as prolific or lucrative as jobs at PWC, IBM, [insert Fortune 500 Company here], so you don’t hear muchl complaining about having to get a spider web on an elbow and a tear on a cheek bone just to land that cherry shift at Forever Ink.
Despite how I might come off in this post, I consider myself to be a quite an accepting, open-minded person. As such, I do think it offensive to judge someone to be bad/dangerous/mean because of tatoos, peircings or uncommon hair color. However, such is not the topic introduced by the OP. Employers have every right in the world to tell employees how to dress. You have every right in the world to not take a job with such employers. Bitching about it is really futile though and comes accross mostly as whiny entitlement-attitude babble.
First, in response to your specific points:
My point was a little more subtle. It’s this: there’s hypercompetition for jobs today, so candidates who just a few years ago would have been considered shoo-ins will now be judged on the most minute and insubstantial of criteria. For it’s a sad fact of human cognition that people can never admit to just flipping the coin when they do so. No, there are always “reasons.”
In the case of oversupply
[There have been many candidates for the job, and now it’s down to Jim and Bill, who both seem equally qualified.]
We can take Jim who showed up at the interview with a four-in-hand. Or Bill who wore a bow. You know, both would seem to be equally qualified, but that bow tie–heh heh, it’s such a minor thing, I know. But why a bow? It could be a sign of, I don’t know, maybe needing to show off a bit, be a little different. Why take a chance? Yeah, Jim’s our man.
In the case of undersupply
[There have been a few incompetent candidates for the job, but the committee is thrilled that Bill has applied, as it seems as though he might actually be half-able to do the job.]
Bill, definitely Bill. And wasn’t it interesting that he wore a bow tie? Very few people know how to tie them–oh it was a real one, definitely. No clip-ons for our Bill! A bow is a sign of out-of-the-box thinking: just what we need!
I do not think the above is in any way an exaggeration. As to your own wearing of a bow, once you are in a job and respected, I doubt that it would be damaging, as it is only a little thing. But at an interview? I wouldn’t try it in this day and age. Try wearing a string tie to work, however: I’ll be the boss has you in for a “little talk.”
An old saw, this. Here’s why this argument is wrong:
One firm with absurd policies might indeed be “punished” in an evolutionary fashion IF the larger society is already enlightened. But what if “everyone is doing it”? Imagine it’s 1940. Are companies hurting themselves by not hiring competent blacks. Yep. But they’re scared that if they do their white customers, or whoever, won’t like it. So they don’t.
The problem is macro, global. It will correct itself… in about 30 years. Oh, and with a heavy dose of force, courtesy of the central government.
My guess is that the the entire way corporations exist and do business will be absurdly, laughably outdated in 100 years. People will look back and see the system for the inefficient, wasteful, overly stressful POS that it is. Dumbass dress codes will barely be a footnote on this tale of frivolity and greed. Our science of economics will seem about as sophisticated as the phlebotemies and potions of 18th century medicine.
The system will evolve into something that actually produces what society needs without torturing the producers. Indeed, any company of 2004 would have no chance of competing with a company of 2104. So I agree with your point about evolution, but it will take a long time before frivolities such as dress codes are weeded out of the meme pool.
In the meanwhile, no, employees really don’t have the choice of working elsewhere, as all companies are pretty much the same. Sure, some companies are better than others (the people at Trader Joe’s rave about their jobs, and they’re chock full of tattoos, piercings, etc.–perhaps evolution in action), but you can’t always choose where you want to work, especially in this age of over-labor-supply.
It’s all connected. Is a transgendered person free to wear what s/he wants to work? Of course not. That could be considered discrimination. Can people in various ethnic groups wear the “biz casual” or even dress wear of their particular cultures? Probably not. In truth, people wear piercings not because they’re free-thinkers but because they belong or self-perceive as belonging to a certain subculture. That’s their identity, and you can’t just tell people to turn it off without that being a cost to them, sometimes heavy.
Plus, don’t forget the original reasons for racism and sexism in the first place: the same damn reasons that exist today, to wit, “We only want people who act like us and think like us in the workplace.” It truly was a diversity issue much more than something that had to do with hardcore racism. You really ought to read Packard’s The Pyramid Climbers. Companies used to be all WASP, all Catholic, all Jewish, etc. etc. This was just 40 years ago.
The the argument that excluding skin color is unfair because people can’t help it while doing the same for piercings is OK 'cause people can change that is superficial. Of course racism is unfair, but the larger point is that racism was just a subset of the demand for total, all-encompassing conformity.
Which demand still exists today, insofar as it is able.
I’m the president of a company, just getting started, and I intend to have a dress code: suits and ties, old-fashioned stuff. I want to run it like a 1960s company style-wise but like a 2100s company mindwise. I’ll tell my employees straight up: The suits and stuff are nothing more than packaging and branding. Don’t take it too seriously. But I want REAL originality and unorthodoxy in the realm of thought.
Most companies want sheep. I want wolves in sheep’s clothing, as it were.