January 12, 2009 at 9:44 am
GSquared (1/12/2009)
Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. George W Bush dresses well. By your logic, that means you assume he's a highly skilled computer programmer.
Let me try again. The way George Bush dresses says that he is a skilled businessman. That may not be true, but at least he looks the part. It would be a very bad business decision for him to dress as if he were not a skilled businessman. The same is true for any skilled professional. Like you, I can't believe anyone would actually think or say otherwise.
Have a great day.
January 12, 2009 at 9:53 am
gcopeland (1/12/2009)
GSquared (1/12/2009)
Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. George W Bush dresses well. By your logic, that means you assume he's a highly skilled computer programmer.Let me try again. The way George Bush dresses says that he is a skilled businessman. That may not be true, but at least he looks the part. It would be a very bad business decision for him to dress as if he were not a skilled businessman. The same is true for any skilled professional. Like you, I can't believe anyone would actually think or say otherwise.
Have a great day.
I'd be willing to bet I can provide you with four or five pictures of people dressed in various ways, and you would not be able to determine (a) level of success, (b) level of business skill, (c) level of technical skill, by looking at the clothing in them.
I understand the point you are making, that clothing can say something about someone. My point is that clothing can also lie about it. It's very, very easy to lie with clothing, so anyone who judges people by the way they dress is an easy mark for cons and shell games.
If you want to be an easy mark, judge by clothing. If you don't, don't.
Thus, as a business executive, I would never hire an HR person who judges by appearance. HR is one of the gatekeepers of the business, their job (amongst other things) is to make sure that only competent, honest people get hired. If they judge by appearance, at all, even once, they are puting the whole business at risk, are in dereliction of their duties, and are collecting a paycheck under false pretenses. That's my take on it. Same for managers.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
January 12, 2009 at 9:57 am
We're by no means all Americans on this board....
I've been a programmer for over 30 years and rules of appearance have greatly eased up in those 3 decades. The social change that caused the move toward one, casual yet neat, wardrobe has been the entrance in large numbers of women into the workplace - yes, Women's Lib, as it was called in my day. Women, who used to only have private lives, had a single wardrobe (and a single set of rules for behavior, but that's a whole nuther subject). At first women tried to emulate men, with those ridiculous suits of the 80's. Then a younger generation came in and in the dot com boom programmers (male programmers, this time) refused to adhere to the corporate dress code. There was a time not so long ago when even Wall Street was easing up on the whole suit and tie thing. I even remember the shock of IBM letting go of it's blue suit white shirt rule. Blame the feminists - or thank them. 😛
January 12, 2009 at 10:02 am
GSquared (1/12/2009)
I understand the point you are making, that clothing can say something about someone. My point is that clothing can also lie about it. It's very, very easy to lie with clothing, so anyone who judges people by the way they dress is an easy mark for cons and shell games.
All business relationships rely on trust. Surely you can agree that a person's professional demeanor is a component of that trust.
Thus, as a business executive, I would never hire an HR person who judges by appearance. HR is one of the gatekeepers of the business, their job (amongst other things) is to make sure that only competent, honest people get hired. If they judge by appearance, at all, even once, they are puting the whole business at risk, are in dereliction of their duties, and are collecting a paycheck under false pretenses. That's my take on it. Same for managers.
Generally speaking, the HR department at a company does not hire anyone. Instead, it provides qualified individuals to hiring managers who make the hiring decisions, and those people focus much more on skills. My problem with your statement is not so much that it is wrong, but that it is terrible advice for anyone seeking to get ahead in their careers.
Have a nice day.
January 12, 2009 at 10:08 am
gcopeland (1/12/2009)
Thus, as a business executive, I would never hire an HR person who judges by appearance. HR is one of the gatekeepers of the business, their job (amongst other things) is to make sure that only competent, honest people get hired. If they judge by appearance, at all, even once, they are puting the whole business at risk, are in dereliction of their duties, and are collecting a paycheck under false pretenses. That's my take on it. Same for managers.
Generally speaking, the HR department at a company does not hire anyone. Instead, it provides qualified individuals to hiring managers who make the hiring decisions, and those people focus much more on skills. My problem with your statement is not so much that it is wrong, but that it is terrible advice for anyone seeking to get ahead in their careers.
Have a nice day.
Sure the HR Department does not hire the final person, but they do eliminate candidates, which may mean the best person for the job is eliminated because of their decision, be it based on appearance or lack of a buzz word in resume.
Jack Corbett
Consultant - Straight Path Solutions
Check out these links on how to get faster and more accurate answers:
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
Need an Answer? Actually, No ... You Need a Question
January 12, 2009 at 10:10 am
Demeanor is definitely a part of that trust and I'll grant you that appearance is part of that. Without a doubt it is, but to what degree?
I think it depends on the other parts of your demeanor: your attitude, speech, skills, body language, etc. Sure torn shorts and a ripped Playboy t-shirt might overwhelm everything, but a SQLServerCentral t-shirt and jeans don't necessarily do that. They might, it depends on where you are.
Clothing can make you look more successful than you are, but the facade quickly evaporates if you cannot back it up.
That's why I ask about dress code in a phone interview. It can matter when you go to the interview. I wouldn't go interview at Wells Fargo because they likely would want me in a suit most of the time and that really bothers me. Nothing wrong with their requirement and depending on circumstances, I might change my tune and do it, but now I wouldn't.
If dress matters in a company, and it does in some, then you should fit in if you want to get the job and get ahead. If you don't, then do what you think is right.
I do like the point made that the interviewee should be the best dressed or dressed as the lead interviewer is. I've tried to do that; I just don't go to places where khakis and polos won't meet that requirement.
Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/way0utwest
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
My Blog: www.voiceofthedba.com
January 12, 2009 at 10:10 am
gcopeland (1/12/2009)
Generally speaking, the HR department at a company does not hire anyone. Instead, it provides qualified individuals to hiring managers who make the hiring decisions
Absolutely .... however you should also consider that by judging by appearance an HR employee would quite possibly have discarded a large number of very well qualified individuals - as evidenced by this thread. That doesn't necessarily make it a bad decision, maybe it is based on corporate policy, but it has consequences all the same.
January 12, 2009 at 10:11 am
Jack Corbett (1/12/2009)
Sure the HR Department does not hire the final person, but they do eliminate candidates, which may mean the best person for the job is eliminated because of their decision, be it based on appearance or lack of a buzz word in resume.
You may be correct that the "best" person was eliminated for those reasons, but I highly doubt it. And further, due to a lack of attention to detail on the part of the candidate, it is a shame that we will never know.
January 12, 2009 at 10:29 am
[p]I believe that "dress for success" is a left-over from days-gone-by when rigid social classes were the norm. It never had anything to do with productivity, only social status. Some of my "non-white" friends believe that business attire, with the inherent expense of purchasing and maintaining those clothes, are just another way to exclude them or, at the least, raise the height of the hurdles they must cross to succeed.[/p]
[p]Personally, I do not look good in a traditional business suit - my proportions are all wrong and, to mix a metaphor, when wearing one, I look like a fish out of water. I do not earn enough to afford custom-made clothing. Thus, like most of us, I wear what is available off-the-rack. I currently work in two worlds - IT and ranching. Those around me tell me that I look my best wearing a Western-style (ie "Pearl Snaps") shirt and "dressy" jeans. These clothes not only fit my body, but my lifestyle. So, that is what I wear. For business meetings, I add a bolo tie.[/p]
January 12, 2009 at 10:34 am
gcopeland (1/12/2009)
Jack Corbett (1/12/2009)
Sure the HR Department does not hire the final person, but they do eliminate candidates, which may mean the best person for the job is eliminated because of their decision, be it based on appearance or lack of a buzz word in resume.You may be correct that the "best" person was eliminated for those reasons, but I highly doubt it. And further, due to a lack of attention to detail on the part of the candidate, it is a shame that we will never know.
I think this is precisely Jack's point. When HR eliminates candidates based on appearance before their technical skills are evaluated, you are ranking appearance as more important than their technical skills. And although appearance *is* important, I would not rank it as moreso than technical skill.
January 12, 2009 at 10:37 am
gcopeland (1/12/2009)
Jack Corbett (1/12/2009)
Sure the HR Department does not hire the final person, but they do eliminate candidates, which may mean the best person for the job is eliminated because of their decision, be it based on appearance or lack of a buzz word in resume.You may be correct that the "best" person was eliminated for those reasons, but I highly doubt it. And further, due to a lack of attention to detail on the part of the candidate, it is a shame that we will never know.
Perhaps the shame is that the HR department failed in their due diligence (in this "theoretical" scenario).
None of the advice that I have seen in this thread is "wrong". The basic perception of most people in the thread is that if you want to work for a company, be ready to adhere to their dress code. If you have a dress code you prefer, look for companies that adhere to that standard. In either case, it's a win-win so long as you meet the technical competencies of the job and can work with the people on your team(s).
I think the one thing we can all agree on is that dressing well does not Detract from your technical compentence. Unless your tie or belt (or any garment) is too tight and interferes with the blood flow! :hehe:
Steph Brown
January 12, 2009 at 10:39 am
GSquared (1/12/2009)
gcopeland (1/12/2009)
GSquared (1/12/2009)
Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. George W Bush dresses well. By your logic, that means you assume he's a highly skilled computer programmer.Let me try again. The way George Bush dresses says that he is a skilled businessman. That may not be true, but at least he looks the part. It would be a very bad business decision for him to dress as if he were not a skilled businessman. The same is true for any skilled professional. Like you, I can't believe anyone would actually think or say otherwise.
[\quote]
I'd be willing to bet I can provide you with four or five pictures of people dressed in various ways, and you would not be able to determine (a) level of success, (b) level of business skill, (c) level of technical skill, by looking at the clothing in them.
Oh, please, find some of Bill Gates before he got married... :w00t:
Steph Brown
January 12, 2009 at 10:43 am
please everybody, stop it.
I feel like Chandler out of Friends, there are so many stupid comments I want to come back with, but I know I shouldn't, its killing me.
:w00t:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
January 12, 2009 at 11:38 am
RBarryYoung (1/11/2009)
Everyone's judgement is affected by and influenced by things that they not only cannot control, but in most cases are not even consciously aware of.
This I must add to. What separates humans from animals is reason, the ability to hinder and even completely halt natural tendencies, to ponder, to redirect.
The word "cannot" is not true. May not, un-aware of, blindly, naively, apathetically, even mis-informed, etc.; these would be more true to the case. The more we try to see another from the inside out, the less these external events have influence.
True, however, remains the second portion. One must become aware of these tendencies, or at least follow core values, before they can actively nullify these natural habits.
January 12, 2009 at 11:53 am
gcopeland (1/12/2009)
GSquared (1/12/2009)
I understand the point you are making, that clothing can say something about someone. My point is that clothing can also lie about it. It's very, very easy to lie with clothing, so anyone who judges people by the way they dress is an easy mark for cons and shell games.All business relationships rely on trust. Surely you can agree that a person's professional demeanor is a component of that trust.
Thus, as a business executive, I would never hire an HR person who judges by appearance. HR is one of the gatekeepers of the business, their job (amongst other things) is to make sure that only competent, honest people get hired. If they judge by appearance, at all, even once, they are puting the whole business at risk, are in dereliction of their duties, and are collecting a paycheck under false pretenses. That's my take on it. Same for managers.
Generally speaking, the HR department at a company does not hire anyone. Instead, it provides qualified individuals to hiring managers who make the hiring decisions, and those people focus much more on skills. My problem with your statement is not so much that it is wrong, but that it is terrible advice for anyone seeking to get ahead in their careers.
Have a nice day.
I absolutely do NOT agree that you can trust someone based on how they dress. If you do, I suggest staying away from used car lots. Far away.
No, HR does not hire, but HR, as I mentioned, is a (perhaps the) gatekeeper to the hiring process. If anyone is being turned away because of appearance, I'd fire HR, and get really, really active on reviewing all hires that went through those HR personnel. Quite obviously, they are too lazy/incompetent/ill-intentioned to trust on anything.
As far as my advice for getting ahead in your career, it is, always has been, and always will be, "spend time increasing your competence at every opportunity". Unless you are a clothing model, I'm saying that spending time working out the exact right wardrobe doesn't come under that heading.
And I sincerely hope that all my competitors in all my future depend on clothing winning the game for them, while I depend on skill and intelligence.
Yes, it is (unfortunately) necessary to "keep up appearances" in our shallow, uneducated, misanthropic society. But I would advise anyone who asks to rely on competence and intelligence and to keep appearance as a much lower priority, and only because there are people who have been mistakenly given authority that they can't responsibly execute, who instead lazily rely on sight-judgement of clothing.
I'd also maintain that companies like that don't compete as well as ones that rely on checking competence and intelligence, because they (the ones who rely on appearance) will inevitably attract good-looking idiots into positions of authority and responsibility. That means you're more likely to end up in a failing company if you get hired because of your clothing.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
Viewing 15 posts - 241 through 255 (of 335 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply