Why can't people dress proper for job interviews?

[Underverse]

I did not see where you wrote that. In any case, there will be some degree of give-and-take. Authoritarian employers tend to get found out pretty quickly.

As I said, respect should go both ways. But again, if you're applying for a job it's likely that you're competing with other people for that position. Employers have an incentive to hire people who will be motivated to do a good job. Dress is an indicator of motivation. I don't see anything along this line of thinking that is unreasonable.

One must understand that how they present themselves affects the risk calculations that others make. How one presents themselves in entirely within their control.

[Macaquerie]

It has been said many times that every man should own at least one decent suit. They are an investment in your future self.

No doubt a saying thought up by someone who sold suits for a living....

There's no objective standard for what "proper" dress is, in a different time and place a proper professional gentleman might wear a toga, or a kilt, or a kimono. In fact the whole suit and tie look is a bit of an anomaly because it pretty much hasn't evolved at all in the last 100 years or so, and somehow they still manage to bamboozle people into paying ridiculous prices for some pretty simple clothing that all looks pretty much the same.

[reef]

I work at an engineering firm as a pm with mostly people around my age, mid-20s to mid-30s, and unless we're scheduled for a meeting with a client, we wear some pretty casual attire. My hope is that my generation continues to bring in semi-casual and casual attire into the white collar workforce. I don't care what you wear if you can get your job done efficiently.

[Sunseeker]

How do we live under corporate rule?

You're on my ignore list, but really?

We live in a society that promotes the idea of "the job". Not "hard work" but "the job". Hard work and the job are not the same thing. A job is an inherent level of subservience. It promotes the idea that you cannot achieve on your own and that you need "employers" to "provide" you with employment, that it is not something you can create or gain of your own volition. Look at the language used around getting a job. Employers "give" you a job. You don't earn it. Perhaps at higher levels this is different, but like the tobacco companies: get them while they're young. Imprint the idea that the individual cannot succeed so that noone can challenge the existing power structure.

Why do you think small businesses are failing so badly? Our people, our government, our society promotes the idea of "bigger is better". Wal-Mart is superior to Ma & Pa's for no other reason than it has a larger market share. Quality is less valued than quantity. A bad business with a 1000 employees is seen as superior to a good business with a dozen. Small businesses do not promote a corporate power structure. Sure, there are bosses and employees, but it is much easier to communicate, facilitate change and improve the standards of a business when you are dealing with one guy who might even live down the street from their employees. Small businesses promote a cooperative power structure. The people on the top are not so much exponentially powerful than the people on the bottom as to completely negate their individual bargaining power. Big business, "corporate America" promotes the idea of "master and slave" the powerful man on top, and the weak man on the bottom who must do what he is told not because it is right, not because it is good for business, often not because it is even profitable, but simply because he is told, with the threat of termination without any means of renegotiation possible.

It makes people weak. It makes people stupid. It makes people easily manipulated and that is why we live in a society dominated by large, impersonal entities who don't give two flying fucks about anything other than their profit margin. Worse of all, it makes people dependent. You wonder why so many people look to the government for handouts? This is why. They have been trained to believe that they can only gain through the good graces of the more powerful, that they themselves are incapable of individual achievement.

Our country is sick. Our society is sick. Our economy is sick. We have a dependency complex that breeds complacency, mediocrity and subservience. Not a single one of those qualities will you find in the ingredients for a great nation. So if you wonder why our country is failing: look to the people in power because there's the answer, they WANT you to fail because that's what keeps them in power.

[Deletedaccount1]

You're on my ignore list, but really?

We live in a society that promotes the idea of "the job". Not "hard work" but "the job". Hard work and the job are not the same thing. A job is an inherent level of subservience. It promotes the idea that you cannot achieve on your own and that you need "employers" to "provide" you with employment, that it is not something you can create or gain of your own volition. Look at the language used around getting a job. Employers "give" you a job. You don't earn it. Perhaps at higher levels this is different, but like the tobacco companies: get them while they're young. Imprint the idea that the individual cannot succeed so that noone can challenge the existing power structure.

Why do you think small businesses are failing so badly? Our people, our government, our society promotes the idea of "bigger is better". Wal-Mart is superior to Ma & Pa's for no other reason than it has a larger market share. Quality is less valued than quantity. A bad business with a 1000 employees is seen as superior to a good business with a dozen. Small businesses do not promote a corporate power structure. Sure, there are bosses and employees, but it is much easier to communicate, facilitate change and improve the standards of a business when you are dealing with one guy who might even live down the street from their employees. Small businesses promote a cooperative power structure. The people on the top are not so much exponentially powerful than the people on the bottom as to completely negate their individual bargaining power. Big business, "corporate America" promotes the idea of "master and slave" the powerful man on top, and the weak man on the bottom who must do what he is told not because it is right, not because it is good for business, often not because it is even profitable, but simply because he is told, with the threat of termination without any means of renegotiation possible.

It makes people weak. It makes people stupid. It makes people easily manipulated and that is why we live in a society dominated by large, impersonal entities who don't give two flying fucks about anything other than their profit margin. Worse of all, it makes people dependent. You wonder why so many people look to the government for handouts? This is why. They have been trained to believe that they can only gain through the good graces of the more powerful, that they themselves are incapable of individual achievement.

Our country is sick. Our society is sick. Our economy is sick. We have a dependency complex that breeds complacency, mediocrity and subservience. Not a single one of those qualities will you find in the ingredients for a great nation. So if you wonder why our country is failing: look to the people in power because there's the answer, they WANT you to fail because that's what keeps them in power.

I disagree with your initial proposition on a number of grounds. Firstly, it is hard to argue whether society promotes having a job or doing hard work when in reality, society promotes both. For the vast majority of people, a "job" is the only thing that can sustain them with an income. Most people are not intelligent, experienced or creative enough to be entrepreneurs and that entails that they will likely be employed by someone else which is fine. Employers do give you a job but the language is less important then what that actually entails. You are free to stop working at any time if you really don't want to, that will likely have negative consequences for you but you are not forced into subservience.

I don't know why you argue that society promotes the idea that individuals can't succeed. America idolizes entrepreneurs more than any other country that I am aware of. Your argument would actually be more valid in a country like Japan but that is a different topic entirely.

I don't think small businesses are "failing so badly" . Large corporations like Walmart or Amazon replace smaller businesses because consumers like them better. That is all there is to it. Whether or not that effects quality is at best, subjective. Your argument really lacks substance. You aren't explaining why something is worse or even if it is true, you are just using negative language to reflect your world view.

What evidence do you have that corporate America promotes the idea of "the master and the slave"? I think is safer to say that they promote the idea of the consumer and producer. Corporations don't care what consumers do outside of their business and that is a fair, voluntary relationship if there ever was one.

I don't see much evidence either that we live in a society "dominated by large, impersonal entities". I would like to see what you mean by this in detail. I have absolutely no idea what you mean by capitalism or at least American capitalism making people "dependent". In what type of society are people not dependent on others? Tribalism? In any type of conceivable society, people are dependent on others in order to build a society and an economy. Whether or not that is voluntary or not it remains a fact and if anything, the fact that it is voluntary reduces dependency if anything.

I don't think our country is sick and our society is sick. I'm not a big fan of American culture but I would not have been a fan of it in general at any point in time. People in America carve out lives for themselves and generally do well. Poor Americans still have high standards of living and middle class Americans have a lot of freedom and choice in their lives. Work culture is arguably bad but what people do in America is highly diversified. It is one of the countries in the world where anyone from anywhere can make it big if they are intelligent and dedicated enough. There are not many other places where that is the case.

My problem with your argument is that it lacks an argument. You are just using adjectives to describe your own world view and I cannot relate to it because you don't ground what you are saying in facts. Even if America did promote "complacency, mediocrity and subservience" why would that necessarily make it a failing nation? I would argue Japan embodies those things far more than America does and many people would view Japan as a much greater nation.

What do you mean by "the people in power who want you to fail"? Business leaders? Politicians? I can't understand your vague, abstract arguments. I'm a teacher and I grade papers and arguments for a living and if I had asked my students what they thought about the contemporary United States and they presented me with what you just wrote, I would ask them to rewrite it with more specific, concrete examples. Your writing is like a politician, it is just empty rhetoric unless you can back it up with specifics.

[Sunseeker]

I disagree with your initial proposition on a number of grounds. Firstly, it is hard to argue whether society promotes having a job or doing hard work when in reality, society promotes both. For the vast majority of people, a "job" is the only thing that can sustain them with an income. Most people are not intelligent, experienced or creative enough to be entrepreneurs and that entails that they will likely be employed by someone else which is fine. Employers do give you a job but the language is less important then what that actually entails. You are free to stop working at any time if you really don't want to, that will likely have negative consequences for you but you are not forced into subservience.

I don't know why you argue that society promotes the idea that individuals can't succeed. America idolizes entrepreneurs more than any other country that I am aware of. Your argument would actually be more valid in a country like Japan but that is a different topic entirely.

I don't think small businesses are "failing so badly" . Large corporations like Walmart or Amazon replace smaller businesses because consumers like them better. That is all there is to it. Whether or not that effects quality is at best, subjective. Your argument really lacks substance. You aren't explaining why something is worse or even if it is true, you are just using negative language to reflect your world view.

What evidence do you have that corporate America promotes the idea of "the master and the slave"? I think is safer to say that they promote the idea of the consumer and producer. Corporations don't care what consumers outside of their business and that is a fair, voluntary relationship if there are ever was one.

I don't see much evidence either that we live in a society "dominated by large, impersonal entities". I would like to see what you mean by this in detail. I have absolutely no idea what you mean by capitalism or at least American capitalism making people "dependent". In what type of society are people not dependent on others? Tribalism? In any type of conceivable society, people are dependent on others in order to build a society and an economy. Whether or not that is voluntary or not it remains a fact and if anything, the fact that it is voluntary reduces dependency if anything.

I don't think our country is sick and our society is sick. I'm not a big fan of American culture but I would not have been a fan of it in general at any point in time. People in America carve out lives for themselves and generally do well. Poor Americans still have high standards of living and middle class Americans have a lot of freedom and choice in their lives. Work culture is arguably bad but what people do in America is highly diversified. It is one of the countries in the world where anyone from anywhere can make it big if they are intelligent and dedicated enough. There are not many other places where that is the case.

My problem with your argument is that it lacks an argument. You are just using adjectives to describe your own world view and I cannot relate to it because you don't ground what you are saying in facts. Even if America did promote "complacency, mediocrity and subservience" why would that necessarily make it a failing nation? I would argue Japan embodies those things far more than America does and many people would view Japan as a much greater nation.

What do you mean by "the people in power who want you to fail"? Business leaders? Politicians? I can't understand your vague, abstract arguments. I'm a teacher and I grade papers and arguments for a living and if I had asked my students what they thought about the contemporary United States and they presented me with what you just wrote, I would ask them to rewrite it with more specific, concrete examples. Your writing is like a politician, it is just empty rhetoric unless you can back it up with specifics.

Well, I'm a political scientist with an emphasis on theory so the fact that I write like a politician shouldn't be surprising. I'm not going to write you a damn term paper on the internet and I don't frankly give a shit how you would "grade" me over what I wrote. I know what I know because I've done the research, I'm not going to do it again because someone questioned my assertion on an online forum. You're welcome to disagree with me, by all means do so but keep your expectations here in reality.

[Deletedaccount1]

Well, I'm a political scientist with an emphasis on theory so the fact that I write like a politician shouldn't be surprising. I'm not going to write you a damn term paper on the internet and I don't frankly give a shit how you would "grade" me over what I wrote. I know what I know because I've done the research, I'm not going to do it again because someone questioned my assertion on an online forum. You're welcome to disagree with me, by all means do so but keep your expectations here in reality.

You can write whatever you want but if you are a political scientist, I am honestly shocked you expected what you wrote to convince someone of your position when you cite literally nothing. I'm not exactly sure how you can do concrete research on something as subjective as contemporary US culture but alright. I will keep my expectations that you will continue to brush off any concrete discussion grounded in facts on the basis that it is beneath you or above me.

[Sunseeker]

You can write whatever you want but if you are a political scientist, I am honestly shocked you expected what you wrote to convince someone of your position when you cite literally nothing. I'm not exactly sure how you can do concrete research on something as subjective as contemporary US culture but alright. I will keep my expectations that you will continue to brush off any concrete discussion grounded in facts on the basis that it is beneath you or above me.

See there's where you're mistaken. I'm not trying to convince you of anything, I don't really care to because it's impossible. People change their minds because they choose to. Good arguments, bad arguments it's all irrelevant. YOU choose to change YOUR mind, what I write makes little difference because, to quote The Oracle: you've already made the choice, even if you don't know it yet.

Cookie?

[Themanintobuildafire]

The worth I bring to a company is in the work I do, not the cloths I wear. My efforts(and "selling myself") are put into skills that will return profits to the company. If OP or anyone wants to pass on someone simply because they choose to wear something they disapprove of, it simply shows how close minded they are.

I am pretty open minded but having been on the side of the desk where I have had to interview people, I can say that you don't always find quality people wearing suits. A lot of shitty potential employees can wear a suit. The suit is a symbol of the effort you have made to present yourself at the interview. It is one of the things we interviewers use to differentiate you from the 100s of applicants we have and the tons of interviews we do for one position.

The last guy I hired actually came wearing dress pants and a turtle neck. I asked him about his attire as I was curious why such a stellar guy wouldn't put on at least a dress shirt. He had just got off the plane the day before the interview and they had lost his luggage. It was all he could get on short notice. Shit happens. I wasn't going to not hire him because of that...if he had given me attitude about not needing to wear a shirt and tie or a suit, there is no way I would have hired him.

Our business attire at that job was dress shirts, dress pants and dress shoes. In the winter, ties required.

I interviewed a guy who came in with jeans and a sweater with a low V neckline. He had a gorilla style patch of chest hair bursting out...1970s anyone? Also the guy slouched in his chair while interviewing. My boss came by, took one look at the guy and voiced "no" to me. Why he thought it was acceptable to interview like that, I have no idea.

[Kokolums]

Does the way they dress affect their work performance? Are they worse people because of the way they dress?

Success in a full time job is about working as a team. Working as a team means sacrificing individuality for the sake of the team goal. At an interview, the hiring managers are trying to assess your ability to work with the team. Managers dread having to deal with workers that refuse to listen. If an applicant can't even sacrifice their individuality enough to dress formally for the interview, how easy do you think they will be to manage once you hire them?

[Arcanimus]

Success in a full time job is about working as a team. Working as a team means sacrificing individuality for the sake of the team goal. At an interview, the hiring managers are trying to assess your ability to work with the team. Managers dread having to deal with workers that refuse to listen. If an applicant can't even sacrifice their individuality enough to dress formally for the interview, how easy do you think they will be to manage once you hire them?

I don't know what kind of full time job you're talking about, but working as a team is absolutely not required. In all of my experiences (Yes, I know the plural of anecdote isn't evidence), a single skilled individual will produce better results faster than a team. I also don't know what managers you're dealing with, being one that legitimately doesn't care about dress code unless it's a safety risk.

[waitwutt]

Does the way they dress affect their work performance? Are they worse people because of the way they dress?

for most employers it says that candidate cares more about dressing the way they want (doing what they want) than dressing professional (acting professional). it can be VERY distracting to customers if a guy has a nose ring with tattoos all over. it also shows poor judgment.

[Theinquisition]

Dressing nice for a interview is a sign of respect. It shows the employer that you take the opportunity seriously.

Dressing professionally for a job interview also shows that you are willing to adapt to the organizational culture.

At the end of the day, I consider it a win for you OP. If a job applicant is showing you right off the bat that they don't take it seriously, you are saving money and time training them.

[Forogil]

Dressing nice for a interview is a sign of respect. It shows the employer that you take the opportunity seriously.

Dressing professionally for a job interview also shows that you are willing to adapt to the organizational culture.

True, and also that in many jobs it shows that you can dress at least the few times it is required - and have the brains to figure out that job interview is one of them.

[Theinquisition]

True, and also that in many jobs it shows that you can dress at least the few times it is required - and have the brains to figure out that job interview is one of them.

Well, many millennial have the mentality that the world owes them something, including a job with no strings attached. If a job applicant comes to me looking for employment, and they can't take the time out of their day to at least dress like it's important to them, why should I give them a job?

[Annoying]

Well, many millennial have the mentality that the world owes them something, including a job with no strings attached. If a job applicant comes to me looking for employment, and they can't take the time out of their day to at least dress like it's important to them, why should I give them a job?

Maybe they're really good at it? I get what you're saying, and totally agree, as I certainly dress up for interviews, but if Bjarne Stroustrup walked into an interview for my company wearing torn up jeans, a trashy tee, and no shoes, I'd probably still hire him. Similarly, if someone with a killer background in doing what we're doing came in underdressed, they might still get hired -- at the end of the "day", the work that they end up doing for me pretty heavily outweighs how they look most of the time.

That, of course, doesn't always work for all fields and such.

[Theinquisition]

Maybe they're really good at it? I get what you're saying, and totally agree, as I certainly dress up for interviews, but if Bjarne Stroustrup walked into an interview for my company wearing torn up jeans, a trashy tee, and no shoes, I'd probably still hire him. Similarly, if someone with a killer background in doing what we're doing came in underdressed, they might still get hired -- at the end of the "day", the work that they end up doing for me pretty heavily outweighs how they look most of the time.

That, of course, doesn't always work for all fields and such.

Well those people have some notoriety correct?

I guess most people are referring to job interviews where the applicant is a new hire, at a entry level, or isn't known in their field.

[Forogil]

Maybe they're really good at it? I get what you're saying, and totally agree, as I certainly dress up for interviews, but if Bjarne Stroustrup walked into an interview for my company wearing torn up jeans, a trashy tee, and no shoes, I'd probably still hire him.

I would be very doubtful - the times I have met him, he was dressed in a fairly normal business way; so I would wonder what caused that change.

[Annoying]

Well those people have some notoriety correct?

I guess most people are referring to job interviews where the applicant is a new hire, at a entry level, or isn't known in their field.

Ah, yeah. I mean, I did just fine for my first job post-college, and I had horns implanted into my head. It was probably that whole "published multiple times over" thing combined with the fact that programming isn't exactly a career that requires you to interact with clients very often. I have a polo and a clean pair of slacks for the rare occurrence when one actually comes by my office. It's happened once in 5 years.

I would be very doubtful - the times I have met him, he was dressed in a fairly normal business way; so I would wonder what caused that change.

Oh, I was just making a hypothetical. Yeah, the only times I've met him (seen him, really...) were at conventions, so naturally he was dressed for the occasion.

[Jotaux]

Its important to make a good first impression. I interviewed for my current job dressed up. Now I come to work every day in a company shirt, jeans and running shoes. Sometimes I will wear a hoodie.