Ok, the whole candidate attire topic seems to be floating around the areas of the web I patrol. CareerJournal.com offers a follow up article titled Tassels, Pantsuits and Other Interview Fashion Faux-Pas. Great title. Here is a quick description of the debate from the article:
Perhaps it’s lamentable that a person should be judged on how he maintains his car interior or what he wears. “I’ve encountered far too many empty suits who are perfectly groomed but have little relevant knowledge,” wrote Marty Robins, an attorney in Buffalo Grove, Ill. “Conversely, many people who emphasize keeping current their technical skills and industry knowledge do not have time to spend preening over their wardrobes.”
True. Yet employers are attempting to assess the character and abilities of people they often hardly know. You go with the information you have.
Those two paragraphs sum up the two sides of this discussion rather well. However, that article takes a real turn later:
But tell that to the New York-area financial executive who wrote me, extensively, that he avoids hiring women who wear pants because, he argues, women who wear skirts and pantyhose tend to be better employees. He considers a woman in a pantsuit equivalent to a man in a suit with no necktie. “Certainly, no man is going to get offended if she shows up in a skirt and hose, but there are men who like me feel a pantsuit on a woman is a step down. Why take that chance?” he wrote. This 35-year-old man asked not to be quoted by name because he said his comments could be interpreted as sexist.
See, this is the point I was making in my previous post – the danger here is that hiring managers get sucked into strange biases when they focus on attire. What a strange statement from the financial executive. How can you counteract that thinking? Imagine a strong skilled, perfect-for-the-role sales woman who is passed up because she wore dress pants.
As a recruiter, I cringe at the thought of working with someone who uses that type of thinking in his hiring process.