(no subject)

[moominmolly]

Let's say you're the hiring manager for a non-customer-facing technical position, and your workplace is somewhat laid back, but not quite foosball tables in the bathrooms laid back. Further, let's say you interview someone for a position and they basically knock your socks off on the phone, but when they come in for an in-person interview, despite knocking even more socks, they turn out to have BRIGHT ORANGE HAIR.

[Poll #1064663]

I know what I'm going to do, but I'm curious what other people think I should do.

Comments

[harimad.livejournal.com]

Beats me. In the 15 years since he told me the story I still haven't figured it out. Point is, the interviewer was so distracted by the fashion detail that it got in the way of everything else.

[dot_fennel]

If after 15 years you haven't figured out what the guy in the story is talking about, why is this anecdote an argument for anything at all (other than "Don't worry too much; your interviewer might be a nut and shoot you down for no reason.")?

Many people, when this sort of topic comes up, claim the bottom line is that it never hurts to err on the side of dressiness, but this only makes sense if you take 'dressing up' to be a near-universal social code. A clothing rule that can escape being used or mentioned within your hearing for 15 years of life in a culture is almost by definition not part of any universal code.

[harimad.livejournal.com]

15 years ago I didn't know much about men's business clothing norms, that not being relevant to me.

My point of the story is that interviewers can get caught up with incongruous detail, even if the detail is unimportant; that first impressions matter; and that actions taken during a first meeting carry more significance than actions taken after you've established a relationship and a reputation.