Interview clothing

Ben6899

First Aspect wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

I still don't get it. Brown shoes cam be formal. I work in a pretty formal environment. This thing about brown shoes is news to me.

That environment isn't as formal as you think it is. Just sayin'.

What is it you think I do?

No idea what you do, but if the brown shoes thing is news to you, then I inferred from this that you - or colleagues - wear brown shoes to work.

If that's the case, then there's room for your work environment to be more formal. It was slightly tongue in cheek, but I am getting the feeling it wasn't received this way.

Which, to be honest, is no great surprise.

surrey_commuter

Rolf F wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

sorry I obviously did not explain myself. Candidate walks through a large open plan office for an interview wearing brown shoes. He is invited back for a second interview and wears brown shoes because he has not noticed that everybody else is dressed more formally. He is rejected for a lack of awareness and poor judgement not for wearing brown shoes.

Personally, if I was interviewing I'd aim to hire the best candidate. And if they were wearing the wrong shoes tell them after. If the interview process itself is incapable of identifying a lack of awareness without relying on shoe related faux pas, then the interview panel need to have a rethink. Or be sacked for lack of awareness and poor judgement!

Depends what the job is.

The point stands that the OP asked for advice and the best advice is to be as smart as possible.

True but only if the job is "black shoe wearer"!

And yes, smart makes sense. And black shoes make sense because, as we can see, some strange folk have a problem with brown shoes and you have no idea if the interview panel includes such like. But if the interview panel are sufficiently nuts as to have rules about who should and who should not wear cufflinks in an interview situation then you are best off not getting the job.

Exactly - if you want to wear a pony tail, facial piercings and brown shoes then there will be many organisations where you would not be happy.

Not sure where you work to have an interview panel but most places just have one bigot rather than one on a panel

Jez mon

Surrey Commuter wrote:

LOl - this was in NYC but yes it was a Brit

I guess the point is that anybody going to an interview should dress as smartly and as conservatively as they are able to.

I guess that's the conclusion!

Fundamentally, I'd say it's about showing you can play the game. Whatever the particular game is that the company you are going for a job with is playing. If you are going for a job where you're going to be client facing, then maybe make sure your tie is on straight and you haven't got bits of food in your teeth(!). If you're going to be stuck in a lab and never see the light of day, then maybe you can forgo the tie and tucking your shirt in!!

Also a little luck too, if you've been taught that brown shoes are totally off limits but that cufflinks are fine, and then come up against first aspect then you are all out of luck!

First.Aspect

Ben6899 wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

I still don't get it. Brown shoes cam be formal. I work in a pretty formal environment. This thing about brown shoes is news to me.

That environment isn't as formal as you think it is. Just sayin'.

What is it you think I do?

No idea what you do, but if the brown shoes thing is news to you, then I inferred from this that you - or colleagues - wear brown shoes to work.

If that's the case, then there's room for your work environment to be more formal. It was slightly tongue in cheek, but I am getting the feeling it wasn't received this way.

Which, to be honest, is no great surprise.

Have you read many of my posts?

Law. Of a sort.

Pretty formal although perhaps not up there with the formal requirements for trooping the colour or opening parliament I will grant you.

The precise shade of your formal shoes is so far down the list of things anyone gives a sh!t about I guess it's never come up.

Ben6899

First Aspect wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

I still don't get it. Brown shoes cam be formal. I work in a pretty formal environment. This thing about brown shoes is news to me.

That environment isn't as formal as you think it is. Just sayin'.

What is it you think I do?

No idea what you do, but if the brown shoes thing is news to you, then I inferred from this that you - or colleagues - wear brown shoes to work.

If that's the case, then there's room for your work environment to be more formal. It was slightly tongue in cheek, but I am getting the feeling it wasn't received this way.

Which, to be honest, is no great surprise.

1. Have you read many of my posts?

Law. Of a sort.

Pretty formal although perhaps not up there with the formal requirements for trooping the colour or opening parliament I will grant you.

2.The precise shade of your formal shoes is so far down the list of things anyone gives a sh!t about I guess it's never come up.

1. Most posts blur into one, to be honest - not many personalities truly stick out for me. Unless they're batsh1t crazy like Manc33, Bungle or MatthewFalle... My lack of surprise was down to the serious tone of this thread!

2. Same here. Don't f*** up and you can wear whatever shoes you want (although I personally prefer a black shoe with a suit).

3wheeler

This all depends on what the job is. Talk of suits and black or brown shoes is fine for some jobs but really isn't what would be expected or desired for many creative jobs.

rjsterry

I alluded to this in a previous post: a suit or jacket would be fine for an interview at our office, but a tie would be seen as overly formal and suggestive of a lack of research into who we are (you can see into our office from the street). If you were to wear one it should traditionally be a bow tie.

TheBigBean

Do people wear brown suits as well as brown shoes?

TheBigBean

rjsterry wrote:

I alluded to this in a previous post: a suit or jacket would be fine for an interview at our office, but a tie would be seen as overly formal and suggestive of a lack of research into who we are (you can see into our office from the street). If you were to wear one it should traditionally be a bow tie.

Which is why super cool places are a pain. A suit requires no thought.

rjsterry

TheBigBean wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I alluded to this in a previous post: a suit or jacket would be fine for an interview at our office, but a tie would be seen as overly formal and suggestive of a lack of research into who we are (you can see into our office from the street). If you were to wear one it should traditionally be a bow tie.

Which is why super cool places are a pain. A suit requires no thought.

Like this, you mean?
https://www.archdaily.com/168236/an-arc ... dress-code

A suit's fine, but nobody wants to look like a QS

Ben6899

rjsterry wrote:

I alluded to this in a previous post: a suit or jacket would be fine for an interview at our office, but a tie would be seen as overly formal and suggestive of a lack of research into who we are (you can see into our office from the street). If you were to wear one it should traditionally be a bow tie.

Mr Nathan Barley, as I live and breathe...

rjsterry

Ben6899 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I alluded to this in a previous post: a suit or jacket would be fine for an interview at our office, but a tie would be seen as overly formal and suggestive of a lack of research into who we are (you can see into our office from the street). If you were to wear one it should traditionally be a bow tie.

Mr Nathan Barley, as I live and breathe...

If you're doing it properly it's round thick black-framed glasses, bow tie or black polo neck, pipe (for gesturing, not smoking) and no hair.

Ben6899

Totally Mexico!

First.Aspect

TheBigBean wrote:

Do people wear brown suits as well as brown shoes?

good God no.

webboo

When I started cycling it was black shoes and white socks and now look at it. You need to wear the uniform but it has to be yours. If they don’t like it, well how long could you stand working in a places full of Streford wives.

TheBigBean

First Aspect wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Do people wear brown suits as well as brown shoes?

good God no.

I think that is how some people feel about brown shoes.

First.Aspect

TheBigBean wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Do people wear brown suits as well as brown shoes?

good God no.

I think that is how some people feel about brown shoes.

Those people cannot be helped. A brown suit, however, is the preserve of beach weddings, Roger Moore bond films and cop movies set in 1970s San Francisco. Anyone can see that.

rolf_f

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

sorry I obviously did not explain myself. Candidate walks through a large open plan office for an interview wearing brown shoes. He is invited back for a second interview and wears brown shoes because he has not noticed that everybody else is dressed more formally. He is rejected for a lack of awareness and poor judgement not for wearing brown shoes.

Personally, if I was interviewing I'd aim to hire the best candidate. And if they were wearing the wrong shoes tell them after. If the interview process itself is incapable of identifying a lack of awareness without relying on shoe related faux pas, then the interview panel need to have a rethink. Or be sacked for lack of awareness and poor judgement!

Depends what the job is.

The point stands that the OP asked for advice and the best advice is to be as smart as possible.

True but only if the job is "black shoe wearer"!

And yes, smart makes sense. And black shoes make sense because, as we can see, some strange folk have a problem with brown shoes and you have no idea if the interview panel includes such like. But if the interview panel are sufficiently nuts as to have rules about who should and who should not wear cufflinks in an interview situation then you are best off not getting the job.

Exactly - if you want to wear a pony tail, facial piercings and brown shoes then there will be many organisations where you would not be happy.

Not sure where you work to have an interview panel but most places just have one bigot rather than one on a panel

If you only have one person interviewing then the process can't be shown to be fair (for either interviewer or interviewee). I work in the public sector; you normally have two technical interviewers and possibly one HR. Of course, this doesn't stop collusion but it does make it much harder; the panel need to go through a process of agreeing scores rather than just going on hem length.

Trouble is that we have a system now where basically those who are best at playing a box ticking game get the job rather than those who are best at the job. And, for what it is worth, technically speaking you could turn up dressed as Mickey Mouse and it couldn't affect your chances - the approach is that you are marked for the correct things you say and nothing else at all.

surrey_commuter

Rolf F wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

sorry I obviously did not explain myself. Candidate walks through a large open plan office for an interview wearing brown shoes. He is invited back for a second interview and wears brown shoes because he has not noticed that everybody else is dressed more formally. He is rejected for a lack of awareness and poor judgement not for wearing brown shoes.

Personally, if I was interviewing I'd aim to hire the best candidate. And if they were wearing the wrong shoes tell them after. If the interview process itself is incapable of identifying a lack of awareness without relying on shoe related faux pas, then the interview panel need to have a rethink. Or be sacked for lack of awareness and poor judgement!

Depends what the job is.

The point stands that the OP asked for advice and the best advice is to be as smart as possible.

True but only if the job is "black shoe wearer"!

And yes, smart makes sense. And black shoes make sense because, as we can see, some strange folk have a problem with brown shoes and you have no idea if the interview panel includes such like. But if the interview panel are sufficiently nuts as to have rules about who should and who should not wear cufflinks in an interview situation then you are best off not getting the job.

Exactly - if you want to wear a pony tail, facial piercings and brown shoes then there will be many organisations where you would not be happy.

Not sure where you work to have an interview panel but most places just have one bigot rather than one on a panel

If you only have one person interviewing then the process can't be shown to be fair (for either interviewer or interviewee). I work in the public sector; you normally have two technical interviewers and possibly one HR. Of course, this doesn't stop collusion but it does make it much harder; the panel need to go through a process of agreeing scores rather than just going on hem length.

Trouble is that we have a system now where basically those who are best at playing a box ticking game get the job rather than those who are best at the job. And, for what it is worth, technically speaking you could turn up dressed as Mickey Mouse and it couldn't affect your chances - the approach is that you are marked for the correct things you say and nothing else at all.

Our idea of professionalism is that I am no longer allowed to interview in pub/wine bar. I had to introduce eating into the selection process after accidentally employing a vegetarian. On another occasion I employed a so called bloke who thought it socially acceptable to order gin and tonic in a pub.

surrey_commuter

First Aspect wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Do people wear brown suits as well as brown shoes?

good God no.

I think that is how some people feel about brown shoes.

Those people cannot be helped. A brown suit, however, is the preserve of beach weddings, Roger Moore bond films and cop movies set in 1970s San Francisco. Anyone can see that.

Ok there are only two candidates for a role and they are identical twin bros with exactly the same experience.

One of them is wearing brown suit with brown shoes the other is wearing black shoes, smart trousers and a short sleeved shirt.

Which do you hire?

rjsterry

All else being equal, whichever one looks as though more thought and care has been given to the choice. Either could look good or terrible. Conformity isn't of any real value in my field. An ability to make clear aesthetic choices is.

shirley_basso

Good answer. You're hired.

First.Aspect

Surrey Commuter wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Do people wear brown suits as well as brown shoes?

good God no.

I think that is how some people feel about brown shoes.

Those people cannot be helped. A brown suit, however, is the preserve of beach weddings, Roger Moore bond films and cop movies set in 1970s San Francisco. Anyone can see that.

Ok there are only two candidates for a role and they are identical twin bros with exactly the same experience.

One of them is wearing brown suit with brown shoes the other is wearing black shoes, smart trousers and a short sleeved shirt.

Which do you hire?

Neither. I'd assume it was a chancer trying to double his chances of getting the job.

TheBigBean

rjsterry wrote:

All else being equal, whichever one looks as though more thought and care has been given to the choice. Either could look good or terrible. Conformity isn't of any real value in my field. An ability to make clear aesthetic choices is.

There's enough fashion in architecture for me to wonder whether this statement is true.

rjsterry

TheBigBean wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

All else being equal, whichever one looks as though more thought and care has been given to the choice. Either could look good or terrible. Conformity isn't of any real value in my field. An ability to make clear aesthetic choices is.

There's enough fashion in architecture for me to wonder whether this statement is true.

I said it wasn't valued not that it didn't exist. It does depend on the kind of office we're talking about of course. More commercial practices have a more corporate dress code. At the other end of the spectrum there are a lot of carefully curated wardrobes.

Matthewfalle

rjsterry wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

All else being equal, whichever one looks as though more thought and care has been given to the choice. Either could look good or terrible. Conformity isn't of any real value in my field. An ability to make clear aesthetic choices is.

There's enough fashion in architecture for me to wonder whether this statement is true.

I said it wasn't valued not that it didn't exist. It does depend on the kind of office we're talking about of course. More commercial practices have a more corporate dress code. At the other end of the spectrum there are a lot of carefully curated wardrobes.

As an aside, when do people have time to carefully curate a wardrobe? I barely have enough time to scratch my backside and eat sausage rolls amongst everything else going on.

Matthewfalle

as a further aside, what do you lot consider suitable to spend on work clothes?

Are sneers drawn at the sight of a Thomas Pink shirt? Do Paul Smith suits make you gag?

type:epyt

Matthewfalle wrote:

as a further aside, what do you lot consider suitable to spend on work clothes?

Are sneers drawn at the sight of a Thomas Pink shirt? Do Paul Smith suits make you gag?

Unless they were gauche enough to ask/check (or worse, you make a point of mentioning it), who would know what label is on your clothing?

I do make an effort for work, but our dress code is smart-casual so I can dress up/down as is my want ... Sometimes it is PS, others it’s a plain Gap t-shirt ...

On the subject of shoes/colour ... I only ever wear boots (derby boots with a suit) and the colour is isually dictated by the colour of my shirt, socks, bag, coat or what I wore yesterday (never the same pair or colour 2 days running) …

rjsterry

Matthewfalle wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

All else being equal, whichever one looks as though more thought and care has been given to the choice. Either could look good or terrible. Conformity isn't of any real value in my field. An ability to make clear aesthetic choices is.

There's enough fashion in architecture for me to wonder whether this statement is true.

I said it wasn't valued not that it didn't exist. It does depend on the kind of office we're talking about of course. More commercial practices have a more corporate dress code. At the other end of the spectrum there are a lot of carefully curated wardrobes.

As an aside, when do people have time to carefully curate a wardrobe? I barely have enough time to scratch my backside and eat sausage rolls amongst everything else going on.

No kids is my best guess.

type:epyt

rjsterry wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

All else being equal, whichever one looks as though more thought and care has been given to the choice. Either could look good or terrible. Conformity isn't of any real value in my field. An ability to make clear aesthetic choices is.

There's enough fashion in architecture for me to wonder whether this statement is true.

I said it wasn't valued not that it didn't exist. It does depend on the kind of office we're talking about of course. More commercial practices have a more corporate dress code. At the other end of the spectrum there are a lot of carefully curated wardrobes.

As an aside, when do people have time to carefully curate a wardrobe? I barely have enough time to scratch my backside and eat sausage rolls amongst everything else going on.

No kids is my best guess.

Yup.