Many Hiring Managers Are Shallow, Daft Pricks

Many hiring managers are shallow, daft pricks. If you don’t believe me, then believe Ladders – who surveyed 500 UK senior-level executives.  I sometimes come across figures so startling that they raise my blood pressure to unsafe levels, and the UK-based Sirona Says blog run by @AndyHeadworth had something pretty damn startling.  According to the 500 surveyed UK executives, how an applicant dresses for the interview is more important than how the actual interview goes.

For Men, the fashion-based interview killers are:

1. No tie (52% say fire)
2. No jacket (50% say fire)
3. Chinos (50% say fire)
4. Polo shirts (66% say fire)
5. Jeans (82% say fire)
6. T shirts (88% say fire)
7. Leather jackets (70% say fire)

Leather Jackets and T-shirts are reasonable – no one should be so casual unless it’s requested.  But no tie?  No jacket?  Polo shirts?  Please.  The expectations on women are even worse – check out those high %’s!

1. Short skirt (60% say fire)
2. Low necklines (95% say fire)
3. Sports shoes (91% say fire)
4. Dangling jewelery (99% say fire)
5. Bare legs (94% say fire)
6. Big shoulder pads – ala 80′s style – (97% of bosses say big shoulder pads are wrong for interview)

Okay, so Andy had one more figure from the survey which confirms my “daft prick” theory.  “95% of interviewers said orange was an inappropriate colour to wear to an interview, with red (84%) and pink (83%) coming in closely behind orange.”

Pink is many women’s favorite color and, to my knowledge, has never been considered “not businesslike”.  If it’s good enough for the First Lady, it’s good enough for a freakin’ job interview.  Not to mention pink is increasingly promoted as an alternate to white in Men’s fashion.  Red has always been a color associated with confidence, something which is important to demonstrate on an interview.  You’re telling me that 83-84% of you morons would think less of a brilliant prospective employee for wearing pink or red?  Moreover, if a woman shows bare leg, as opposed to wearing tights, 94% of you would turn her away?

Time the hell out, you spoiled, soft-brained, suspender-wearing morons.

Are you really so shallow that the best loser wearing the “perfect suit and tie” will get a job over a more qualified, better suited, better matched, but less fashionable prospective?  This is why our economy SUCKS.  This is why only 20% of 2009′s graduating class got jobs after applying.  This is why 71% of those under 30 want to flee their current jobs when the economy recovers.  When the “Best dressed moron” gets a job over someone who is better suited to the job, your company loses and good people get disheartened and go jobless.  Your company languishes, destitute while the more qualified, yet un-hired prospect wastes more productive time appealing to the “better natures” of other daft pricks.

Screw you, corporate world.

You want the economy to recover?  Let’s start simple.  Stop looking down on people for what they wear – I’d take a talented hobo dressed in soiled clothing ANY DAY over a well-dressed, but arrogant know-nothing Harvard business grad.  I’d take an artsy, hippie-styled graphic artist in thrift-store clothing who would fit the position better over a suit-and-tie designer with 20 years experience and an excellent resume.  Dress codes encourage conformity – conformity discourages creativity – no creativity = no innovation, growth, or profitable future.

Every business must catch up and realize that shallow, vapid lusting over well-dressed candidates at the expense of better-suited but less fashionable candidates has facilitated our current economic problems.  Until then, we’ll keep on putting our talents to use at more enlightened companies where the hiring managers aren’t shallow, daft pricks.