nxh@mead.UUCP (Nobuya Higashiyama) (07/12/90)
There was a discussion a few weeks ago about the impact of cubicle vs. office
on productivity. I'd like to extend the discussion to the topic of dress code.
Some of the questions I have are:
1. Does the presence/absence of dress code affect your productivity as a soft-
ware engineer?
2. Will the dress code be a factor in choosing which company to work for? If
so, how much?
3. What are the degrees of dress code you will feel tolerable? Requiring a
tie or a dress is one thing, but perhaps prohibiting jeans and sneakers
is another?
I would appreciate any opinions on this (post or email). Thanks in advance!
Higgy
Disclaimer: these opinions are mine only, and do not reflect the opinions of
Mead Data Central.
--
Nobuya "Higgy" Higashiyama | ____/|
Data Integrity Systems | \ o.O| Vote for Bill in '92!
Mead Data Central, Dayton, OH | =(_)=
mead!nxh@uccba.uc.edu (or) ...!uccba!mead!nxh | U ACK! THPHTH!beth@hpfelg.HP.COM (Beth Crespo) (07/14/90)
>/ hpfelg:comp.software-eng / nxh@mead.UUCP (Nobuya Higashiyama) / 9:31 am Jul 12, 1990 / >There was a discussion a few weeks ago about the impact of cubicle vs. office >on productivity. I'd like to extend the discussion to the topic of dress code. >Some of the questions I have are: > >1. Does the presence/absence of dress code affect your productivity as a soft- > ware engineer? The existance of a dress code would have a negative effect on my productivity. I would greatly resent an employer who judged my performance by the kind of clothing I wear rather than by the work I do; such a company would, in my opinion, be more interested in surface appearance than real results. Why would you want a dress code for professionals who are not in daily contact with customers? >2. Will the dress code be a factor in choosing which company to work for? If > so, how much? I strongly prefer NOT to work for a company with a dress code; I feel it is a leading indicator of a stagnant mind set. Also, I would have to spend money on clothing that I don't like; I would rather spend my money on things I enjoy. Unless the company provides the clothing... but I don't think your proposing uniforms...are you? >3. What are the degrees of dress code you will feel tolerable? Requiring a > tie or a dress is one thing, but perhaps prohibiting jeans and sneakers > is another? I could agree with a dress code that says you must wear clothing to the office. Anything more is a pointless game. Why do you think jeans or sneakers should be prohibited? What benefit is there to a dress? If you put my coworkers in dresses they would really be unhappy; most of them are wearing shorts and sneakers now. Oh...perhaps, you meant only the women should wear dresses ... sir, please explain yourself. Does anyone work for a company that actually has a dress code? When I drive past the Boulder-IBM facility on my way to work, I see lots of fellows wearing ties - does IBM require white-shirt and tie? If there are any professional women, are they required to wear dresses? Is it an explicit rule or due to social pressure? What "penalty" is there if you wear pants instead of a dress? how about jeans? >I would appreciate any opinions on this (post or email). Thanks in advance! Your welcome, Beth Crespo, HP EDD Productivity Engineer These opinions are mine, Hewlett-Packard may or may not agree with them.
kinsel@hpfelg.HP.COM (Linda Kinsel) (07/14/90)
> Does anyone work for a company that actually has a dress code? Beth, HP does have a dress code of sorts. On my first day of work, my section manager informed me that I was expected to wear shoes! There are plenty of companies that have dress codes. I used to work for one (CF Braun in Los Angeles). They expected conservative suits, preferably three-piece suits with a white shirt and tie for the men and skirt-suits or dresses for the women. About a year before I started working there they changed the dress code to allow pastel shirts for the men and pant suits for the women. > Is it an explicit rule or due to social pressure? At Braun, it was an explicit rule. No jeans, no cordoroy (too casual), no eyelet blouses (too explicit!). > What "penalty" is there if you wear pants instead of a dress? There was no penalty for wearing slacks rather than a dress, although the year before there would have been. Generally, if you broke the dress code, your boss sent you home to change your clothes. If you were a repeat offender, you could expect to be laid off the next time business was slow. > How about jeans? Jeans were only allowed to be worn if you came in on Saturday to work. I hope that Braun was an extreme case. We worked with customers on a daily basis, and it was common for presidents of oil companies to wander through the work area. It was extremely important for the company to maintain a very professional image. So there was a reason for the strict dress code. But most of us still longed to wear more comfortable clothes.
gordon@mead.UUCP (Gordon Edwards) (07/16/90)
In article <3440008@hpfelg.HP.COM>, beth@hpfelg.HP.COM (Beth Crespo) writes: |> >/ hpfelg:comp.software-eng / nxh@mead.UUCP (Nobuya Higashiyama) / 9:31 am Jul 12, 1990 / |> > [Higgy's article deleted. Sorry. -gordon] |> The existance of a dress code would have a negative effect on my productivity. |> I would greatly resent an employer who judged my performance by the kind |> of clothing I wear rather than by the work I do; such a company would, |> in my opinion, be more interested in surface appearance than real results. |> Why would you want a dress code for professionals who are not in daily |> contact with customers? |> While I have no love for a dress code, there are valid business reasons for having one. If your customers expect professional dress then it is smart business to "give the customers what they want." I have personally witnessed valid comments, by very intelligent people, be dismissed because of their dress. There is also the opinion that ones dress affects ones professionalism. I do not agree with this at all, but, if my customers belive this, then it's worth putting on a tie. |> |> I strongly prefer NOT to work for a company with a dress code; I feel it is |> a leading indicator of a stagnant mind set. Also, I would have to |> spend money on clothing that I don't like; I would rather spend my |> money on things I enjoy. Unless the company provides the clothing... |> but I don't think your proposing uniforms...are you? |> The dress code is not a prime factor in my decision. The job, money, and benefits would all come first. Additionally, I think it has nothing to do with a stagnant mind set. If we (the technical people) were off MDC's main campus, I don't think management would care if we wore toga's. |> I could agree with a dress code that says you must wear clothing |> to the office. Anything more is a pointless game. Why do you think |> jeans or sneakers should be prohibited? What benefit is there to a dress? |> If you put my coworkers in dresses they would really be unhappy; most of them |> are wearing shorts and sneakers now. Oh...perhaps, you meant only the women |> should wear dresses ... sir, please explain yourself. |> |> Does anyone work for a company that actually has a dress code? |> Yes, Mead Data Central has recently introduced a mild dress code. Simply put, no jeans or sneakers and no shirts without collars (t-shirts, etc.). If meeting with a customer, throw in a tie. |> When I drive past the Boulder-IBM facility on my way to work, I see lots |> of fellows wearing ties - does IBM require white-shirt and tie? If there |> are any professional women, are they required to wear dresses? Is it an |> explicit rule or due to social pressure? What "penalty" is there if you |> wear pants instead of a dress? how about jeans? |> I once asked an IBM sales rep., and he said that the white shirts are required. BTW, our customers are primarily law firms. When is the last time you saw a lawyer arguing a case in jeans and sneakers? I rest my case. :-) -- Gordon Edwards mead!gordon@uccba.uc.edu Mead Data Central, Dayton OH ...!uccba!mead!gordon
merriman@ccavax.camb.com (07/17/90)
I have a client, a fairly big honcho in his organization, who was having trouble getting a vendor to fix a computer which was on a service contract. There was a problem with spare parts, and every time they would call in to complain a techie would come out and say "sure 'nuff, it needs a new <mumble>. I'll see if I can get one." Eventually it got to be a real problem and my client started getting visits from various honchos in the vendor's operation. Eventually he got tired of the runaround and told the service manager's boss's boss "I don't want to see any more #^$%#&@ three-piece suits! -- I want to get my computer fixed!" The vendor's response was to forbid anyone calling on my client's account to wear a three-piece suit.
merriman@ccavax.camb.com (07/25/90)
In article <847@meaddata.mead.UUCP>, nxh@mead.UUCP (Nobuya Higashiyama) writes: > There was a discussion a few weeks ago about the impact of cubicle vs. office > on productivity. I'd like to extend the discussion to the topic of dress code. > Some of the questions I have are: > > 1. Does the presence/absence of dress code affect your productivity as a soft- > ware engineer? > [other stuff deleted] There was an article in a recent New York Times which reports the following opinion of Dr. Leonard W. Morgan of the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center: Tight collars and ties can impair blood flow to the brain and interfere with clear thinking, alertness and judgment.
defaria@hpclapd.HP.COM (Andy DeFaria) (07/25/90)
>/ hpclapd:comp.software-eng / kinsel@hpfelg.HP.COM (Linda Kinsel) / 2:19 pm Jul 13, 1990 / This is something that I feel pretty strongly about and yet I don't think that this is the proper place to discuss it. Perhaps, since Beth and Linda are both HP employees, we can take this to hp.misc where it will surely get torn apart!! I do wish to respond to some of these stuff though. >> Is it an explicit rule or due to social pressure? > >At Braun, it was an explicit rule. No jeans, no cordoroy (too casual), >no eyelet blouses (too explicit!). Yeah but who made up this "rule" and why was it made? My guess is social pressure (or it could be a concerted effort on the part of the fashion industry to ensure sales of dresses and suits. Only 1/4 :-). Think about this. I work at HP and I am allowed to work in casual clothes (jeans, T shirts and shorts when I want to). When I tell friends who work in what is considered "professional" jobs and whose dress is mandated by their employers, about this they say "Gee, I wish I could go to work dressed casually!". Their bosses say the same thing! Who the h**l made up this silly rule that nobody likes! Would you really consider, say, an accounting firm, unprofessional if they walked around in jeans and a T-shirt but GOT YOUR TAXES DONE ON-TIME AND SAVED YOU BIG BUCKS? Of course not. (Or, for that matter, am I, a software engineer, considered unprofessional because I don't wear a suit?) >Generally, if you broke the dress code, your boss sent you home to change >your clothes. If you were a repeat offender, you could expect to be laid >off the next time business was slow. Although it might be difficult to prove, I would sue the pants off of them (full pun intended). >I hope that Braun was an extreme case. We worked with customers on a daily >basis, and it was common for presidents of oil companies to wander through >the work area. It was extremely important for the company to maintain a >very professional image. So there was a reason for the strict dress code. >But most of us still longed to wear more comfortable clothes. >---------- Here we go again! Who says that a man in a suit is a professional while a man not in a suit isn't. Professionalism is an *attitude* not a form of dress. Doing a good job is the way a company can really maintain a "professional image". Dressing up the employees just makes them look pretty.
paul@ncrcam.Cambridge.NCR.COM (Paul Davis) (07/26/90)
I find this amazing. I have been away from the news for 3 years. I come back and find that this topic is *still* being discussed. Could this indicate that this topic is producing no *meaningful* discussion? -- Please reply by e-mail if possible. Thanks in advance Paul Davis INTERNET: paul@ncrcam.Cambridge.NCR.COM VOICE: (614) 439-0232 FAX: (614) 439-0232
mcmahan@netcom.UUCP (Dave Mc Mahan) (07/27/90)
In a previous article, defaria@hpclapd.HP.COM (Andy DeFaria) writes: >Yeah but who made up this "rule" and why was it made? My guess is social >pressure (or it could be a concerted effort on the part of the fashion >industry to ensure sales of dresses and suits. Only 1/4 :-). Generally, I have found that such rules were mandated 'long ago' by those that went on to become upper level managers, left the company, or those worried about customers that visit the place of work (usually sales or marketting people). They feel that dressing 'professionally' promotes the type of attitude about the company that they wish to see expressed, both internally to other employees and to those that come to visit. >Would you really consider, say, an >accounting firm, unprofessional if they walked around in jeans and a >T-shirt but GOT YOUR TAXES DONE ON-TIME AND SAVED YOU BIG BUCKS? Of course >not. (Or, for that matter, am I, a software engineer, considered >unprofessional because I don't wear a suit?) Personally, I wouldn't care. But I am not everyone. Those that make the rules perceive that a client is more inclined to view the company in a serious light if dress is according to what is expected from a professional company. It projects the desired image. Right or wrong, those that have the ability to mandate such a thing will do so if they feel it will help sales. This rule is generally removed not by managers, but by employees who start to show up for work dressed as they feel like. Usually, the older and/or more secure people will start the ball rolling, and if others see that they continue to get away with it, they too will start dressing more casually. I find that technical types who have a large amount of job security and a strong personality are the ideal candidates for removal of such rules. [ Stuff about Braun dress codes deleted here ] >Here we go again! Who says that a man in a suit is a professional while a >man not in a suit isn't. Professionalism is an *attitude* not a form of >dress. Doing a good job is the way a company can really maintain a >"professional image". Dressing up the employees just makes them look >pretty. I believe it is the company management that wishes to display a certain image of the company that says 'if you don't dress professionally, you must not be a professional.' You are quite correct in stating that professionalism is an attitude and not an appearance. One must remember though, that not all people in this world are engineers. To them, 'it is better to look good than to feel good' and they will try to sway opinions with the proper lighting and makeup. They claim that, "If you are a professional, what does it matter how you dress? You are still a professional. So why don't you try to display that in first impressions when a customer is visiting?". Personally, I don't feel that this attitude carries any weight. -dave
turner@dover.sps.mot.com (Robert Turner) (07/27/90)
In article <1956@ncrcam.Cambridge.NCR.COM> paul@ncrcam.Cambridge.NCR.COM (Paul Davis) writes: >I find this amazing. I have been away from the news for 3 years. I come >back and find that this topic is *still* being discussed. Could this Dress codes are like the weather. We complain about it, but can't do anything about it. Robert, in a tie and sports jacket and it's 105 degrees outside! -- ----- Law of the Net: Trivia begets trivia tenfold. All opinions are. Robert Turner (602) 897-5441 ...!uunet!dover!turner or turner@dover.sps.mot.com
defaria@hpclapd.HP.COM (Andy DeFaria) (07/31/90)
>/ hpclapd:comp.software-eng / mcmahan@netcom.UUCP (Dave Mc Mahan) / 9:45 pm Jul 26, 1990 / >>Would you really consider, say, an >>accounting firm, unprofessional if they walked around in jeans and a >>T-shirt but GOT YOUR TAXES DONE ON-TIME AND SAVED YOU BIG BUCKS? Of course >>not. (Or, for that matter, am I, a software engineer, considered >>unprofessional because I don't wear a suit?) > >Personally, I wouldn't care. But I am not everyone. ... >One must remember though, that not all people in this world are engineers. My point is that a lot of people feel like you and I - that there dress is mandated by the company, they would be more comfortable if they could dress casually, they don't personally care if the company they deal with dresses casually as long as the work gets do professionally (and this is not necessarily limited to engineers and non-engineers). So why does the dress code remain? >They [people who think you must dress 'professional' to be professional] >claim that, "If you are a professional, what does it matter how >you dress? You are still a professional. So why don't you try to display that >in first impressions when a customer is visiting?". Personally, I don't feel >that this attitude carries any weight. Agreed. I don't want to dress "professional" because 1) it's not me, 2) I would rather spend my money earned on things that I enjoy than buying suits, 3) suits are uncomfortable, 4) suits are ugly and stylisictly they are boring (the "style" has been around forever :-) - they don't show any individualism, they make everybody look very similar and you lose your identitiy not to mention freedom to express yourself through clothing of your own choosing.
duncan@dduck.ctt.bellcore.com (Scott Duncan) (07/31/90)
In reading things posted on this topic, I do not believe I have read one of the
reasons I have often been given in the past for dress codes which is related to
the customer-image issue. Wearing non-distinctive dress has been justified to
me -- not where I currently work but a few jobs back -- on the basis of avoid-
ing people becoming a "distraction" to other business goals.
This sounds bizarre, but it seems to come partially from a sales/marketing or-
ganization view that customers, during presentations or other kinds of inter-
actions, will be distracted by distinctiveness in dress and not be as well fo-
cused on the sales/marketing goals for the interaction. This used to be an ex-
cuse why minorities, women, the physically/mentally distinct, etc. were also
considered "distractions" in business settings.
Before you deny this view, consider for a moment how you may have seen people
(if you don't admit to it yourself) reacting to things "out of the norm" in a
business interaction. Whatever people are not used to seeing or dealing with
can be a distraction, or even a discomfort, in the process. Hence, conservative
approaches to business -- which set the pattern many years ago -- wanted to
avoid such problems and mandated appropriate business attire as a means of
homogenizing everyone and building personal predictability into business situa-
tions.
As I said above, bizarre in terms of how many think about personal freedoms and
how people should be treated today. But I suggest that assumptions about dress
codes and the like are based on manmy of these older ideas while they look for
more modern justifications.
I do not object, in principal, to dress codes, but I question their basis in
many cases. If they are based on a current standard of company image, that's
one thing, but if they are justified only to reinforce old stereotypes of what
"other people think" or will accept, then I think they're a dangerous sign of
prejudices in action.
Speaking only for myself, of course, I am...
Scott P. Duncan (duncan@ctt.bellcore.com OR ...!bellcore!ctt!duncan)
(Bellcore, 444 Hoes Lane RRC 1H-210, Piscataway, NJ 08854)
(908-699-3910 (w) 609-737-2945 (h))mcgregor@hemlock.Atherton.COM (Scott McGregor) (08/01/90)
In article <6610003@hpclapd.HP.COM>, defaria@hpclapd.HP.COM (Andy DeFaria) writes: > >/ hpclapd:comp.software-eng / mcmahan@netcom.UUCP (Dave Mc Mahan) / 9:45 pm Jul 26, 1990 / > > >>Would you really consider, say, an > >>accounting firm, unprofessional if they walked around in jeans and a > >>T-shirt but GOT YOUR TAXES DONE ON-TIME AND SAVED YOU BIG BUCKS? Of course > >>not. (Or, for that matter, am I, a software engineer, considered > >>unprofessional because I don't wear a suit?) > > > >Personally, I wouldn't care. But I am not everyone. It is also interesting to consider the flip side of this. What would you think if you went and interviewed at a company where everyone in the software department wore a suit. Let's assume that you didn't get a chance to ask anyone about this. But when you went away, what would be your first impression? Would you conclude that they MUST have a forced dress code? Would you conclude that the place is too "stuffy" for your tastes? That's the point, isn't it. People DO draw conclusions from first impressions, and how one dresses is part of the many subtle little things that these impressions are derived from. I don't defend dress codes, but I have also seen people who do like to dress up every day be ostrasized or ridiculed as being vain by others who regularly dress more casually. Some of these people have told me that they don't care how people dress and don't think others should care how they dress. But their reactions to those who dressed formally belied that fact. I think that many people DO care how they and others dress. I think problem with dress codes is that some people specifically DO want to use the way they dress to express aspects of "who they are". When the image of "who they are" (devil may care, free thinking, casual type) person conflicts with the image of that the company decision maker wants to see portrayed (structured, dedicated to the organization, formal) that is where the problem lies. In my view, dress codes are just artifacts of the disagreement of image desires of individuals. Scott McGregor (personally, I prefer varied environments with a mixture of casual and formal dress. I won't force that on anyone, but I might use that as one aspect of deciding where I would be comfortable).
ejp@icd.ab.com (Ed Prochak) (08/01/90)
In article <28031@athertn.Atherton.COM>, mcgregor@hemlock.Atherton.COM (Scott McGregor) writes: [stuff deleted] > > That's the point, isn't it. People DO draw conclusions from first > impressions, and how one dresses is part of the many subtle little > things that these impressions are derived from. I don't defend > dress codes, but I have also seen people who do like to dress up every day > be ostrasized or ridiculed as being vain by others who regularly dress > more casually. Some of these people have told me that they don't care > how people dress and don't think others should care how they dress. But > their reactions to those who dressed formally belied that fact. > > I think that many people DO care how they and others dress. [rest of paragraph deleted] > > Scott McGregor > (personally, I prefer varied environments with a mixture of casual and > formal dress. I won't force that on anyone, but I might use that as > one aspect of deciding where I would be comfortable). Preface: I typically wear a dress shirt and tie to work. Although I haven't been ridiculed, I have experienced the reaction of coworkers who question my getting "dressed up". And the days that I do decide to wear jeans, I always get a comment from someone about my casual dress. I am not complaining. I am lending support to Scott's observations. Pearson's commentary on Murphy's law: The man was right! Edward J. Prochak Voice: work-(216)646-4663 home-(216)349-1821 Email: {cwjcc,pyramid,decvax,uunet}!ejp@icd.ab.com USmail: Allen-Bradley, 747 Alpha Drive, Highland Heights,OH 44143 Wellington: ENGINEERING is "the ability to do for one dollar, what any damn fool can do for two."
defaria@hpclove.HP.COM (Andy DeFaria) (08/01/90)
/ hpclove:comp.software-eng / duncan@dduck.ctt.bellcore.com (Scott Duncan) / 5:13 am Jul 31, 1990 / >In reading things posted on this topic, I do not believe I have read one of the >reasons I have often been given in the past for dress codes which is related to >the customer-image issue. Wearing non-distinctive dress has been justified to >me -- not where I currently work but a few jobs back -- on the basis of avoid- >ing people becoming a "distraction" to other business goals. > >This sounds bizarre, but it seems to come partially from a sales/marketing or- >ganization view that customers, during presentations or other kinds of inter- >actions, will be distracted by distinctiveness in dress and not be as well fo- >cused on the sales/marketing goals for the interaction. This used to be an ex- >cuse why minorities, women, the physically/mentally distinct, etc. were also >considered "distractions" in business settings. Ah yes I can see it now: "Joe that shirt is to loud, too colorful, too distracting to our companies business goals... Take that shirt off and bleach it white so it will look like everybody else shirt!" "I'm sorry, I really would like to hire you, Jane, but you're too attractive and would too much of a distraction to our male employees in our corporate meetings... Could you, say, gain 50 pounds?" Yeah I know that stuff like this really does happen in real life (although it is not usually put so bluntly) but when we state what's really going on in plain English it looks really silly, doesn't it?
stevebr@microsoft.UUCP (Steve BRANDLI) (08/02/90)
In article <6610003@hpclapd.HP.COM> defaria@hpclapd.HP.COM (Andy DeFaria) writes: >>/ hpclapd:comp.software-eng / mcmahan@netcom.UUCP (Dave Mc Mahan) / 9:45 pm Jul 26, 1990 / > >>>Would you really consider, say, an >>>accounting firm, unprofessional if they walked around in jeans and a >>>T-shirt but GOT YOUR TAXES DONE ON-TIME AND SAVED YOU BIG BUCKS? Of course >>>not. (Or, for that matter, am I, a software engineer, considered >>>unprofessional because I don't wear a suit?) > >My point is that a lot of people feel like you and I - that there dress is >mandated by the company, they would be more comfortable if they could dress >casually, they don't personally care if the company they deal with dresses >casually as long as the work gets do professionally (and this is not >necessarily limited to engineers and non-engineers). So why does the dress >code remain? We really don't have a dress code at Microsoft. (I'm currenty in my jeans and bare feet.) But then we are not very visable to the people that buy our products. And even so, it is interesting to note that we are often referred to as the "nerds in Redmond, Washington", or something similar, and our image is as people not very interested in what the customer thinks or wants. So, I'm very sympathetic about those companies that do require dress codes. When I decide whether or not to buy someone's services or products, I may very well base part of my opinion on an intangible feeling of professionalism, which I would interpret as a willingness to make sure that things are done right. And that intangible feeling may be heavily influenced by how the people selling the service or product dress. The logic behind the feeling goes something like this: If they are willing to dress up for me and look neat and tidy, then they may be more willing to satisfy my needs. Sound ridiculus? Possibly. But companies must base their decisions on the profit motive. That is what they are there for. And if customers are noticing how it's employees appear, then this must be a concern. Microsoft has decided that making it's engineers comfortable is more important than putting on a good image for it's customers through a dress code. But a company with more visible employees may be faced with a different tradeoff. /Steve
psrc@mtunq.ATT.COM (Paul Chisholm) (08/02/90)
In the Computer Systems business unit of AT&T's Data Systems Group, top management (Rich McGinn, the president of the business unit) has turned this old burden on its ear. Mondays and Fridays are designated "dress down" days. Anyone not coming into direct customer contact on those days is *encouraged* to dress casually. We had a video "team meeting" broadcast from CS headquarters Friday, and few people in the audience were wearing suits or ties. (McGinn and his VP's wore suits, out of consideration to the sales staff who were watching, or some such.) Needless to say, he didn't have to tell us Bell Labs types twice! Paul S. R. Chisholm, AT&T Bell Laboratories, who wore a quasi-Western shirt, blue jeans, and tennis shoes to the office today. att!mtunq!psrc, psrc@mtunq.att.com, AT&T Mail !psrchisholm I'm not speaking for the company, I'm just speaking my mind.
willr@ntpdvp1.UUCP (Will Raymond) (08/03/90)
Well, I return to this news group and once again find that the dress code
issue has supplanted software reusability as a topic of conversation.
I hope that 20 years hence it won't matter what you wear to the office,
since the office will also be home. Maybe 20 years is a poor guestimate
of when telecommuting becomes prevalent ( I hope it's sooner! ) but it's
coming and it can't come soon enough.
******* Will Raymond - Northern Telecom NTP in RTP
| | ~ ~ | |
. O o . I speak for myself.
| .V. |
._ _.
| U |klapper@oravax.UUCP (Carl Klapper) (08/03/90)
In article <618@ntpdvp1.UUCP>, willr@ntpdvp1.UUCP (Will Raymond) writes: > Well, I return to this news group and once again find that the dress code > issue has supplanted software reusability as a topic of conversation. No need for supplanting. I would merge the two topics with the questions: Is the dress code reusable? Is the compiled dress code? Inquiring garment workers (dress assemblers) want to know. +-----------------------------+--------------------------------------------+ | Real urbanites don't buy | Carl Klapper | | things. They buy service. | Odyssey Research Associates, Inc. | | | 301A Harris B. Dates Drive | | A kitchen's place is | Ithaca, NY 14850 | | in the restaurant. | (607) 277-2020 | | | klapper%oravax.uucp@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu | +-----------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
defaria@hpclapd.HP.COM (Andy DeFaria) (08/04/90)
Real good stuff! Good response! >It is also interesting to consider the flip side of this. What would you >think if you went and interviewed at a company where everyone in the software >department wore a suit. Let's assume that you didn't get a chance to >ask anyone about this. But when you went away, what would be your first >impression? >Would you conclude that they MUST have a forced dress code? Would you >conclude that the place is too "stuffy" for your tastes? I spent 8 years contracting and every place I went a suit was required so I have seen the "flip side". Would I conclude that there is a forced dress code. Sure I would if *everybody* was wearing suits. And the part that I don't like about that is the word "forced". I don't like being forced. >I don't defend dress codes, but I have also seen people who do like to >dress up every day be ostrasized or ridiculed as being vain by others who >regularly dress more casually. The difference is that at a company that has a strict dress code, you are not ridiculed but *told* to change. >When the >image of "who they are" (devil may care, free thinking, casual type) >person conflicts with the image of that the company decision maker wants to >see portrayed (structured, dedicated to the organization, formal) that >is where the problem lies. But who's to say that the "company decision maker" is right? I mean I can understand that a suit is associated with formallity and structure but I believe that it's a creative leap of the imagination to associate a suit with dedication to the job. (I believe that "dedicated to the organization" is protrayed by wearing a suit. After all you are sucomming (sp?) their rules, but is professionalism dedication to the organization (loyality) or is it dedication to the job at hand that best exhibits professionalism?) >Scott McGregor >(personally, I prefer varied environments with a mixture of casual and >formal dress. I won't force that on anyone, but I might use that as >one aspect of deciding where I would be comfortable). >---------- Most definitely agree!
duncan@dduck.ctt.bellcore.com (Scott Duncan) (08/06/90)
In article <7990001@hpclove.HP.COM> defaria@hpclove.HP.COM (Andy DeFaria) writes: >Ah yes I can see it now: > > "Joe that shirt is to loud, too colorful, too distracting to our > companies business goals... Take that shirt off and bleach it white > so it will look like everybody else shirt!" > > "I'm sorry, I really would like to hire you, Jane, but you're too > attractive and would too much of a distraction to our male employees > in our corporate meetings... Could you, say, gain 50 pounds?" > >Yeah I know that stuff like this really does happen in real life (although it >is not usually put so bluntly) but when we state what's really going on in >plain English it looks really silly, doesn't it? It would even be humorous if it were not for the fact that it results in people being denied opportunities as well as in lost productivity potential for the companies. I think enforced dress codes are simply a company's way of saying they can't trust their employees to behave in a way the company approves, so their behavior will be regulated to insure greater predictability. Once you get past the silliness of the dress code, because it is purely surface, you get to the next (perhaps more fundamental) level of objection: people's ideas and other people's ability to deal with diversity. Speaking only for myself, of course, I am... Scott P. Duncan (duncan@ctt.bellcore.com OR ...!bellcore!ctt!duncan) (Bellcore, 444 Hoes Lane RRC 1H-210, Piscataway, NJ 08854) (908-699-3910 (w) 609-737-2945 (h))