• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

The End of the Office Dress Code

Status
Not open for further replies.
numble said:
The research was there however, and it applies directly to the type of non-secured loans that businesses often need to get.

It really isn't just data entry. You can give them a really unrealistic revenue projection for example--there is a lot of judgment that goes into it. And given the low acceptance rates for small business loans, I do not know why you would forego it? If there are two similar proposals, and they don't have the luxury of getting to know everyone, they may just think the guy that looks like he was more prepared and took things seriously may do a better job at running a business, looking like a businessman, than the guy that looks less like a businessman. If the business plans are similar, and both sides are saying the same thing, I'm not sure you can negotiate into saying you have a better plan or are more trustworthy.
Click to expand...

The research is very basic there is no science to test or prove their findings. Did they dress people better and send them in again. Did they dress the people that got good rates poorly and send them in again? I highly doubt it, they pan this stuff off in simple news stories, they are not research and its 7 years old. The did nothing to differentiate the test groups based on other factors. You can believe this if you want but to me it holds no water. Anyone with half a brain is going to shop around to banks and negotiate and that is going to do way more for them then how they dress. I'm sure there are still hick places where everyone puts on their sunday best to try and show how good a person they are but that shit is the past or will be soon.
 
hydrophilic attack said:
A guy on a severe budget wouldn't buy levis or Vans

Again, out of touch

(Note that the argument I'm making is not restricted to business fashion only, but to all kinds of fashion, whether business or street. It's a way of signaling wealth and indirectly a way in which the unprivileged are put down. Therefore, the entire concept of fashion should be rejected.)
Click to expand...

Haha okay then Arizona and sketchers? Whatever walmart sells and payless sells? The price gap isn't that large between those. It doesn't matter. There are plenty of ways to buy clothes to get through a week in almost any setting. I'm not out of touch, you don't know me and my financial situation.

But plenty of things like goodwill, marshal's, ross etc etc exist and sales aren't that rare.
 
"This has created an even greater tension in the more ambiguous areas of office dress, especially as the boundaries between home and work become ever blurrier."

This is what I don't like. I enjoy dressing differently for different occasions. I am NOT fan of blurring home with work.
 
It was a glorious day back a few years ago when my office announced that they were no longer enforcing a business casual dress code and went to full casual dress code. There's some reasonable limitations of course like no shorts or sandals or possibly offensive shirts.
 
Calamari41 said:
I can go onto Amazon right now and order a $30 pair of Dockers, a $20 Van Heusen dress shirt, a $12 belt, and a pair of $30 black dress shoes. Less than $100 for an outfit, and the only part you need multiple of is the shirts and to a lesser extent the Dockers. Those aren't top of the line by any means but they're more than enough to make you look good.
Click to expand...

Boom, wait for a sale at just about anywhere and those shirts and polos are always on sale at Buy 1 get 1 and such. Buying clothes just sucks in general honestly. I've seen plenty of crappy tees (and I;m not bashing tees, I have plenty) that cost the same as a dress shirt.

hydrophilic attack said:
Interesting. Didn't know that. Thanks for sharing.
Click to expand...

Sorry I wasn't thinking about brands in other areas, I just used the first common brand to pop in my head.
 
Cimarron said:
"This has created an even greater tension in the more ambiguous areas of office dress, especially as the boundaries between home and work become ever blurrier."

This is what I don't like. I enjoy dressing differently for different occasions. I am NOT fan of blurring home with work.
Click to expand...

I'm with you here. When I worked from home, I'd still start my day early enough to be showered, groomed, and in business casual by the time 8:30 rolled around. I tried the "roll out of bed and log onto VPN in my pajamas" routine a few times, but I didn't like it.
 
darscot said:
The research is very basic there is no science to test or prove their findings. Did they dress people better and send them in again. Did they dress the people that got good rates poorly and send them in again? I highly doubt it, they pan this stuff off in simple news stories, they are not research and its 7 years old. The did nothing to differentiate the test groups based on other factors. You can believe this if you want but to me it holds no water. Anyone with half a brain is going to shop around to banks and negotiate and that is going to do way more for them then how they dress. I'm sure there are still hick places where everyone puts on their sunday best to try and show how good a person they are but that shit is the past or will be soon.
Click to expand...

It was a study by a university. Your comments don't even make sense because the study related to online small-money business loan applications without actual face to face interaction, but with a photo provided of the applicant. All things being equal, applicants that were rated independently as looking and dressing nicer had on average 2% lower interest rates. The loans were already awarded and the study looked for a correlation after the fact. 7 years is not long for a study. Do you have a citation to a study that says the opposite?

Anyway, you seem to be stuck with thinking that all loans relate to mortgages secured by property where yes, the factors are very simple.

Google "small business loan" and understand that you need to present business plans and revenue projections and how it is very difficult to convince a bank to make a small business loan. I don't know why you think this is relegated to small hick towns.

Your point about negotiation doesn't make sense when you previously said there is no negotiation, it is just a cashier and a data entry person.
 
ZackieChan said:
I'm one of the 95%?
Click to expand...

So you're salty about what I said about lawyers? Hit too close to home?

You're right, I probably wouldn't be a hit at a lawyer party. Don't mind that though. The parties I tend to go to have people doing music and/or science/engineering. Way more interesting party if you ask me
 
numble said:
It was a study by a university. Your comments don't even make sense because the study related to online small-money business loan applications without actual face to face interaction, but with a photo provided of the applicant. All things being equal, applicants that were rated independently as looking and dressing nicer had on average 2% lower interest rates. The loans were already awarded and the study looked for a correlation after the fact. 7 years is not long for a study. Do you have a citation to a study that says the opposite?

Anyway, you seem to be stuck with thinking that all loans relate to mortgages secured by property where yes, the factors are very simple.

Google "small business loan" and understand that you need to present business plans and revenue projections and how it is very difficult to convince a bank to make a small business loan. I don't know why you think this is relegated to small hick towns.

Your point about negotiation doesn't make sense when you previously said there is no negotiation, it is just a cashier and a data entry person.
Click to expand...

So you saying the whole research is based on non human interaction. You saying how you dress fractors you interest rate when you apply online? This study provide no relevant information in a discussion on how you dress. You are citing a 7 year old study related to an attached photograph? Your study has absolutely nothing to do with the current topic. There is very little wiggle room only a couple % and that can be a lot of money. The computer is going to do 95% of the work and leave at most 5% to negotiate.
 
I wear a button shirt and jeans/pants pretty much every day. I'll wear a tie and jacket if I'm interviewing someone important. If I worked a job where I had to wear a suit every day, I'd start looking for another job.
 
darscot said:
So you saying the whole research is based on non human interaction. You saying how you dress fractors you interest rate when you apply online? This study provide no relevant information in a discussion on how you dress. You are citing a 7 year old study related to an attached photograph? Yous study has absolutely nothing to do with the current topic.
Click to expand...
Yes it does, because how you are dressed in the photograph correlated to the interest rate.

Anyway, there are additional studies out there. Just follow the citations which can be found through Google Scholar or any academic database. Can you provide a study that says the opposite?

There is no issue with 7 year studies. Many famous psychological and economic studies that are continually cited are much older than 7 years old.

You keep thinking all loans are mortgages on property. It simply isn't the case. The study focused on private individuals making small business loans, for instance. Except low hanging fruit, there is no way to compute whether you think a person is going to have a successful business and meet the revenue projections they present in s business plan.
 
Good. The best thing that could ever happen. The idea of enforcing a dress code in the modern day sounds so draconian to me. Let people wear what they want and express themselves freely.
 
numble said:
Yes it does, because how you are dressed in the photograph correlated to the interest rate.

Anyway, there are additional studies out there. Just follow the citations which can be found through Google Scholar or any academic database. Can you provide a study that says the opposite?

There is no issue with 7 year studies. Many famous psychological and economic studies that are continually cited are much older than 7 years old.
Click to expand...

Ha ha was it a head shot or fully body picture? You study has no bearing or relevant information on the current topic, its fucking nonsense. A 7 year old study about what boils down to how to pick a profile picture has fuck all to do with dress code.
 
darscot said:
Ha ha was it a head shot or fully body picture? You study has no bearing or relevant information on the current topic, its fucking nonsense. A 7 year old study about what boils down to how to pick a profile picture has fuck all to do with dress code.
Click to expand...

Please don't be condescending, especially when I pointed to other studies.

If you can't bother to look for the other studies/papers:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?...i&um=1&ie=UTF-8&lr&cites=12999833706075234876
 
My company has a dress code, but it actually hasn't been enforced for over a year due to mandatory overtime. I'll be shocked if it comes back.
 
Yep. Especially jobs where you may be in the warehouse. Jeans and our works polo with whatever shoes. We may get dirty, we may not. I love it.
 
numble said:
Please don't be condescending, especially when I pointed to other studies.
Click to expand...

You pointed to a completely irrelevant study and tried to use it to make a point. Its the internet I'm sure you will survive my condescension to your dumbassness.

P.S. Your still doing it, this debate was not about human attractiveness. I will not argue that point, attraction goes a long way and beautiful people benefit. This debate was about clothing and clothing are not in the same ball park as beauty its not even the same sport.
 
darscot said:
You pointed to a completely irrelevant study and tried to use it to make a point. Its the internet I'm sure you will survive my condescension to your dumbassness.
Click to expand...
It really isn't irrelevant. It disproves your claim that it is just data entry and a computer making decisions (those additional studies say the same), and it disproves your claim that appearance does not matter (your claim that clothes are only helpful for first impressions, or that a broker looking like a crackhead does as well)--many of those additional studies say the same about appearance and credit (i.e., your appearance is linked to your credit outcomes).

I really think you think appearances don't matter because you think most loans are mortgages linked to property. Those mortgages can easily compute things by looking at income and expected future value of the home they can foreclose on.

Again, please provide some contradicting studies that support your claims.
 
hydrophilic attack said:
Note that the argument I'm making is not restricted to business fashion only, but to all kinds of fashion, whether business or street. It's a way of signaling wealth and indirectly a way in which the unprivileged are put down. Therefore, the entire concept of fashion should be rejected.
Click to expand...

Fashion, yes.

Style, no.

In fact, in terms of classic menswear you're patently wrong. The origin of the modern suit (which comprises the backbone of modern business professional) is in the upper classes of the western world adopting the dress of the lower classes so that they weren't easily identified in post-revolution societies.
 
NoblesseOblige said:
Do away with the dress code so us who put in the extra effort can look just that much better for a promotion next to those who show up in plain clothing.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I don't mind sticking out in a good way

I am certain that my clean, professional look has been a consideration in a couple of my promotions.
 
My feelings about professional dress codes are that it depends on the field, and it depends on if you meet clients/customers face to face. I work in mortgage, corporate office. Seems professional, right? Nope. People are joking and playing games constantly, shooting each other with nerf guns. We have a game room with air hockey and foosball and all that. It's all allowed, provided you don't waste too much time. But management here realizes a little fun and games to lift our spirits is good for us, so we can goof off a little. Customer/clients never come to our building since we're the behind the scenes work like underwriting, post closing etc. Sales is other branches. However our president wants us to dress professionally since he wants people to look nice.

It's totally not necessary, so it kind of bothers me that we have to. I'd feel way more comfortable and productive if I could wear clothing of my choice, within reason. We have a casual day today actually, and I feel great. And I look nice, I think so anyway. Clean button up shirt, tapered jeans and some dope boots I got on. Most people here still like dressing well on casual days for the most part. I hope it gets changed permanently some day. And dressing professional is never disallowed with a casual dress code, so if you wanted to class it up you can.
 
I just think dress codes shouldn't override what is practical for the climate where the office is located. E.g., you shouldn't be forced to wear long sleeve shirts or long pants in places like Florida.
 
Interesting read. I work in a large professional services firm on the West Coast, and we just made the full switch to allowing jeans on a daily basis because of the nature of our client base (a ton of tech companies). We are the only region in the country to do so so far; will be interesting to see how other regions change over the coming year or two.
 
numble said:
It really isn't irrelevant. It disproves your claim that it is just data entry and a computer making decisions (those additional studies say the same), and it disproves your claim that appearance does not matter (your claim that clothes are only helpful for first impressions, or that a broker looking like a crackhead does as well)--many of those additional studies say the same about appearance and credit (i.e., your appearance is linked to your credit outcomes).

I really think you think appearances don't matter because you think most loans are mortgages linked to property. Those mortgages can easily compute things by looking at income and expected future value of the home they can foreclose on.

Again, please provide some contradicting studies that support your claims.
Click to expand...

Stop confusing beauty and attractiveness with clothing. My original point still stand the man (or women) make the clothes the clothes do not make the man (or women).
 
darscot said:
You pointed to a completely irrelevant study and tried to use it to make a point. Its the internet I'm sure you will survive my condescension to your dumbassness.

P.S. Your still doing it, this debate was not about human attractiveness. I will not argue that point, attraction goes a long way and beautiful people benefit. This debate was about clothing and clothing are not in the same ball park as beauty its not even the same sport.
Click to expand...
It isn't about beauty because the study I've talked about since the beginning separately controlled for attractiveness. The correlation to credit was the factor of trustworthiness (not attractiveness), and there are numerous studies which you can find that correlate clothing with trustworthiness. You yourself admitted that business attire makes you "look the part", so I don't know why you are going out of your way to disagree, unless you are just stuck on this idea about all loans being decided by computers.

darscot said:
Stop confusing beauty and attractiveness with clothing. My original point still stand the man (or women) make the clothes the clothes do not make the man (or women).
Click to expand...
Look at the Trust and Credit paper. It has a whole section about controlling for attractiveness:

We find that borrowers who are perceived as less trustworthy are economically and significantly less likely to have their loan requests filled, even controlling for physical attractiveness, detailed demographic information, credit profile, income, education, employment and loan-specific information
Click to expand...
 
numble said:
It isn't about beauty because the study I've talked about since the beginning separately controlled for attractiveness. The correlation to credit was the factor of trustworthiness (not attractiveness), and there are numerous studies which you can find that correlate clothing with trustworthiness. You yourself admitted that business attire makes you "look the part", so I don't know why you are going out of your way to disagree, unless you are just stuck on this idea about all loans being decided by computers.


Look at the Trust and Credit paper. It has a whole section about controlling for attractiveness.
Click to expand...

Dude I'm out you have you view and I have mine. I have no more time to waste on this stupidity.
 
darscot said:
Dude I'm out you have you view and I have mine. I have no more time to waste on this stupidity.
Click to expand...
You are saying I am talking about attractiveness. I give you a citation that says that's not what I am talking about. That's not a difference of views, that's you misunderstanding my view or misrepresenting my view.

We find that borrowers who are perceived as less trustworthy are economically and significantly less likely to have their loan requests filled, even controlling for physical attractiveness, detailed demographic information, credit profile, income, education, employment and loan-specific information
Click to expand...
 
numble said:
You are saying I am talking about attractiveness. I give you a citation that says that's not what I am talking about. That's not a difference of views, that's you misunderstanding my view or misrepresenting my view.
Click to expand...

You quoting shit about looking trustworthy, please define what clothes look trustworthy. I never said peoples physical appearance is not a factor. This debate is about clothing. If you have jail house tats on your face and roll in a suit no one is going to give a shit. Seriously why do i get sucked in to this nonsense.
 
darscot said:
You quoting shit about looking trustworthy, please define what clothes look trustworthy. I never said peoples physical appearance is not a factor. This debate is about clothing. If you have jail house tats on your face and roll in a suit no one is going to give a shit. Seriously why do i get sucked in to this nonsense.
Click to expand...
I already stated in my prior post that there are multiple papers and studies linking clothing to trustworthiness. A random sample: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=10405372794797330231&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en
 
LOLDSFAN said:
Suits and ties have long outlasted their usefulness. It's really surprising that they're still a thing considering that style is over a century old.

Hopefully by the time I get into upper management, they're a thing of the past.
Click to expand...

Suits and Ties will never go out fashion, but they lose their novelty once you start having to wear it everyday
 
I'm not going to lie, I enjoy dressing up a little more than most in my industry (Software). I've definitely gotten some praise for it but I'm not begging for everyone else to match it or wear suits every day. That being said, dress codes in many industries are super dumb and don't really serve that much of a purpose when it comes to benefiting the company. They should go for sure.
 
hydrophilic attack said:
So I'm checking dappered out. I find this recent post

Tailored Fit, Partially Lined Regatta Blazer – $118.80 ($198)
Cashmere Breton Stripe Crew – $119.40 ($199)
Cotton Breton Stripe Drifter Crew – $35.40 ($59)
Baird McNutt Linen Houndstooth Sportcoat – $131.40 ($219)
Flat Front Tailored Fit Wool Year ’rounder Dress Pants – $62.30 ($89)
Straight Fit Lighthouse Chinos – $34.30 ($49)

Ludlow Chino Suit Jacket & Matching Pant = $305.20 ($456)
Legacy Blazer in Ludlow or Crosby Fit – $271.60 ($388)
Ludlow Traveler Wool Suit Jacket & Matching Pant – $476 ($700)
Textured Cotton Shawl Collar Cardigan – $82.60 ($118.00)
Wallace & Barnes Shetland Wool Cardigan – $90.99 ($158)
9″ Stanton Chambray Short w/ Embroidered Anchors – $41.99 ($75)
Goodyear Welted Kenton Suede Bucks – $138.60 ($198)

Polaris GMT Automatic – $402.5 w/ DAPPERED30 ($575)
Monterey Quartz Chrono – $152.50 w/ STARTSTOP ($305)

Strand Cap-Toe Oxford – $275 ($395)
Cornwallis Oxford – $275 ($395)

Calling this stuff affordable is so out of touch. A fucking watch for several hundred dollars????

For someone already in the door, this may be affordable. But it's not at all affordable for someone wanting to get out of working a minimum wage job. So yeah, you want to find something better, but you're rejected at the door because you could never afford to pay hundreds of dollars for a nice suit to make a nice impression at the job interview. It's a fucking joke.

It's broken. I don't want any part of it.
Click to expand...
you're first problem is going to some forum and reading a post with all those name brand crap.

You don't have to spend a shit load of money to dress nice. Father's day, which is coming up, is GREAT for dress clothes. Macy's in particular have great sales, you can get nice shirts like Van Heusen fitted/slim fit shirts for 20 bucks. You can often find blazers on sale at places like Macy's, Bach Rach, or outlet malls. Or suit deals where you can get the second suit for 100 bucks.

If you feel you need 400 dollar suits or 100 dollar shirts to "fit in" then you're out of touch.
 
Personally, I think dress codes help reinforce a climate of professionalism, to a certain degree. Our company allows jeans on Friday but requires slacks and button up/polos every other day. I think it's fine, though if I worked somewhere that required ties I'd be annoyed
 
John Kowalski said:
Good lord, that's what goes for a little relaxed?
Click to expand...

Yerp. Like today I saw a woman in a fairly colourful dress covered in flowers with a cardigan over it. I'm kind of wondering though, like the OP says, if one of the men (at least in my section) came in a little more casual whether someone would say anything or not, because I don't feel like they would (obviously up to a certain extent). I guess it's just about pushing the line.
 
otake said:
I don't dress up. I wear a collard shirt and pants and shoes. This is minimum professional attire. Office appropriate.

To all you who think it doesn't matter what you wear. From a management perspective, it totally does. Unless you are a superstar, if you dress like man child, we see you as a man child.
Click to expand...

What if management dresses casually too? My direct manager wears video game t-shirts daily and the department manager is always wearing a baseball cap and a hoodie.
 
Software Developer - no dress code. My attire ranges wildly sometimes it's nice looking coats and shit, other times jeans and t-shirt, other times shorts and flipflops, or even a Hawaiian shirt.

It's nice to be able to wear whatever i want.
 
If I ever leave where I'm at, I plan on finding another place that let's me dress casually. If I have to wear pants to work again, it's going to be a sad day. (I wear shorts, for the record.) I try to wear polos but that sometimes does and sometimes doesn't happen. Always shoes, though I wish I could wear flip flops :( But hey, at least I don't have to freaking wear pants.

otake said:
I don't dress up. I wear a collard shirt and pants and shoes. This is minimum professional attire. Office appropriate.

To all you who think it doesn't matter what you wear. From a management perspective, it totally does. Unless you are a superstar, if you dress like man child, we see you as a man child.
Click to expand...

I'm a superstar, so management loves me. Regardless of what I wear :)
 
Raonak said:
Software Developer - no dress code. My attire ranges wildly sometimes it's nice looking coats and shit, other times jeans and t-shirt, other times shorts and flipflops, or even a Hawaiian shirt.

It's nice to be able to wear whatever i want.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure software development is like this near enough across the board. Even most Banks tend to let their devs dress however they want.

Perks of being a relatively young industry I suppose.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

End of the Kurtzman-era Trek.
2
58
732
Hudo replied
The End of Oak Street | Anne Hathaway, Ewan McGregor, and Dinosaurs | Official Trailer
7
238
jason10mm replied
Advent of Code 2025 - The Elves Join the Union
0
246
JeTmAn81 replied
Mobile Suit Gundam Hathaway: The Sorcery of Nymph Circe - Official Ending Theme
14
473
Werewolf Jones replied
The Ending to the "Long Good Friday" is a classic
13
399
Queso de Grande replied
Top Bottom