Rusty Saber: Appearance, clothes should matter

Joe McAdoo is former chairman of the communication department at Drury University.

A Wall Street Journal column commenting about the effects of dress and grooming on job interviews reminds me of an experience when I was a high-school teacher.

I was telling some students about the importance of good grades in high school because they would be permanent records. Hoping to encourage some who needed to take their school work more seriously, I said that college admissions officers and employers would use grades to make decisions about them. Poor grades, I stressed, would be with them throughout their lives. One student said holding his grades against him was unfair and "they" shouldn't do it. It was so unfair that he wasn't going to worry about it. He was a bright kid who lacked interest in school. I wish I could report that I was able to ignite a burning desire within him to learn, and he became a renowned brain surgeon. It didn't happen. He eventually dropped out of school with a transcript filled with Ds and a few Cs.

This brings me to the column by Joann S. Luban, which includes vehement reactions from some readers and agreement from others to an earlier column containing job search tips.

Some reader reactions were reminiscent of those by my former student. The original column was titled "Dated Suit, Dirty Nails Can Tip the Balance if You're Job Hunting." It strikes me that conventional wisdom would have it that Lubin was right. How one dresses and personal grooming are likely to be factors in hiring decisions. However, like the student, some said evaluating one's appearance was unfair and shouldn't be a factor in hiring.

About the dated suit, it might depend on how dated it was. It would take an understanding employer to overlook a candidate wearing a 1970s leisure suit and paisley sport shirt. They looked foolish then and now.

The accusation was made that hiring agents shouldn't be so fixated with physical looks. In truth, many are. They don't think they are being unfair by being concerned about a job applicant's appearance. I may think it's unfair that it takes me longer than other airline passengers to clear airport security because I have an implanted electrical lifesaving device. Like the job seeker, I have to do it because the powers that be insist on it.

Some readers said they couldn't afford new clothes for job interviews; I can understand that. However, the original article didn't dictate that men and women job seekers dress like they were going to the senior prom, rather to dress like they wanted the jobs, a sentiment expressed by many employers. It doesn't cost a lot to be neat and well groomed. One employer wrote that overdressing was as bad as wearing scruffy clothes.

I would think that presenting oneself in the best light would rank right up there with ability to do the job. How one dresses won't guarantee getting the job, but my guess is that a person arriving for job interviews wearing grungy clothes and unkempt physical appearance would be at a disadvantage. Actually, some employers said they don't want job seekers to dress up; it would be nice if they made this known to prospective applicants.

To young job seekers, I offer the following advice: Dress like you want the job. Be neat and clean. Lose the nose, lip and eyebrow rings (men should use good judgment about wearing earrings). Women, dress discretely enough that the navel ring doesn't show. Wear real shoes, not flip flops.

Do your research, know about the company and the job expectations. Sit up straight, look the interviewer in the eye and don't mumble. Expunge from the vocabulary such tidbits as "like," "you know," "really'' and "awesome." If you do this and you are the most qualified applicant for the job you should do fine.