The shifting sands of "professional" standards

[rockstar.esq]

About a month ago I was sucked into a zoom conference which included the Owner, Architect, and Contractor.  This meeting was like so many others in that it could have been entirely replaced with a single articulate email to all concerned.  I thought of the old expression "the more things change, the more they stay the same".

Then it struck me that there were some pretty significant differences.  For example, the meeting began with the host doing the perfunctory "is everyone on this call" roll call, exclusively on a first name basis.  This is noteworthy because there was no reason to expect that anyone attending had previously met.  I had no idea who was working for the architect, the engineer, the owner, or the contractor in a situation where there were about 12 individuals logged into the conference.

As the call progressed, context helped to narrow the options for the individuals who spoke, but most didn't.  A young lady with bright green hair fielded most of the Architecture items, which suggested that she at least works for them.  

I did my best to answer whatever I could, which often involved a respectful pause to allow the relevant engineer to chime in before answering the groups question myself.  We got over halfway through the meeting before an engineer chose to speak up, and even then, it was only after the host specifically asked them to respond. 

Eventually the meeting concluded and I was left thinking about how different today's professional standards are from my youth.  Back in High School we had professional development classes.  It may sound crazy to modern professionals, but back then, we were specifically taught that unnatural hair colors, and unconventional aesthetics would be interpreted as disrespectful to clients.  We were also taught to take our responsibility as a representative of our employer seriously.  We actually did exercises to practice introducing ourselves using our full name, title, and (made up) firm.  

The whole experience leads me to wonder if the transition from formal to casual professional standards will continue, or reverse.  It's difficult to imagine things getting more casual, although I suppose I'm making assumptions about anyone not on camera.

That being said, I do sincerely think that the casual trend in professionalism has reached a point where it's no longer rebellious, or even original to have such a casual aesthetic.  In some ways, it's just as uniform as when everyone was wearing suits.  

Beyond the aesthetics, I think we've got a shift towards a "casual" relationship with responsibility.  We're all in a meeting to give all parties a chance to address some roster of issues.   The casual approach to professional introductions allows anti-social, or simply lazy "professionals" to simply stay mute because nobody knows who they are.  In the case of my meeting above, the mute engineer spent the majority of the conference letting me answer technical questions on their behalf.  When the host called on them to finally respond, no effort was spent on apologies or explanations for their silence.  Simply put, there is no negative consequence for being so unprofessional in these casual times.  

What have you experienced?  How do you think professional standards might change in the future?

[TWISTEDWILLOW]

As hard as it is to get and keep help currently, I don’t think many employers care about tattoos, unnatural hair, and a host of other things anymore,

if the person shows up, does their job and makes the business a profit I think it’s getting to be more about the results that someone can accomplish rather then what their personal looks are like,

I know I’ll hire almost anything here that is breathing, isn’t on meth, has a drivers license, transportation and a cell phone! I don’t even care if their human! Lol

as far as the quiet ones go I ain’t got much to say about them other then maybe they felt the same way as you did that a email could have summed it all up an the meeting was a waste of time?

[Frosty]

I took a class in High school called "General Business" that covered much of what you mention but that was what 3 generations ago? I dressed nicely to apply for a job at service stations. 

I'm surprised when I call a company when the person on the phone speaks a recognizable dialect of English. If I call Dominos to order a pizza I get a call center in maybe Jamaica. We hadn't ordered delivery in years but if I can't order pickup I'll bake frozen. I talked to the owner of the local Dominos and she wasn't given a choice it came down from corporate and the chances the directions or address are correct isn't great. 

There are places that the employees act like they're doing you a favor rather than the other way around. I heard a LOUD discussion at our bank one afternoon where an employee was all but throwing a hissy fit about not being able to wear running shoes. "But that's not FAIR!!!" 

As Billy said, it isn't an employers market. I think that might turn around when inflation catches up and people start NEEDING a job to eat and sleep out of the rain.

Frosty The Lucky.

 

[George N. M.]

I think that it depends on the industry and whether someone is in contact with the public and what the percieved or actual public expectation is for that person's role.  Most folk probably won't care if the grocery checker has green hair but someone is an attorney, doctor, airline pilot, or most other "professionals" I think there is a higher expectation of "conventional" attire and appearance.  It is probably more relaxed if a professional person is interacting with other professionals.  No One ever wore a tie to the Colorado County Attorneys' Association conferences.  And there are probably more relaxed expectations for zoom or other teleconferencing meetings.  In most teleconferences you can't even tell if other people are wearing pants.

That said, even though I come from a more "formal" generation I, and I think many folk, have come to the realiztion that formal appearance does not necessarily equal competence and knowledge.

Also, younger generations and lower socio-economic levels do not have the same knowledge and expectations as we who are older or higher up the food chain might expect.  I used to tell people to dress for court like they were going to a job interview or church.  Then I realized that for a lot of folk job interview dress was old jeans and a tee shirt and many do not go to church.  I had a few instances where I told a young woman to dress nicely and she thought that meant to dress like she was going out clubbing (so much skin!).  I kept a nice scarf in the office to cover exposed skin and a size medium sport jacket and a clip on tie for emergency dress upgrades.

You see the same thing in churches.  Where women always used to wear hats and gloves and all men wore a tie and jacket those are now the exceptions to the rule.

As to not speaking up in meetings, some folk are naturally reticent.  Engineers often fit that stereotype.  Good at what they do but less good at communication and social skills.

I still wear a tie and jacket to court and would do so to job interviews.  IMO, dressing up to an occasion may not help you but it sure can't hurt.

"By hammer and hand all arts do stand."

 

[ThomasPowers]

I remember the progression:  My first "real job" interview:  Clean shaven, suit and tie. 15 years later: Mustache, Sports coat and tie. 9 years later: Mustache and trimmed  beard, sports coat and tie. 6 years later: Mustache, beard, no tie.  Of course working in IT, *not* following the business dress code could get you the job as folks tended to assume that you were so good you didn't have to "conform".    (I remember back in the 1970's my Father had one IT worker that came to work BAREFOOT;  but they were so good management never noticed...)

Out here in NM worn jeans and old cowboy boots can be found on pretty much everyone from the homeless to multi millionaires.  Of course if you are wearing a lot of Old Pawn Silver; folks will assume you are on the high end of the spectrum!

[George N. M.]

As Thomas alludes to, there are regional variances too.  The west tends to be more casual, the east more formal, and it's probably OK to argue cases in front of the California Supreme Court barefoot (but you also need a good tan).

I do recall that there was one time when I had to be in court but had to briefly stop and do something in the shop on the way.  At that point I was probably the only blacksmith in the country (if not the world, but Europe does tend to formal dress) working in a business suit.

"By hammer and hand all arts do stand."

[Jobtiel1]

Over here the dress code largely stays more formal though. Still needing to take out piercings and cover tattoo's if you have a job where you come in contact with customers. I have however never seen a blacksmith dressed in a business suit ;). 

~Jobtiel

[gewoon ik]

I work in the shipping industry for al my working life. I had ship managers with more tattoo's and piercings than everyone working on the shipyard combined. So my view is clouded on what is appropriate and what not.

But clothing is indeed a bit more formal. The higher up the chain, the more polo's and buttend shirts you see. But when crowling around in the bilges, boilersuits are the norm.

[Charles R. Stevens]

A dress shirt cas cost more than a pollo! Reminds me I I need to talk to Glenn about ordering more. 
I never has a problem as a mechanic, I was the only person most shops had ever had interview in a tie. 
 

[rockstar.esq]

TwistedWillow, We're an electrical contractor and it's much the same in terms of appearance.  That being said, it's pretty easy to spot anyone ranked foreman or above in the trades out here.  One of the old tricks to spotting an experienced worker was if their Carhartt coat was soft.  The old cotton duck ones would hold themselves upright after ten years of service.

Frosty, I agree, some of this  stuff borders on uncivil behavior.  I don't wish hard times on people, but I can see the point you're making.

George, I enjoyed your comments.  Although I generally agree, I couldn't help but to think of all the unprofessional doctors I've encountered in my life.  Most of them were late to my appointment, and very few were even remotely concerned with offering a good value.  Dentists in particular, have cost me an incredible amount of paid time off.  I can sincerely say that I'd happily take a green, tattoo-covered kid with a lisp as my doctor if their practice actually improved customer service.

Thomas,  your comment reminded me of a photo I saw years ago of an "IT expert" leaving the White House.  They were wearing an old hooded sweatshirt, crusty jeans, and sneakers!  There was a caption to the effect of "no amount of money will ever get IT professionals to dress like adults".

Jobtiel1, Being able to cover tattoos is still a pretty big deal in the higher ranks of our construction trades.  It's pretty uncommon to find anyone at an ownership level who has a neck or hand tattoo.  I've never seen an owner with a visible piercing beyond ears.  

gewoon, I bet the mariner life is full of interesting culture clashes!

Charles, I wore a tie to interview for my first paper route.  It wasn't about what was expected of me, it was a way to show my respect to a potential employer.

 

 

 

[arkie]

So many job interviews these days, from the first through the "n"th with some companies, is done via teleconferencing.  One can be applying for a job and wearing a coat and tie from the table top upwards and their underwear below the table top!!!  ("laudie, laudie")  All the other CV info is emailed back and forth.  Seems very little direct personal face-to-face interaction occurs. 

[George N. M.]

It's kind of funny how people will make assumptions about you depending on how you are dressed.  Several times when Martha was in the hospital people assumed I was a doctor because I was wearing a tie.  If you have a tie on you are much more likely to be asked "May I help you sir?" rather than "Whaddaya want, Mac?" you may get in jeans and a tee shirt.  If you appear by your dress and demeanor to be "upper class" or "professional" many people are more deferential to you.

Is this a "good thing?"  Maybe not because people are making assumptions based on superficial appearances.  However, you can work it to your advantage.  Dressing "up" can show respect in a job interview, a wedding, a funeral, meeting a banker, etc..  However, there are times to dress "down."  Of course, I would wear a tie to court and a business suit in a jury trial but if I was going out to meet with some farmer on a land use or road issue I'd wear decent jeans, a button up shirt, and work shoes.

I have always tried to be a chameleon and dress appropriately for the occasion.  I've always thought that men who took pride in not owning a tie or knowing how to tie it and at the other extreme, not owning jeans or work clothes were limiting themselves and that restiction could work to their disadvantage.

I've mentioned dressing for court previously.  If you look credible as an attorney or a witness a judge or jury is more likely to believe what you say.  Demeanor is probably even more important.  If you speak clearly, make eye contact, and not look nervous or evasive you will be much more credible.  I've had witnesses who folded on the stand because they were nervous or not prepared for cross examination.  I've blown up a few unprepared or angry opposing witnesses on cross examination which reduced their credibility.

BTW, tattoos are problematic, IMO.  They are much more accepted than they were 30 or 40 years ago but there is still a negative connotation to them for some folk.  Particularly for older folk there is still an association with unsavory and less trustworthy elements of society.  I have known attorneys and other professionals, including women, who have ink but nothing that would be visible in a formal setting.  In the spirit of full disclosure, I, personally, do not have any ink.  Mainly because I don't have a long enough attention span.  I'm tired of the calendar picture by the end of the month.  Anything I would have to live with for the rest of my life would have to be pretty amazing.

"By hammer and hand all arts do stand."

[gmbobnick]

I am an engineer and weighing in late on this conversation…only because I just now read the post.

Anyway, to me being a “professional” has a lot more to do with demeanor and focus than dress, although appearance is certainly part of expressing professionalism.

What I mean about demeanor and focus is that a professional knows precisely the boundaries of their expertise and works strictly and deftly within them.  There is nothing like a good visual to emphasize a point, and for that I defer to the scene in Scent of Woman, where Pacino who plays a blind, ex-Marine Colonel is engaging a beautiful young woman and invites her to dance the tango in a fancy restaurant.  He understands the physical and emotional boundaries of this engagement, and although blind presents himself convincingly as an experienced gentleman (“professional” if you will) and therefore trustworthy, who can guide her safely.  She trusts him not to make her a fool while doing something new to her.  Its a beautifully done scene. 

This is where a professional resides.  Beyond the edge of the ordinary.  Their clients just don’t know how to do a thing, but they trust the pro…hopefully not only because of how they appear, but instead because of how they understand what happens on the dance floor.

Sadly, con-men know this principle all too well, and the world is full of them.  Frauds of all kinds.

If I want someone to castrate calves I don’t just look for someone wearing a cowboy hat.  The know-how of a real cowboy is expressed by scarred, ape-hands and an air of horse sweat, and not words.

So in answer to the OP, I would say that professionalism is a lot harder to pick out today than it was a generation or two ago, but the standards are still there and unchanged.  I think the frauds, imposters, con-men - money-grabbers-  are on the rise.  We just need to be better at weeding them out.

[JHCC]

Well said.

[Frosty]

Ditto, well said.

Substance over form is the real goal. 

Frosty The Lucky.

[rockstar.esq]

gmbobnick,

Your example is very interesting.  I remember how Pacino's character made sure he was dressed properly for the occasion, He said "Burgundy, not dark red" or something to that effect about his tie color to his helper as he was prepping for a date.

There's no doubt that his actions confirmed him as the genuine article, and that the impression he made as a blind man wasn't as important.

That being said, I think there's an undo distinction being made between looking the part and acting it.  Yes of course, we're all hiring professionals for what they can do.  In theory form should follow function in terms of our esteem.  I hear a lot of people getting shamed for thinking otherwise.

Simply put, we notice straight lines in nature.  When a perfectly performing professional dresses like an art project, it's natural to ask what this person is trying to convey about themselves, and how they interact with their environment.

I think this kind of thinking is discouraged due to misguided advice to avoid judgement, for fear of making unkind decisions.  Warning signs exist for a reason, whether it's a poisonous frog, or a tee shirt logo promising violence.  Sometimes the frog really is poisonous, other times it's just a pacifist wearing a borrowed shirt.

In many cases, people are adopting aesthetics to communicate their discord with their environment, while clinging to a "looks shouldn't matter" mantle for professional behavior.  In the worst cases, it's a cultivated tension seeking opportunity to claim an injustice.

Case in point, I was at a job walk for an office build out.  The existing space was a "gray shell" meaning it's an enclosed structure with no finishes and very limited/temporary utilities.  In this particular case, the space was one floor of a building currently under construction.  I had a question about the plans, so I walked up to a lady and politely asked her if she was the architect.  She said she was, then answered all of my questions.  As I turned to leave, she asked me how I knew she was the architect.  The truth, is that I figured only an architect would wear fluorescent green stiletto heels (which matched her safety vest) to a construction site.  Instead, I told her I guessed based on her being the only person without a set of plans in hand.  I've also had a  job walk where a female architect wore a white brassiere on the outside of her black blouse.  It was the most uncomfortable job walk of my career, and I know I wasn't the only one who felt that way.

Twenty years ago, nobody would have allowed high heels, or really any sexually charged clothing on a job site, full stop.   

I get that kind hearted, seasoned people exercise limiting principles about this.  If they see you can do the job, then your looks are secondary. This creates a real issue for new entries to the job.  These new people have the least ability of their entire career, and they often model themselves after existing "pros" who cultivated a discord between the professionalism of their appearance and their performance.  We have new hires on site with their pants figuratively and literally falling down.  Everyone needs help, I was no exception to this.  On some level, I think it's unkind to act like a belt (and/or suspenders) wouldn't help their situation.

 

[gmbobnick]

 

Just a funny story relating to aesthetics and professionalism

Some years back I was visited by an architect (we engineers love to pick on them) who was dressed in all black, western style with enough silver ornamentation to deliver the sense that this man spent an inordinate amount of time and money on his daily wardrobe selection, and cared very much about aesthetics.  He wanted help with a casino design and planned to start earthwork in 2 weeks.  It was to look like a giant roulette wheel when viewed from the air, with an enormous “water feature” for the center pin.  Come to find out he had not thought about an adequate water supply (domestic or artistic) or how to handle the large wastewater stream from such a building, and apparently missed the fact that roughly 6 months of the year the water feature would be inoperable due to freezing temps.  Also, round structures are highly impractical to construct.   Nonetheless, we helped get a workable plan set together and close to a year behind his schedule for obvious reasons.  The bid came in twice his estimate.  The solution?  Cut the roulette wheel in half.  So much for aesthetics, even though you’d never know from ground-level anyway.  

 

[Frosty]

Function over form was what I was blanking on. 

Dressing in wild colors, exotic costume, hair, jewelry, grooming, whatever, is saying loud and clear you don't want to be part of a team, on an on. I've been following and thinking about examples of odd standards and comparing current to when I was young. Darn if I don't remember lots of examples of people my age all but throwing fits about how unfair it was to have to wear  appropriate clothing, follow work hours, rules, work more than 50% of their time on the clock, etc. 

There was lots of that in General Business and Home Economics. Both classes spent time on how to get, do and hold a job.

The more I read and think the less it seems things changed, the ratios have shifted and I don't think they can stay this skewed without swinging back bit . . . 

Frosty The Lucky.

[George N. M.]

This is getting into a consideration of conformance, how a person fits into or stands out from the group or tribe and why.  If you want to be part of the team and family you adjust your appearance to whaterver the generally accepted standards for that group are.  If you are in IT, as Thomas has mentioned, the group aesthetic may be sandals and holey jeans and intermittent shaving and bathing.  In an old school, commercial litigation law firm it may be business suits and muted ties for men and dresses and heels for women.

If a person wants to stand out from the crowd, for whatever reason, they will divert from the group dress code either mildly or wildly.  In the law firm that might be as simple as wearing a bright tie or a conservative pants suit.  Or it could be Rockstar's architect in high visibility green heels.  Or it could be much more dramatic.

Reasons for standing out can be "I want to be noticed by customers/the public/supervisors/etc. and stand out from the herd of my contemporaries" or "I want to show that I am a nonconformist and am not governed by artificial rules" or an act of rebellion and defiance or "The group dress is dumb and dowdy and I want to look fabulous."

I had a friend who advised my son that if he really wanted to rebel and stand out in high school to forget mohawks, dred locks, colored hair, etc. and wear a buisness suit and carry a brief case to class every day.  No one, not student, teachers, or staff will know what to make of you and will be put off and suspicious much more than any "wild" hair or dress you could adopt.

Madelynn mentions Queen Elizabeth II who intentionally wears bright colors so that she will stand out and be seen in a crowd.

It should be noted that many "rebellious" modes of dress are very conformist with a smaller group.  It all depends on what group in which a person wants to be accepted.  The green and pink mohawk hair and extensive piercings and tats may be "wild" for general society but are normal and ordinary is some rock music scenes.

"By hammer and hand all arts do stand."

[ThomasPowers]

Back around 1990 when I started working for Bell Labs;  you could tell the engineers from the management as the engineers didn't wear ties!  I have only a few ties left for special occasions; one is illuminated scenes from an early edition of the Canterbury Tales and two are Looney Tunes.  If I have to go to court, I'll buy one!

Back in the 1970's when they had the energy crisis I remember my father, in management, talking about having to take his suit coat and tie off at work as they had turned the AC warmer to save energy and told everyone to "dress comfortably"; but *no one* would if the Boss still dressed up!