To wonder if you question someones ability based on....

[TailorMouse]

....their appearance?
As in - if you were speaking to an (office based) professional and they had piercings / tattoos / funky hair would you doubt their ability to do the job in hand and if so why? Surely it does not affect how they do the job, and just creates a more individual identity for the company?
Why does neutral make up / no jewellery / nothing unique ensure a better service?

By that way of thinking, would it be ok for me to rock up to my business meetings in a tracksuit?

It's about a smart appearance. Messy hair, lots of facial piercings etc just look...scruffy IMO. If you look like you can't be bothered with your own appearance, the implication is that you probably won't be bothered with much else either.

We have 2 Directors at my work the one with the tattoo on his hand is by far the most professional about he's work and the way he treats people.

I admit that I probably do think exactly how you've just described and I don't think I can help making a judgement as it's almost involuntary. I would however not always assume my initial observation was going to be right as like you rightly said having tattoos and piercings doesn't make someone less capable of a certain job.

It doesn't, of course, but there can be reassurance in normality Someone who is dressed neutrally etc looks as if they're going to conform. Someone who isn't looks as if they might be unpredictable. It depends how anxious you are in the first place.

Oh dear!

Erm, yes, I do judge. If you want me to expect professionalism from you then look and act professionally!

And I suspect that no company actually wants an individual... they want drones... not a USP based on body modifications and bright colours!

(Now explain to me why I, as a teacher, cannot wear long leggings under a proper dress, in boots, rather than having to struggle with opaque tights)

It depends on the type of business.
A start up agency is going to want to project a different image to their clients than a corporate law firm, and therefore the office location, decor, logos will reflect that, as will the appearance of the staff.
That includes what they wear and whether they conform to the societal norms for that industry, because whether you like it or not, nearly all humans will make instinctive judgements based on appearances

Surely it depends on the type of business? Finance in general is pretty strait laced and the dress code would be to remove facial piercings and cover up tattoos as far as possible in a work environment.
Software development/ IT work environments are pretty much anything goes.

I wouldn't, in fact in my very unscientific opinion people who look a bit "different" tend, in general, to be friendly and on the ball. Perhaps that's because there is such a negative attitude towards that appearance that they have go be especially nice/good to get the job.
That said, depending on the job a certain appearance is important and an unwillingness to fit with that can indicate to an employer that a person is going to be hard work.

I wouldn't doubt their technical ability to do the job, in some roles though I would understand that they wouldn't be allowed to actually do their job (by virtue of representatives of other companies - often in different countries and cultures - not taking them seriously/judging unfairly).

Is there a particular something that really causes a hoik in the judgypants? Ie tattoos more than heavy eye make up?
I'm not sure Mascaramascara1 why funky coloured hair automatically equates to messy hair, or why the idea that those who have tattoos / piercings etc means they do not take pride in their appearance - surely it just means a more creative pride? Can you let me know why it is scruffy?
Surely if they wear smart clothing, are clean and have a smile on their face they look presentable?
And wouldn't you prefer someone who can think a little outside the box?

Yeah sure no problem I will just turn up to work in shorts and loafers and complain when people don't take me seriously.

If you look like you can't be bothered with your own appearance, the implication is that you probably won't be bothered with much else either.

I don't understand - why would someone who spends 10 minutes blow drying their hair in the morning be more likely to be bothered to complete their work properly than someone who spends those 10 minutes reading the paper, spending time with their children or preparing a more elaborate breakfast? Why is time spent on ones appearance 'better' than time spent doing other things? I don't disagree that many people share that opinion, but could you elaborate a little as to why someone might think that?

Doesn't seem like i've actually gotten my point across - I appreciate smart clothing / shoes etc but am wondering more about the actual physical alterations people have?
Would you take someone who is bright orange, drawn on eyebrows, a doughnut of hair and a super short bandage dress more seriously than someone with no overt make up on but pink streaks in their hair, with three matching studs in each ear and a small tattoo wearing a conservative suit?

Now - imagine they are both wearing the same plain shirt and tailored trousers, is there one over the other you trust more with your business?

It really depends on the job, but i see voluntary physical alterations the same way I see clothes some are not suitable for certain areas.

Interesting Greenwayslide - do you mind me asking why? Is it to do with that person or what is it about certain things that you feel inappropriate?

Can you let me know why it is scruffy?

Nope...no more than I could explain why straight legged joggers look more 'scruffy' than black trousers...both the same shape, both plain, dark...but it's obvious which gives the most professional image.

Because it's different to what you expect I suppose.

Long dreadlocks can take a lot of time/effort and care to maintain...but the fact is they do look scruffy. I can't explain why...they just do!

I would assume it is because we can't see the other things being done, all we see is the person before us. If their priorities are not making themselves presentable, they are not a very good advertisement for their company. Doesn't matter that they are Mother Thereasa in their spare time. When they are at work, they represent the company and if they don't take care of their appearance then what evidence is there that they care about anything else or their work?

It is about what you can see and first impressions. Most people's first assessment of a person will mean they are judging a book by their cover. Life is too short to get to know every single person we meet so we have to use some method of selecting those we can work with, in whatever situation we meet them in and we can't help but write people off if they don't conform to norms and stereotypes of the situation. Of course if you have more time then you can get to know the person behind the mask, so to speak but often we don't have that time. It is easier for a business to employ people who don't challenge the norms too much.

It depends. People can have tattoos and piercings and still look tidy.
But I could consider people that are lazy in their appearance more likely to be lazy in other areas of their life ie their job. These people could have tattoos/piercings or not.

Why is there this perception that if you have blue in your hair you care less about your appearance?
Not trying to be aggressive but this boggles my mind? Think of the exact same person and imagine their hair with a little extra colour or not - why does that mean they are less capable, don't care the impression they make and are scruffy?

PurpleSwift that is my point exactly! Can I ask if you would think less of someones experience or capabilities if they had a flower on their neck but otherwise a fairly conventional appearance?

I'm not sure about this link between 'tats/bright colours/funky style' and 'messy'. Some people who have a grunge or punk style might look 'messy', because it's part of the look, but there are lots of people with tattoos and coloured hair who are also very well groomed. Piercings/tattoos/funky clothes do not necessarily equal 'does not take care of their appearance' or 'has attitude problem'.

An old friend of mine has a tongue stud, several tats and a lively taste in bright, bold-coloured clothes and jewellery. She spends A LOT more time grooming herself than I do and looks great. She is also in a professional job pulling down about twice what I've ever earned.

X-post with purpleswift there. Agree.

tailor if they were smartly dressed in a suit or appropriate office attire then the rest would cause me to even give it a second thought, if however they were in ripped jeans and a dirty t shirt then yes I would judge.

as a previous poster has said if people are lazy with their appearance then it is likely that they are just plain lazy. the tattoos and piercings are just a distraction and I suspect geared to illicit a particular answer to this thread

But the thread's OP specifically asks

'if you were speaking to an (office based) professional and they had piercings / tattoos / funky hair would you doubt their ability to do the job in hand and if so why? Surely it does not affect how they do the job, and just creates a more individual identity for the company?
Why does neutral make up / no jewellery / nothing unique ensure a better service?'

There's no mention of messy. The piercings/tattoos/funky = messy thing is the distraction, because the two got confused in the responses to the OP.