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?

I just dress in a corporate way ( public sector corporTe which equals Next and M&S, Zara if feeling edgy) because I work ft and have 3 children. It's much eAsier to have a uniform. I also work fur a fairly conservative organisation.

I always admire people who can dress in an alternative way and look smart and professional.

It's funny how people are quite happy to admit that they'd judge someone based on clothing or hairstyle but would be up in arms if an employer suggested they'd judge someone who was overweight.

They both relate to appearances.

Why is there this perception that if you have blue in your hair you care less about your appearance?

if i am running a trendy new magazine I might want the blue hair/piercing/tattoo look

if i am running an undertakers office I think I would want someone with a far more conservative appearance.

Surely you understand that.

The rest is just nuances of that extreme example.

Horses for courses.

Depends entirely on what tattoos/piercings/colours you're talking about.

I have piercings in my left upper ear as well as lobes of both ears. When I worked at a racing club as a waitress I had to get clear rings for my upper ear piercings (as did anyone else with anything except one piercing in each lobe).

I work in an office and my co-worker is heavily tattooed, pierced and very casually dressed. In my opinion the way she looks isn't very professional but it's her demeanor that's the main problem. Some find her lovely and chatty, some find her very unprofessional (her profanity doesn't help the situation either :S).

I must say that while I do immediately judge capability based on appearance, I will always give someone a chance.

I personally wouldn't give a crap if I met someone at an undertakers' with blue hair. As long as a person is dressed appropriately for their workplace, and behaves professionally, tattoos/piercings/hair dye is totally irrelevant.

I think you should be clean and I would probably think if you were under 30 it was 'on trend' for that 'look' no more , but most blue chip companies have a dress code and would have problem with out there hair dye and tattoo. In marketing or PR you would probably find less problems. Its dress down day unless clients are in. IT seem a little more chilled appearance wise to from.

I would say , that look once you reach later life, I feel is psychologically, attention seeking/look at me aren't I young and funky/down with the kids still? Hoiks judgy pants high, high, high.

"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."

Ok, I shall go and inform all my colleagues in academic science that they are obviously much less bothered about anything else than someone who wastes hours getting themselves up in a fancy suit and heels, dying themselves orange and sticking on plastic fingernails, because it is just so logical. I bet our publication rates will double overnight once we are all replaced with people who dress better and get haircuts more than twice a year.

Facial piercings make me feel sick.

Thinking OTT orange make up make and drawn in brows make you look better, show you have only one brain cell.

Wearing shoes you can't walk in also shows a total lack of sense.

Bright hair, well judged, non offensive tattoos and eccentric clothes as long as everything is clean I can cope with.

In fact I'd rather deal with someone who refuses to wear clone corporate dress. They are more likely to fix the problem rather than let process and procedure get in the way.

I feel that I may be a hypocrite...and it is ElephantsNeverForgive's post which has made me realise this. I probably wouldn't judge on tattoos....but I would definitely judge on drawn on eyebrows.
I'm going to have to go and sit and think about this some more..

Hi Elephant - you say

In fact I'd rather deal with someone who refuses to wear clone corporate dress. They are more likely to fix the problem rather than let process and procedure get in the way.

And whist you may be basing that on your experience there is no real evidence to say that those who don't conform are better than those who do any more than the other way round. The key thing is we use clothes/ make up to send a message and we read those messages from others and judge according to our own rxperience.

The trendy tattooed blue-haired entrepreneur will more than likely pick a web designer who is dressed fashionably than one wearing support stockings, carpet slippers and an old lady cardigan.

Good point Caboodle - we do all judge. Recognising that and taking it into account rather than simply saying "we shouldn't do it" is a good thing

I work in an Investment Bank and wouldn't think twice about hiring someone with an unusual hairstyle, tattoos, piercings etc. I'd be far more interested in whether they could add value. Most banks do have a dress code though, especially if you are in a building used for client meetings.

I'm a scientist, who has spent much of my life amongst computer geeks, so I'm afraid I'm an interlectual snob. Fake tan and drawn on eye brows are rarely if ever seen amongst graduate scientists. Smart clothes suggest the person has been promoted to a pointless middle management role and is certain to want only pointless forms filling in.

That's what I meant. We base our judgements on our experiences - which for the most part is sensible. As long as we are aware that that is what we do and that there is room for exceptions that's fine

I wouldn't be bothered personally, but have spent a long time associating with various long/rainbow haired, pierced, tattooed people before it became fashionable.

I think however, that if you are in any way 'alternative' you need to make sure that your presentation in a corporate environment is otherwise immaculate. That means well cut, flattering and smart clothing, maintained hair colour, properly applied make up and tattoos that aren't visible (or if they are they should be decent ones rather than shit stars, names, initials, musical notes etc badly done jobs.

DH would look ridiculous without the big, hairy biker appearance but always makes sure he's properly clean, suited and booted for management meetings.

I think it's very human to make an initial opinion of someone based on appearance. It is after all our first impression. But then I think you need to question whether the problem is with them or you, if you have a problem, and question whether any concerns are actually genuine ( ie. there is an actual issue of some kind ) or whether your opinion is simply the result of prejudice.

Exactly Foxglove...I'm wondering it is justified or lazy thinking? Why would I assume tattoos are ok but drawn on eyebrows are not? I can see the suit / dress code thing as if you willfully ignore it you are sending out a message about what you think of the job. But a tattoo isn't easy to change; do we really judge people on it for the rest of their lives?

I agree with cricketpitch

Clothes are part of how we present our image to the world - it is a language.

I absolutely will judge people on how they choose to present themselves - what are clothes and makeup and hairdos for if not to say "I am the sort of person who chooses to present myself like this"?

Sometimes there are miscommunications, sometimes your appearance does not say what you want it to say, sometimes it will say differeent things depending on who is interpreting it, but it always says SOMETHING.