More than that, I hated the idea of smartness, uniformity and grooming, or at least I thought I did. Now I stand corrected. Ms Spillane was right all along. It does matter how we dress and so many of us get it wrong all of the time particularly men.
My change of heart was influenced by a recruitment exercise in which I and two other board members were interviewing candidates for the job of chief executive in a good-sized organisation. I will not go into too much detail since, as I write, the process is still continuing. Suffice to say it is a well-paid job attracting good quality candidates with excellent qualifications.
Certainly both candidates interviewed on the day I have in mind were sound, experienced managers with solid cvs. They were strong contenders, except when it came to their wardrobes. I cant say that I am one of the worlds nattiest dressers but when I turn up to carry out interviews I do make an effort to look reasonably smart. This may be an old-fashioned sentiment but I think its important to do so as a matter of respect for the candidate.
I was a bit surprised therefore at the lived-in appearance of candidate one. He was wearing a brown checked jacket, corduroy trousers and brogues. I dont see why suits should be compulsory, but a mushroom coloured cardigan? I dont think so. The tie was wrong too it was not so much the little turtles in the pattern as the way the knot sat an inch below the apex of the shirt collar, exposing the top button.
Did any of this matter? Probably not. He interviewed well, had a broad knowledge of his sector and was brimming with ideas. We were happy to recommend him for a final interview. So why should I be so steamed up about the way he was dressed?
It is because each of us on that panel discussed his casual appearance. All of us agreed that it was not relevant and yet it was and we knew it was. Had he been a marginal candidate, or had he faced stronger competition, dress may have been an influencing factor on our decision. Its no good crying foul or dismissing this conclusion as preposterous. This was a real interview between consenting adults. The fact is that he had let himself down on the basics and had failed to understand that how you look really does matter.
Fortunately for him the second candidate looked no better. In his case he had gone for a reasonably smart navy suit. The yellow shirt was excusable but not the tie, which involved quite large lions. The belt was the sort of broad big-buckled affair that is normally worn with jeans. He was a friendly, capable chap but he did not interview well. Instead of being himself, he would give us the answer he thought we were looking for.
There were no catch questions. I dont believe in them. In an earlier interview that I had not been able to attend, one of the panel had embarrassed candidates by asking them something simple that they really should have known, and then lambasted them, when they didnt. This sort of interviewing is intimidating. How do you expect to put people at their ease when you are trying to trip them up?
Our first candidate was so at ease he almost fell off his chair. He looked like a kindly uncle who would have a ball of string, a pen knife and maybe a few Nuttalls Mintoes in his pocket. But we wanted someone who would be comfortable talking to sharp-suited City big shots. That said, I cant help but hate the corporate image stuff. Perhaps that is why I will be happy if our cardigan man gets the job.
Im not suggesting here that everyone who goes to an interview should be dressed to kill, but it is a good idea to try and make sure that nothing about your appearance is going to get in the way. Conversations work when people feel comfortable with one another. Anything that has the potential to create a barrier should be avoided. Ms Spillane has known this for years. She has my respect.
richard.donkin@haynet.com
Richard Donkin is employment columnist at the Financial Times
