Hacker News Reader

Comment by gaius | Hacker News Reader

Goldman Sachs has always had a ridiculously antiquated dress code for people who will never come within fifty feet of a client.

When I was much younger I didn't understand the concept of people who never had to deal with clients having a dress code but now I sorta do: the company is trying to create or promote the concept that everyone in the company is a member of the same team and have more in common with each other than they do with outsiders. Whether or not this actually works I don't know, but that's the only thing that makes sense. Same reason I guess the military puts everyone in camo these days, even people well behind the front lines.

View on HN

Common dress absolutely drives a certain esprit de corps. The irony in my example is that the corporate code ruined the informal one we'd developed over the years (white dress shirt, fleece or vest and brown shoes with tan slacks or black shoes with light pinstripes). Before the rebellion, I could identify, on the street, our teams (and who were the interns--black suits with skinny ties, almost all of them). Afterwards, each desk went its own separate way.

In an office setting, dress is better used as a signal than a driver. If your team isn't, over the years, picking up cues from one another then maybe there's a level of social bonding that you, as the manager, are neglecting to forment. (Or your team doesn't have to be that close to be effective.) Social psychology gives a lot away for free if you're halfway perceptive.

> white dress shirt

It would seem that as an American you refer to a white shirt - but what do you term that which I (as a Briton) would call a dress shirt? (Worn with evening, or the most formal of morning attire. That is, with your -ahem- tuxedo!)

Formal shirt, I think.

That makes sense, thanks.

I've been searching around (self-proclaimed) 'all American' clothing sites - it seems 'shirt' -> 'dress shirt', and 't-shirt' -> 'shirt'.

I suppose it makes sense that as a new garment starts to dominate it adopts the shorter name - I haven't really noticed it over here though, except with polo shirts, but even there I'd say the more common contraction is 'polo'.

Tuxedo in the morning? Long night, eh?

I think you mean "mourning"?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morning_dress

No, but that is one of the few occasions on which morning suits ([morning] tailcoat and usually pinstriped trousers) still see some use!

If Cialdini's Influence is to be believed, everyone says they don't treat people wearing (or driving) nice stuff better, but subjecting this to scientific scrutiny reveals that they overwhelmingly and significantly do.

If that's true then dressing well is pretty damn rational in general, and especially if money's on the line.

100%. I actually grew to like wearing a suit because when you're wearing a suit and somebody else isn't, there's a certain kind of cultural deference you get in many situations that is pretty handy from a business and a social perspective.

That's the exact reason why I hate wearing and even worst ever being forced to wear one.

I've never been forced to wear one in my professional life, so I dunno about that. But I'll wear one by choice on occasion. Even when I was working a day job I'd just wear a suit some days. My boss would think I was interviewing (I wasn't, usually), but it's really just because it is an easy, straightforward confidence boost.

Good to keep your boss on his or her toes too

Ehh. Every boss I've ever worked for after my initial out-of-college gig has known that I interview regularly, once every quarter at least; it was never anything personal or because of dissatisfaction, just "I like networking and I like seeing how the trends in the market are evolving". I usually didn't wear a suit to those, though, for the other reason: tech people get weird about well-dressed people and think they're "fakes" or whatever.

> tech people get weird about well-dressed people and think they're "fakes" or whatever.

There's some historical precedence there. Up until ~10-15 years ago the fakers and know-nothings used to always wear suits. They were the guys who pulled the purse strings, but had no clue.

Unfortunately, since then they've learnt to mimic the dress of their prey. So now instead of the "empty suit" you have an "empty hoodie".

Here in Australia, it is only sales people (cars, real estate, finanicial products), politicians and the CEO in front of the press. There is a very good reason not to trust anyone in a suit anymore.

"on occasion" being the keyword. It's good to be able to leverage a suit as a tool or for pleasure. Many people rejecting formal dressing miss that.

But the problem with a very strict dress code is that you don't feel being respected, you feel coerced.

You can either chafe, or acknowledge reality and use it to your advantage.

When I was younger, I chafed. Now, I enjoy getting seated at that restaurant table before you.

And the presence of a load of suits is a good indicator for the rest of us that it's not the sort of restaurant atmosphere we'll enjoy...

When everyone is wearing a suit, how does one differentiate?

Same way you differentiate between different stuff in the same class--quality, style, that sort of thing. I've never worried about that part of things, though, because the jump from "no suit" to "well-fitted suit" feels bigger to me than "well-fitted suit" to "well-fitted, expensive suit", and I mostly wear one because I like them, so I haven't indulged.

Watch I guess, Patek trumps Rolex and so on...

There's few things that make a worse first impression on me faster than someone wearing a watch as a status symbol.

Depends how expensive the watch is. If it's a $100K watch, you can be fairly sure they have money.

How would you know, unless you were making an effort yourself to check out their watch? And knew which watches were status symbols?

By comparing the quality of your respective business cards of course.

Watches. Tag < Rolex < Audemars < Patek. Or shoes, or quality of suit, style, age, companion, car, etc...

No one recognises the higher end. Sure people notice a Rolex, TAG or Breitling but, in 10 years I can not remember anyone commenting on my AP.

aka selling out.

jokes on you. i don't go to restaurants that cater to image over quality of food.

Hahaha oh man it's hard to tell on the internet but I hope this is facetious and you genuinely don't think restaurants are going to ever move you ahead in the queue.

I'm kind of being facetious.

It's just an observation that the more professional you look, the better you'll be treated. Yes, that's a fact. Yes, it's probably a sad commentary. And I rarely wear dress clothes - but I know when to, and I don't complain.

Anecdotally, I have worked at restaurants where we wouldn't seat people who were wearing denim, no matter how expensive it was.

Not everyone is built for success. At least you recognize that in yourself.

Funny, I read the comment as meaning "I get plenty of social deference, and any more would be just be annoying".

success? what does that even mean?

Ish. Precisely because the suit is a corporate uniform, it can be medium-to-low status in a lot of contexts. Traditionally, servants would always dress slightly more formally than the people they serve, so being overdressed can send the wrong message. If the suit isn't of impeccable cut and quality, you can often look like a used car salesman or an overly-eager intern. The extreme example would be arriving at a cocktail reception in black tie - you risk being directed to the kitchen and handed a tray of canapes.

As often as not, a well-cut sport coat and trousers play as higher status than a suit. It explicitly signals that you're dressing well by choice rather than diktat. Many semi-formal flourishes can carry this connotation - brown dress shoes, a knit tie, an oxford shirt or a flamboyant pocket square.

"Impeccable" is pushing it, but yeah, you need a suit that fits.

As an Indian immigrant to Minnesota in the 1970s, my dad adopted a habit of ALWAYS wearing a suit. This gave him the benefit of the doubt in a lot of interactions where he wouldn't have otherwise had it. He kept up that habit for a long time and wore a suit to parent teacher conferences, my 4th grade violin "concert," etc. It most certainly got him a deference from others and did its job admirably.

He never got OK with my habit of wearing jeans and T-shirts even as an adult because he couldn't grasp how different my experience was from his.

That's something I got from my dad as well - dress for the job you want,not the one you have. I also found that dressing well fixes at least some of the age discrimination you face as a young person, you get treated much better while wearing a suit and a tie than when just wearing a t-shirt or a plain shirt.

So if you want a job at google but work at a bank, wear Hawaiian shirts and shorts?

Also, over dressing can be as much of a problem as underdressing. If you came to a def interview at say Facebook in a suit, it could get awkward.

I remember when a candidate came in wearing a suit, and our VP Eng said, "suit eh? Guess he didn't do his homework."

Seems very petty

Social signaling works both ways, and yes, in both ways, its petty.

For some roles, it's not petty. For example, for a sales role, you'd expect your salesman to be able to fit in at a client right from the first visit. If they can't do that at your company, that's a negative indicator for them.

Well, obviously that was an advice given by a working man trying to punch above his weight and be treated seriously in situations where most people from his background weren't. It worked for him, and it worked for me when I was looking for jobs, houses, had to do official business and run a company. I suppose a situation like you described has never crossed my dad's mind because it's just such a unique problem to have. As with any advice - use common sense?

Ideologies defy common sense; if someone believes a suit is always appropriate, they might not accept that there are contexts where it isn't. Likewise the other way around.

Aim for the middle.

Black pants, white shirts. Works everywhere.

My dad, whose dad was from Poland, did the same...always wore a suit to seemingly just try to make the statement that he wanted to belong...similarly thought it not feasible for me to wear jeans and t shirts.

Yes, but I wouldn't want to spend time with someone who treats me better if I wear a suit rather than jeans, nor would I want to work at a place where such an attitude is common. I'd rather pass up on all the opportunities nice clothes would give me, so I can be myself and surround myself with people who think and feel like me. We are all apes trying to act like something else. A couple of pieces of cloth matter not.

I tend to do the opposite. I distrust people who wear suits, especially in settings where it's not common to do so. I see it as a possible indicator that they are trying to hide their limitations.

For example, people giving their talk wearing a suit at a scientific conference? Very high chance of bad science. If you do amazing research you don't need a suit to impress anyone, the ideas you present will be more than enough.

>I see it as a possible indicator that they are trying to hide their limitations.

Fir myself, I don't know if I see it as that, but I certainly see it as an indicator that they might be the kind of person who judges /other people/ based on how they dress.

I don't care how you dress, but if you care how other people dress, I'm definitely judging you for that.

so you are biased to hipsters who who take care to dress like it looks like they don't care, and you might be the kind of person who judges /other people/ based on how they dress.

How do you know who is taking care to appear that they don't care? Some people really don't care.

It takes hours of effort and a whole range of products to look like you've just got out of bed

Unless you just don't shower and/or shave.

I work from home. I don't need effort and products to look like I just woke up.

But as GS just learned, if you relax the dress code, you can pay people less. so, dressing well is rational for employees, but dropping back offic dress code is rational for employers

Presumably, they can pay less / attract more staff for the same money because the talent they seek has a desire to not follow their dress code, which they will trade against other monetary and non-monetary benefits.

In that situation, voluntarily following a dress code that you don't enjoy following is illogical. As illogical as taking a voluntary pay cut.

I've failed dev interviews for dressing too up and too down (both oddly in the same search!). If you can ascertain the standards ahead of time it's definitely helpful. In the absence of trusted guidance my current policy is a suit no tie and a shirt colored other than white and stubble or beard. It certainly won't tick everyone's boxes but if someone is looking for evidence that you own a suit it's there, and if they're looking for evidence that you're not trying to win the job through pageantry it's there. If they're looking for some more specific aesthetic qualifications they should have specified.

When you attain a certain level of enlightenment and become aware of the mind hacks being employed by the powers that be, well then you can no longer stand them. Or, you chose to take part of them and use as leverage to achieve your goals I Suppose.

Those are not contradictory. You can choose to live most of your life so that you get as much freedom as you can and is important to you. But also use your knowledge as tools to take advantage of your environment.

Too many people makes it about conformism or morality. But really it's giving too much credit to it: we are just making animal behavior very sophisticated. It's no use to blame or get angry, or it's good to just do like everyone else. Just make the best of it, it's the reality you live in. And if you want to change it, you need to see it for what it is anyway so starting by that is always a good step.

A strict dress code is a double-edged sword for a professional services company. If your staff look identical, you're actively promoting the idea that they are interchangeable commodities. Think about the private-sector employers with the strictest and most distinctive uniforms - by and large, they're fast-food restaurants. That's not necessarily the brand image that an investment bank might want to portray.

Goldman Sachs, though, went so far as to have a corporate haircut.[1] Their barber finally quit out of sheer boredom.

[1] https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/03/06/to-serve-wall-street...

_shear_ boredom

It makes sense in the military, since as an institution it requires its individual members to have much less freedom and autonomy.

But if a company needs to use technics from the military, something is wrong. Life is not war.

The word "company" itself is military in origin, Latin "companio", soldiers who lived and ate together in a mess/barracks. In the modern day armies still use the term, several platoons make a company, several companies make a battalion.

Schools and sports teams also have uniforms, if that helps set your mind at ease...

I don't think it's sane to mix linguistic origin and social aspirations, especially when it's about comparing the civil and military life.

I don't think it's sane

Thanks for your opinion, but you are completely wrong. The military and commercial worlds have been cross-pollinating each other's organisational ideas for centuries. The fundamental problem is the same: one of coordinating large groups of people to achieve a common goal via a hierarchical structure.

The way you think is very dangerous.

I think the parent is observing reality rather than saying things should be this way in an ideal world.

Observing established patterns is dangerous?

Taking small similarities between 95% of society vs a specific entity designed to manage dangerous crisis to justify anything. In that case dress code, which is also overkill.

You do know there are other languages out there where such a comparison doesn't hold?

The military's goal is to be highly precise and effective. A business's goal is the same.

The military's goal is to give a job to young men who'd otherwise be causing trouble, and to kill people when the guys in suits find it necessary

This is no longer all that true. A lot of "trouble" one finds, even as a teenager, can keep you out of the military. You might be able to get a special waiver. After all, they want to only enlist upstanding citizens into the military. The days of offering young offenders military service rather than legal trouble is basically over.

It does still remain on of the US's largest jobs programs, though I'm not sure this is the goal of the military. It does make reducing military spending rather tricky since so many livelihoods depend on it.

Most people can agree in the goal of militaries. Not on companies. Valve, apple and github work in very different ways.

You're a part of the same team and you need to wear these outfits which you will likely never wear outside of work, but the huge bonus goes to the client favoring sales team, and no - we won't pay for the garb we require you to maintain the illusion that we are all equals!

Honestly, one of the things I absolutely love about tech/Silicon Valley is nobody cares at all how you dress.

Although, I noticed the sale force offices unofficial uniform:

Brown shoes brown belt designer jeans and some dry-cleaned blue shirt and a blazer...

"Look at how casually uniquely I conform to the office uniform!"

Not judging, I just thought it was funny...

SV absolutely has a dress code. Try showing up to work as an engineer "overdressed" in a casually dressed team and see what happens. Or dress like the sales team when you're part of engineering, etc.

Ha. Just said the same thing above. So true.

Honestly, one of the things I absolutely love about tech/Silicon Valley is nobody cares at all how you dress.

LOL the "hoodie code" is 10x stronger than any suit code.

Honest question: how old are you?

If you're even the slightest bit concerned with anything anyone is wearing, then you need to focus on something else.

I'm old enough to not care sometimes and to play the game sometimes and to know the difference

Tell a suit wearer that they should dress casual tomorrow and they'll say OK. Tell a geek they have to wear a suit tomorrow and they'll freak out. Now tell me who cares more about clothes?

Hmm.. that's a good point actually with a slight rebuttal:

The suit wearer also has a closet full of casual clothes

The casual wearer will not have a line of suits - thus his freak out

What is the payscale between the both vs type of work and hours?

Would be great to get a map of all this

What is the payscale between the both vs type of work

A hoodie-wearer at FB or Apple probably out-earns the majority of suit-wearers at Goldman - it is definitely not about money, just about attitude.

>>> A hoodie-wearer at FB or Apple probably out-earns the majority of suit-wearers at Goldman - it is definitely not about money, just about attitude.

Sorry but it's highly unlikely.

True. There is a broader point that holds though, average tech salaries are above or equal to some careers that assume daily suits, even if NYC investment banking isn't one of them.

I think it's mostly tribal signalling, " I am not a suit" kind of thing. Although never having to deal with dry cleaning is an incentive, too.

As a current Goldman Strat I can confirm that the hoodie-wearer is certainly out earning the majority. Only the traders are paid well, everyone else is on a less than competitive wage based on an illusion of how it "used to be". Historically (10+ years ago) the total compensation was accounted for by a big bonus but these days it is non existent.

Almost every VP I know in NYC/LDN makes less than a fresh grad at Google in the bay area.

> Honestly, one of the things I absolutely love about tech/Silicon Valley is nobody cares at all how you dress.

Things aren't quite as loose as you seem to think. If you want to see where the boundaries are, start gradually dressing more and more informally, and note when you start drawing criticism from your manager and senior coworkers. I expect you'll get more attention than you want if you were to come to work shirtless, say.

Or go the other way and turn up in a suit.

"You must have an interview today!"

I dress for myself. I dress well, casual and comfortable. I shall not wear a suit to suite others, nor will I dress like a bum. I have found a set of clothes I like, looks good and I feel comfortable I. And I buy five-to-ten of the outfits and I wear the same thing visually every day, though they are physically different garments.

Brown in town "shudders" the horror the horror

Totally agreed on the concept, that is why a T-shirt or hoodie with the company's logo on it is usually enough..

So to get the tech vibe, start giving out free Goldman Sachs t-shirts and golden colored jeans to the techies. If you give it away for free, all the techies will start wearing them all the time.

I've wondered about that for signalling. Say for example there is a revered tech company in your city. Get their tshirt and people might assume you work there. Go to Meetup and more people may want to chat with you etc.

> everyone in the company is a member of the same team

A team that includes everyone else outside the company in similar cloths?

The camo also helps to hide the diesel and oil (at least until 2019).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com