Hacker News Reader

Comment by AndrewKemendo | Hacker News Reader

This is a clear power play and is playing by the same rules as those that are wearing suits. What dressing like that is saying is, no I don't have to wear the uniform of this culture because I am in a position of informal power.

The New Yorker did a piece on that same issue last year: http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/the-power-of-the-...

At the end of the day I am torn on this issue. The idea that competence counts makes sense and that is all that should be judged. However there is something to be said about shared cultural displays and how they fit into a larger team effort. The modern suit is a pretty benign display in the larger scheme of things. Especially if you look at the rumpled messes that check the "suit" block, roaming around government agencies.

All that said, I fucking despise having to wear a suit.

View on HN

Yeah, I'm of two minds on it too. On the one hand, I'm all for letting people be comfortable at work. On the other hand, it's the fucking White House we're talking about here, not a paper company in Scranton. If there is a single office in the world where the people at least make an attempt to act like grown-ups, I'd want it to be that one, you know?

How about when you're actually in the White House to meet the president you wear a suit, but when you're at your desk in some other building (aka: not the WH) you don't. That was our policy last year on the hc.gov turn-around: Bring a suit (just in case!), but don't plan on wearing it everyday.

Good idea. It tracks with my experience working on the Hill years ago, too -- business casual (maybe with a tie) was fine in the House & Senate office buildings, but if you were going to the Capitol, you put on a suit.

True story: I worked for a while in the office of a Midwestern Senator who felt very strongly about this rule. He'd actually fired people in the past over it, apparently. But at one point my boss (his communications director) needed someone to help with a press conference he was holding in the Capitol, and I, who was not wearing a suit, was the only one available. My boss decided I would do because the Senator wasn't going to be at this particular press conference, so he'd never know. So off we go to the Capitol.

Then, halfway through the press conference, the Senator ambles into the room, unannounced and unexpected. My boss' faces turns white as he realizes that if the Senator realizes I'm from his office -- I was too far down the totem pole for him to recognize me immediately, thank God -- we're both screwed. So to protect us both, he does the only thing he can do: he physically grabs me, pushes me into a wiring closet, and closes the door.

This was surprising, but at least I was smart enough to stay in there and keep quiet until he opened the door and let me know the coast was clear...

That seems like a reasonable compromise. Where are the 18F and US Digital Service offices? I'd imagine you could be more low-key at some nondescript office park in Bethesda versus working in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building or some other all-suits federal agency HQ in the center of the city.

18F is at GSA headquarters (1800 F St NW); USDS is across the street from the White House, next to the White House Conference Center on Lafayette Square. GSA has a very reasonable informal dress code. Khakis and button down shirt would not at all be out of place; shorts would stand out.

A big part of this job is interfacing with other government agencies, which means you're going to visit their offices.

Jeans and t-shirt/hoodie are the official uniform/suit of programmers. You stand out if you wear anything else.

I feel like there's an expectation for me to dress up more than my husband or any other programmer I know, just to be taken a little more seriously. I don't know that many female programmers that wear tshirts except for promo purposes or at home/super duper casual settings either.

Not to mention most tshirts don't fit female bodies in an ideal way anyway...

That's why there are women's t-shirts that are much better tailored for women.

Personally I never understood the "dress down" culture in programming. I dress up (sports coats, shirts, nice jeans) because I like it.

"I dress up (sports coats, shirts, nice jeans) because I like it."

Likewise, though I trade out the jeans for slacks. I don't like jeans with a sport coat (on me - you can wear what you want).

I'd say the correlation runs the other way. The best female programmers I've worked with dressed like stereotypical nerds (just like the best male programmers I worked with). The ones who "dressed up" were, by and large, those trying to compensate for substandard programming skills (again, just like the guys who wore suits).

This is less true in company-town DC than it is in places like SF, NYC, etc.

Yes it's ironic. The guys who say they don't care about clothes actually care far far more than the suit wearers.

Among suit wearers and non-suit wearers there are people who don't care about other people's clothes, as long as everyone get the job done without much distraction.

And then there are suits and non-suits who care strongly about whatever brand of etiquette they adopted.

Now guess who will also put up a fight over harmless technical/business/political/you-name-it minutiae.

> Jeans and t-shirt/hoodie are the official uniform/suit of programmers.

There's lots of different contexts that programmers work in. In some of them, that's true, in others its not. Plenty of places, khakis and sports/polo shirts is a lot more common than jeans and t-shirts. And in others, its suits.

I think it's kind of funny that SF is probably the place with a pile of programmers who are least enamored of suits, when it's the one place that always has weather in which a suit is comfortable.

Why does acting like a grown-up literally involve acting like an adult. Suits are basically playing dress-up for adults. And don't even get me started on ties.

Of all of the problems in the world, a movement to ban mandatory neck ties in any work related situation would be one of the few that would motivate me to action.

Where is it that ties are required for everyone?

I worked in the headquarters of a bulge bracket investment bank in Midtown and in my experience it is uncommon for people to wear ties even there.

Further, in my estimation, for most groups, it is socially unacceptable to wear a tie every day unless you are a certified BSD executive.

I think this is a good example of a place where different people can just have fundamentally different values. I don't see wearing more formal clothing as "acting like grown-ups". Similarly, I don't see the White House as being a place particularly deserving of special treatment when it comes to being there as a programmer. Clearly, you (and many others) might disagree (and not-so-subtly imply that others are immature children...), but neither one of us is right or wrong.

Guess this is what causes culture clash :)

> On the other hand, it's the fucking White House we're talking about here, not a paper company in Scranton. If there is a single office in the world where the people at least make an attempt to act like grown-ups, I'd want it to be that one, you know?

I kind of take exception to the idea that "act like grown-ups" means "prefer engaging in ritual displays of conformance to getting real work done". I mean, I associate the former more with acting like exceptionally image-conscious high-school students rather than acting like grownups.

That's not to say that dress rules can't have something to do with acting like grownups; even if it was miguided, the one place I worked that prohibited technical staff from wearing ties on the basis of published research showing that wearing ties reduced the output of technical workers had a grown-up reason.

The idea is that it demonstrates respect for the institution: "I took the extra trouble to dress up fancy to come here." The definitions of "fancy" and "formal" in institutional settings change over time, but they change more slowly there than they do in the culture at large. So it's not uncommon to see people wearing clothes that the general culture would consider outmoded or obsolete in these contexts.

Here's an example. The top hat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_hat) was a standard part of formal dress in the latter part of the 19th century, but it had mostly fallen out of everyday use by the mid-1910s. Diplomats and statesmen kept on wearing them at official occasions, though, all the way into the 1950s (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_hat#20th_century).

Why? Because they had become part of the definition of "what you wear to an occasion of state." That type of distinction, once reached, takes a long time to fall away; no diplomat wants to be the first person to cause offense by ditching the top hat. So it had to be dead in the everyday culture for decades before leaders felt safe enough to stop wearing it.

Suits are probably on a similar trajectory: once an item of everyday wear; now mostly a way to signal that you're on your way to a Serious Event (like a wedding or funeral or meeting with a head of state); eventually just something people wear to Serious Events only because that's what you wear to Serious Events; then finally (long after they became obsolete everywhere else) left behind even for that.

> The idea is that it demonstrates respect for the institution:

You know what grown-ups see as demonstrating respect for an institution? Devoting a substantial portion of your waking hours to performing quality work on behalf of the institution.

If you prefer ritual displays of conformance as a mark of respect, that's a choice with consequences, and either not recognizing or preferring those consequences is not a sign of being "grown-up".

This seems simplistic. Ritual is an incredibly important part of human life.

I say this as a non-conformist in many areas. But I conform in many that bring me no pleasure. For instance, I don't meet clients in shorts or pajamas, though either would be more comfortable.

What's the difference between that rule and wearing a suit at the White House?

Respect doesn't have to be an exclusive either/or between ritual and quality work.

And either way, if the "software engineering dress code" becomes shorts and sandals and you'd be looked down on for wearing a shirt and tie, well, you're still a conformist. You're just selling out to a different rule book.

I was a non-conformist in high school and much of my undergrad, but you'd probably never have known it, as I wore things which were comfortable (and happened to be inoffensive) rather than going out of my way to dress in the same uncomfortable things that all the other "non-conformists" wore to show society they didn't care, man.

You know that it can demonstrate respect for an institution that you're outside of, as well? Good luck testifying in court wearing sweat pants and a tank top.

SCIENTIST: Why do we all have to wear these ridiculous ties?

FREEMAN: Oh, you wanna know why? I'll tell you why. It's symbolic. The management wants you to know that you're their dog, so you're wearing their leash. You don't see me wearing a tie, do you?

It comes down, for me, to more a question of "how much external facetime do you have in your day-to-day job". Shared cultural displays are one thing, but forcing everyone into the "Least Comfortable Denominator" just because some subset of your culture does need to display that level of formality...

Even above the comfortable clothing aspect of it, inflexibility in a comparatively minor thing like "dress code in non-customer-facing positions" indicates potential inflexibility in far more important things (sick/maternity/bereavement time, butt-in-chair time, informal 1-on-1s with higher-ups, merit-based raises, etc) and would greatly negatively influence the likelihood of taking a job for me.

Agreed, you'd probably find that a lot of tech guys in a hoodie and jeans spent more on their clothes than DC staffers in "suits".

Really my last suit was $750 and I was looking at a nice Vivien Westwood one the other day which was $1200.

It is hard to beat suits on the upper high end range in terms of price, but easy on the low to average range.

My suit cost me around 150$ though. I have several outfits which are comparable in cost and designed specifically to be informal.

jeez some people here have thin skins and would not survive long working in the city in hft/quant's where the end customers will think nothing of spending 2k on a pair of hand made shoes.

It's quite possible to be a hacker and appreciate fashion and good quality tailoring

Unless you're a DC staffer (and more specifically, a "typical DC staffer"), your showing off about your expensive suit didn't actually contradict anything in the comment you replied to, which is why I think your comment got grayed out.

Oh yeah? Well I got on sneakers that cost more than your suit. (yeezys) ZING.

I think what he's saying is even though they look dressed down the price of the clothing is typically high. I have no idea if that's true. I just love sneakers.

I wear t-shirts and shorts. Always. Mostly from King Size Direct. Add in underwear and socks and the total cost of whatever I'm wearing at any given moment is <$100. Add in shoes and it's probably about $160.

I'm always comfortable, which is difficult for me with any other off-the-shelf clothing.

So tell me, how much more am I spending than DC staffers in what would have to be custom-tailored suits to match the comfort level?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com