Career experts will tell you to go out and invest in a nice suit before you go out on an interview. The thinking is you should look well-off so a hiring manager doesn’t think you’re desperate for the job.
Well, I’m here to tell you that you should NOT look too good or too rich, especially you gals out there.
Just yesterday a hiring manager told me she did not hire an administrative assistant because of the big diamond ring on her finger.
“We figured she would quit easily because she was rich and newly married,” the person said.
This is not an isolated occurrence.
The CEO of work-fashion site Workchic Melissa McGraw had this happen to a friend of hers. “The hiring manager said she didn’t need the salary she was requesting since it was apparent she was ‘taken care of’ and didn’t need the money due to her large ring.’”
I suspect, there are a couple of things going on here. It can be argued that this is a form of bias against working women. Why? Because these employers believe a woman will take her first chance to make a break for it given her financial status.
Indirectly, this can be seen as a form of pregnancy discrimination before the fact. An employer may surmise she will be more likely to take the stay-at-home mom route when she has a child because her hubby can foot the bill.
“There’s an idea out there that women don’t really want to work or aren’t committed to their careers,” said Pamela Stone, associate professor of sociology at Hunter College and the author of “Opting Out?: Why Women Really Quit Careers and Head Home.” “This is one of the toughest things women are dealing with. Everyone thinks, thanks to the New York Times article on opting out [from 2003], that well-credentialed women are going to drop out the minute they can if they are married to well-credentialed men.”
This is not the reality, Stone stressed. No matter what the media says, she added, “there has not been an exodus of women from the workplace.”
I think Stone is onto something, but I also wonder what a huge diamond ring says about us as women. Often times I see newly engaged women more excited about the rings than the guys they’re marrying.
That said, there is nothing worse than judging people based on how they dress but it happens folks, and alas women get the short end of the stick most often.
Until society starts accepting that most women want thriving careers and not a sugar daddy taking care of them for the rest of their lives, you’re going to have to scrutinize what you wear before you go to that coveted job interview.
“Our advice is to keep your interview attire simple,” said Workchic’s McGraw.
She herself felt the sting of appearance bias. “I also had a hiring manager tell me that I didn’t need the job I was interviewing for since she could tell I was well off since I was carrying a Louis Vuitton tote bag,” she explained. 
Time to tone it down gals.
“While you have every right to wear your large diamond engagement ring,” she added, “hiring managers make their first impression of a candidate starting with their outward appearance. Turn your ring around if you feel it will be an issue. Keep the designer handbags and shoes at home. That way you will be judged on your skills and abilities rather than the carat size of your engagement ring!”
What do you all think? Should you be wearing what ever the hell we want and not care how we’re judged? What’s more important, showing off the ring or the job?
August 3rd, 2010 at 10:24 am
Is this for serious? First we’re told we have to wear a suit to an interview, no matter if it’s 108 degrees outside or if the interview is for a gig w/Starbucks. Now, we’re hearing it’s possible to look too nice for an interview (though the likelihood of that happening to me is laughable, since I’m not coming into a Louis Vuitton bag any time soon).
This just underscores for me the arbitrariness of the job search. It’s not about us as people or workers. We are at the mercy of the whims, pettiness and insecurities of fellow human beings. What fun!
August 3rd, 2010 at 10:30 am
It really can be horribly arbitrary gillyrosh. We never really know what a hiring manager wants. You just have to hope you get a fair shake and they see you for all your talents. But unfortunately, that first impression is so important. Some how we each have to figure out what works best for us and our jobs search.
August 3rd, 2010 at 11:14 am
I’m glad there is one site out there that will stand up for the rights of attractively accessorized, well-off, recently married women. Does no one understand the trials of their existence?
The related bias I’ve seen is against young workers with rich parents. When people from middle class and below backgrounds start in the workforce and make mistakes or don’t show enough initiative because they don’t know how to be professionals yet - nobody makes it about class. But when that person has wealthy parents, everyone in the office assumes that person is a coddled child of the aristocracy who will never be any good. People really do stereotype them in ways that would never be socially acceptable if it was about a race or a sexual orientation.
The benefits of having a family that can catch you when you fall definitely outweigh the drawbacks - and you can avoid all of them just by being really good at your job - so I’m not arguing for debutante affirmative action or anything but it is interesting to observe.
August 3rd, 2010 at 11:27 am
Sean, you are a funny dude.
You make a good point about the young workers with rich parents. Maybe there’s a bit of jealously going on in the mix regarding the rich newlywed and the rich kid bias.
August 3rd, 2010 at 11:39 am
It is good to leave an impression that you do need to work but not that you are desperate for a job. Employers are cautious about hiring someone who can easily quit when the going gets tough.
They are also cautious about hiring someone who doesn’t really know what they want to do — out of fear that they will quit.
A new employee always faces some level of learning curve. Employers make that investment and they want people to stay in a job long enough to get a return on that investment.
August 3rd, 2010 at 12:05 pm
It’s really sad that this is even an issue. People should be judged on their knowledge, skills and abilities. Not on whether or not they wear nice clothing or have a huge ring.
August 3rd, 2010 at 12:15 pm
Like it or not, impressions last. I assist in interviewing candidates for some of the partners at our firm and let me tell you, appearances matter. What we are really looking for is someone who will not only do the work well and take pride in their work (actually give a crap versus just want a paycheck) but also someone who NEEDS to work (whether it be mentally needs it or financially requires it). There are certain other job-specific qualities that are required, but at all times there is a threshold issue of is this the TYPE of person we want working here or want to expend the energy on training, etc. If I saw someone with a huge rock interviewing for an assistant’s position I would definitely notice and report that to the hiring partner.
This all coming from a single working mom whose own father told me that “in theory” he would not hire me because a man would be a better employee, and in some ways he is right.
August 3rd, 2010 at 12:22 pm
I’ve always tried to understand the culture of the companies to which I’ve applied. If they were a shirt-and-jeans operation, there’s no way I’d show up in a suit. Of course, going that route, you risk being wrong, and there are many times where you might not know what the “norm” is on the inside.
That said, I’m reminded of an obscenely rich gentleman who I had the pleasure of meeting some years ago. He was a neighbor a few houses down. I learned of his well-to-do status only after spending time with him. His house was located in a working class neighborhood, and it was quite small and unassuming, apart from the fact that it was meticulously kept. He dressed well, but never seemed hung up on the idea of flaunting specific brands, or wearing things that conveyed status. He wouldn’t stand out in a crowd.
The fact remains that many people in our society choose to dress and accessorize in a manner that conveys a certain level of wealth or status–they want people to notice their brand-name-this or designer-that. Apple makes some great products, for example, but many choose to carry Apple because they want to be identified with the brand (and the image the brand marketers have tried to create). Are we really to believe that only a few makers offer handbags that are stylish and of high quality? Can a quality suit be had that doesn’t come from an Italian designer?
August 3rd, 2010 at 3:20 pm
You know, there is something to be said for the impressions we leave behind. If the focus is to flaunt how rich you are then I could see how an employer might be turned off.
It’s a big question for women — what do we want people to think about us? I don’t mean in a superficial sense, but what are we striving for, in our careers and as citizens of the world? Is it about having someone bankroll a lavish lifestyle, or is it about being masters of our own destiny first?
Women have to decide what they want before we change the perception of the world, right?
August 5th, 2010 at 11:28 am
I wear a fairly large diamond, and it’s not an engagement or wedding ring, it was my father’s ring…I wear it for sentimental reasons, and I never take it off. My ring finger just happens to be the finger it fits best, so that’s where I wear it. Not wanting to alter it, I didn’t size it to another finger. I’m widowed, so most people presume it was a wedding ring, I guess. Let them think what they want. When I go to a job interview it’s because I NEED A JOB. I might be down to my last dollar, but i’m not going to sell dad’s ring to eat. They can think what they want, but if they want an answer, they should ask the question, not make a presumption. I prefer people who don’t jump to conclusions without full information.
August 5th, 2010 at 11:31 am
You make such a good point Sharry. In most cases, people go on interviews because they need work and they need money. Helloooo employers!?
August 6th, 2010 at 3:15 am
Let’s face it, the only difference between the interviewer and the interviewee is that the interviewer was the one lucky enough to have a job. I’ve seen both sides of that table, and there are dimwits on both sides. Unfortunately, when the person interviewing you is a dimwit, it can affect your life and your family’s life. When you have to interview a dimwit, the downside is limited to wasting an hour or so of your time. I wish employers had a better way to find and choose employees, but they don’t. Their methods are primitive and their biases (often illegal ones) are numerous. It’s a shame. A Harvard degree has almost no connection to whether someone will do well in a job or not, but in the employers’ defense, it’s a decent enough shorthand to use when you have 1,500 resumes for one job. Likewise, a big diamond, or any indication that you have money (or had money, or a relative who has money gave you a nice gift) is also useless in conveying any useful information to the employer. But right here you can read comments from employers who think they have detected useful information that must be “considered.” Like I said: dimwits. It’s sad — for all of our 21st century technical wizardry, the HR function is still stuck in the early 20th.
August 12th, 2010 at 8:22 am
Pregnancy discrimination before the fact-yes! I nearly lost a job just after getting my master’s because my husband was Asian. Never did get that AVP title. The director said that “Orientals have large families.” Perhaps God was watching because the man died before I ever became pregnant!