Suited/Booted ?
Posted: Tue 17 August, 2010 | Author: Lyle | Filed under: Geeky, People, Thoughts, Work-related |4 Comments »Over the next few days at work, we again have potential investors visiting the office, and so the word has gone round to be as smart as possible.
While I don’t have any real problem with this, and generally look vaguely presentable, my main argument is that these visitors – Americans – aren’t expecting the techies to be suited and booted.
I wasn’t hired for this role because of how I look in a suit, or because I’ll be dealing with customers. I was (to blow my own trumpet briefly) hired for my brains and my skills in writing websites, databases and the like. Suited and booted is – for the most part, and unless I’m in an interview – irrelevant to my skill-set or reason for being employed.
Personally, I wouldn’t ever trust a techie in a suit. Sure, they/we can wear suits for other stuff – interviews, smart events, weddings, social stuff etc. – but in the office? A techie in a suit isn’t a techie.
What do you think? Would you trust a techie in a suit?
Suit not required but maybe a shave????
Hee hee hee
Possibly not but I’d trust a company that was wanting investment that made an effort. And yes, it’s just for show, but it shows that you are a ‘company’ and more importantly, that you give a fuck.
Personally I think it’s got sod all to do with being techies whilst the investors are looking around. It’s about selling.
I think there is a huge difference between ‘smart’ and ‘suited and booted’. Trousers that are not jeans or other casual trousers, and a subtle shirt with collar would do fine IMHO.
Yeah, I agree. I’ve gone with “Much smarter than usual – trousers, smart shirt incl. collar” rather than suited.
I do agree with Gordon as well, that it’s about selling the place and the people, but I dunno, the suited thing just doesn’t sit right with being a techie. No-one’s complained, and the directors know an effort’s been made. So I guess that qualifies as a pass.