Hey folks, I’m Swati.
Welcome back to my weekly newsletter.
For those of you who don’t know me, I’m the Managing Director at Masters’ Union.
This newsletter is those conversations: what I’m seeing, what I’m thinking, what I’d tell you if we were grabbing coffee.
This week: on appearances at work
Before we dive in, quick poll:
Have you ever changed your appearance for an interview?
If you said yes, I’m not surprised.
For context, I came across a piece of research recently that I keep recalling every time I see someone with coloured hair (purple, green, blue), a man with an ungroomed beard, or seeing loud nail polish colours.
Here’s the TL;DR:
And Psychologist Edward Thorndike discovered this way back in 1920.
He called it the Halo Effect.
When military officers rated soldiers they'd never spoken to, their ratings were suspiciously correlated.
If someone looked good, they were assumed to be intelligent, competent, and trustworthy. All from appearance alone.
A 1972 study titled "What Is Beautiful Is Good" confirmed it.
Attractive people were expected to have more prestigious careers and be more competent at everything.
Your brain takes one visual cue and extrapolates it to everything else.
The person making this judgment doesn't even know they're doing it. It happens before conscious thought kicks in.
This has been sitting with me because I keep hearing stories from students and recruiters that connect back to it.
"Culture fit concerns." is the feedback that comes back.
Usually there’s nothing specific or actionable about it.
And when I dig deeper, it’s usually something visual and subtle.
A nose ring.
A bright nail polish.
A tatttoo.
The data on this will also likely change the way you think about fashion.
Researchers at Colorado State University created identical LinkedIn profiles that differed only in whether the candidate had visible tattoos.
Even a small visible tattoo reduced starting salary offers significantly. Over a decade with normal raises, that one tattoo costs lakhs in lost earnings.
Ironically, the hiring managers with their own tattoos showed no greater acceptance.
So the bias runs deeper than just personal preference.
Research on workplace attire found that candidates in formal dress were rated as more ethical and competent than identical candidates in casual clothes.
There's a generational gap here too.
82% of Gen Z believe in freedom of self-expression through workplace attire. Only 40% of Gen X agree.
But Gen X are still making most hiring decisions at traditional companies.
74% of Gen Z workers experience anxiety when choosing work outfits, compared to just 14% of Boomers.
But to a 55-year-old partner deciding between you and another equally qualified candidate, it might say something about "fit."
And yes, things are shifting.
Post-COVID, companies with formal dress code requirements collapsed from 30% in 2018 to just 4.3% in 2024.
Disney now allows visible tattoos.
Goldman Sachs went flexible.
But "relaxed" doesn't mean "anything goes."
And the most traditional industries still operate on older norms.
I'm not saying change who you are but rather understand the game you're playing.
The halo effect exists.
First impressions form in 100 milliseconds.
You're being evaluated on signals you never agreed to send.
TLDR: Research before you show up.
Have you ever been judged on appearance in a professional setting? What happened?
Hit reply. I read every email.
Swati