What Jewelry Not to Wear to a Job Interview

The Italians have figured it out.  Have you?

Two days ago I wrote an article about a career counseling client who, after removing her engagement ring, got a job interview.  As I (thought) I had made clear in the article, I was discussing rings akin to the Hope Diamond. 

What is remarkable is that in a span of 24-hours following LinkedIn's decision to include the article on the "Staffing and Recruiting" feed, over 10,000 people read it.  (By the way, to get an article listed on a feed, send a short tweet about it including the phrase "tip@linkedinpulse," so that LinkedIn Pulse knows about it and they can decide whether or not it is worthy of promotion.  For details see my video.)  It is rewarding to know that 4.5% "liked" it and that 1.5% thought it worthy of comment.  So a sincere thank-you to one and all, including the critics but especially to victims (I think that's the right word!) who confirmed my advice.

While reading the comments I first noticed the number of critics who chose to use profanity.  They apparently are not aware of another popular article I wrote.  No matter.  Remember, when someone posts criticisms on LinkedIn, they are reflections on the critics, not you.  So don't let them deter or bother you.  Good people will come to your defense.

That said, two statements by critics are worthy of comment.  They were posed as questions:  What about wedding rings?  What about a man wearing a Rolex?

First, engagement rings are not wedding rings.  An engagement ring only says that you agree(d) to get engaged in exchange for the ring.  You do not own the ring.  It only becomes your property when you fulfill the terms of the verbal agreement into which you entered.  Legally, it's called "consideration."  If you break off the engagement, you have to return it.  If the man breaks off the engagement, you get to keep it.  It's not yours until the "I do"s have been done.

The problem with a large engagement ring, as I noted and was confirmed by a couple of women in the Comments of the previous article, is the message it may send.  When a man gives a woman an engagement ring, he buys the least expensive ring that he believes it will take to get her to agree to the proposal.  For women it may be a symbol of everlasting love, but for men (when it is expensive) it is akin to a business transaction.  So when a male interviewer sees what appears to be an expensive engagement ring he assumes the wearer is, as I said in the article, "high maintenance."  He may be willing to have a high-maintenance woman in his personal life; he doesn't necessarily want one in his office.

As for women, I can only repeat what I wrote in the previous article:  The woman in the office who has the largest engagement ring will be against you because, if you are hired, she'll be Number Two. 

This is all nonsense.  As someone wrote, it is "rubbish."  But as others noted, it is also true.  As my career counseling clients all know, I am straightforward and honest.  I'm not hired to say what my clients want to hear, but rather what they need to hear.  The jewelry you wear to an interview sends a message.

So what about a wedding ring?  Your marital status, at least in the United States, is a protected class.  You cannot be discriminated against because you are married.  There is no reason not to wear a wedding ring.  In fact, being married is something that can come up during negotiations when discussing benefits.  "I don't need health insurance; I get it through my wife's employer."  That's a statement that can get you a higher base salary.  I know because I have gotten a higher base for executive recruiting candidates who did not need health insurance.  On the other hand, if the employer only offers health insurance for the employee, that can be a problem if the candidate has a wife and children.  It must be discussed, albeit at the appropriate time.

Employers are not required to provide health insurance to a person to whom a candidate is engaged.  It would not come up in conversation.  "Will my health insurance cover my girl friend?  We're engaged and plan to get married springtime."  Pause for laughter.

A wedding ring sends the message that you are stable and not afraid of commitment.  It tends to indicate that you will remain on the job for a long time, as opposed to a single person who has no roots in the community and could be recruited away.  No worries for her about finding a job for the spouse or a new school for the kids. 

The only negative I can think of with wearing a wedding ring is that an employer might think that a young woman may decide to have children which will cause problems for the company.  That is why there are laws restricting neanderthal behavior.  True, it will always exist.  But there's little to nothing you can do about it unless you can prove it, which is very rare.  In any case, why would you want to work for someone like that?

(And, before anyone asks, I once had a client who I believed discriminated.  I dropped her.  And I reported her to the relevant New York City, New York State and Federal authorities.  The response from all:  Thanks but since you were not the candidate, you have no standing.  And when I contacted the candidate, she did not want to pursue it because she was worried about retaliation as the employer was very well connected in their industry.)

So to summarize, the large engagement ring remains home where it belongs, and the wedding ring stays on the finger where it belongs.

But what of the Rolex?

The question was asked, I assume, because the critic thought that there is a moral equivalency between an expensive ring and an equally expensive watch.

Given that the engagement ring is the assumed (by the giver, unless the woman actually picked it out!) price the recipient put on entering into their verbal contract, and the Rolex was either purchased by the wearer or given as a gift for some unknown promise on their part, I do not see a moral equivalency.  That said, with only two exceptions, I would not wear anything expensive to a job interview.  You don't want this conversation to take place:

Interviewer A:  Great guy.  We should hire him.

Interviewer B:  Did you see his watch?  He's wearing a $50,000 Rolex.  We could never afford him!

And, no, they will not call to discuss it with you.  They'll move on to the qualified candidate with the Timex (which is what I wear!).

What are the two exceptions?  First, if you are looking for a sales position.  Then you can say, "You see this watch.  It's a Rolex.  Look outside, you'll see my BMW in your parking lot.  I like expensive things.  I work on commission.  I'm good enough to afford this lifestyle.  Any questions?" 

Second, if you are applying for an executive position at a major corporation where your peers have that lifestyle and will only take you seriously if you do as well, then you need it.  But at that level, you'll know how to be subtle about it, not like our salesman!

In a perfect world we would be judged solely on our professional qualifications.  It is not a perfect world.  And our behavior is relevant in a job interview.  Behavior includes what you wear to an interview and, whether you like it or not, how you behave on-line.  Except if it is for religious or health purposes, or a consequence of sexual orientation, an employer can reject an employee based on what they are wearing.  They can always be rejected based on how they act.

And here is the final post in the trilogy.

UPDATE:  As a career counselor I was not able to reveal the names of the people I advised.  But here is an article on the subject which confirms my advice:  https://www.bravotv.com/blogs/ditch-the-engagement-ring-in-interviews-says-one-expert

And here is an article written by Samantha Cooney for TIME.

Lastly, here is some research that confirms what I have been saying.

--------------------------------

Bruce Hurwitz is an executive recruiter, career counselor and business advisor.  In addition to serving on the Board of Directors of the Manhattan Chamber of Commerce, he chairs their Entrepreneurs Network, hosts their weekly podcast – The Voice of Manhattan Business – and serves as an Ambassador.  Visit the homepage of his website, www.hsstaffing.com, to read about the latest questionable offerings of so-called job search assistance companies.

Sadly, I have reached the maximum number of first-degree connections on LinkedIn.  This means we cannot connect.  The alternative is for you to “follow” me.

Have job search questions?  Send them to me and I'll try to answer them in 20-seconds.

In New York City on August 19 at Noon?  Join me at SIBL for a talk on effective job search strategies.