This is an automated archive made by the Lemmit Bot.

The original was posted on /r/maliciouscompliance by /u/mdlapla on 2024-10-03 13:06:50+00:00.

Back in my days working for a Big5 consulting company, we were mandated to attend several courses.

The one that relates to the story was called “corporate image” and was about looking the part, being well dressed and such. Being that the company had a “strictly suit” policy, the idea of the course was kind of an indoctrination to the Barney Stinson’s school of dressing.

I was having a particularly rough day that day so we could say that my attitude towards the course wasn’t the best, and I sat in the back.

The guy in charge (let’s call him Corpo) starts the course by showing a video of a guy, wearing flip flops, bathing suit, t-shirt with surfer logos, badly trimmed beard and ponytail explaining some technical stuff in the most boring way, stuttering and showcasing a poor knowledge of the subject.

After the video finishes, Corpo asks if we think that the guy is a good communicator and that the message got through. Everybody says no, Corpo asks why. People starts saying that he doesn’t look the part.

Then Corpo asks me. I reply: “because he’s boring as a white wall and doesn’t know the subject well enough”.

Corpo doubles down: “don’t you think that the way he’s dressed has something to do with it?”

I say: “if he’s good, knows his stuff and communicates well, we could be fully naked for all I care”.

Everybody laughs, except Corpo. Corpo starts a full 15 minute rant about how looking the part, how wearing a suit is the most important thing because it makes someone believable and trustworthy and bla bla bla.

I interrupt him once to say “lawyers are among the most untrustworthy people on earth and they all wear suits” he continues his rant by saying that “nobody would trust a lawyer without a suit” and bla bla bla.

OK, so this is how we roll, suits are the most important thing and this is how you expect us to reply. Fine, I will comply.

Fast forward to later in the course. He shows footage of Steve Jobs and Steve Ballmer talking, engaging with the audience and being, generally, well regarded as good spokepersons, while wearing their typical outfits, which, guess what, are not suits.

When the QA about the Steve’s videos start, I say “They don’t look trustworthy, two of the top 20 rich people in the world and they wear something that I can buy for like 40 bucks at any shopping mall? where are the suits?”

Corpo by then is kinda furious with me, but I’ve managed to engage the rest of my colleagues into my side of the equation so we start arguing who’s more trustworthy, and if the brand of suit goes directly proportional to the trustworthiness of the guy.

Examples go from Pat Riley with his Armani suits to Don Corleone with his taylor-made ones. Corpo has lost the class, and everything ends prematurely when someone asks “wait, are military suits trustworthy or not?”, Corpo gasps thinking where the conversation could be heading and dismisses us ahead of schedule with a “OK, you’ve all passed this course, I think we’ll end it here”.

TLDR: Corporate baboon tries to equal wearing a suit with being a good and trustworthy spokeperson, it backfires spectacularly.