Dear Sir/Madam,
First of all, I thank all those who spend their precious time reading my post. I am a postgraduate of Business Administration, and I am also an Islamic scholar. Therefore, I have a beard and always wear a cap. I completed my MBA with this appearance at one of the most popular colleges in Chennai. However, after finishing the course, I attended interviews at some companies, but they refused to recruit me for the positions they had available. From their initial expressions, I could tell that they were going to reject me based on my appearance. One recruiter even asked me directly about this, and I was rejected there as well. Currently, I work in Bahrain in a good job with a competitive salary package.
From the above passage, you may understand my question. How does a person's personality significantly impact their job productivity and the assessment of their competencies before being hired?
Furthermore, if personality plays a crucial role in evaluating one's attitude and character, what kind of personality did Mahatma Gandhi have? How does our Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh's personality shine through, considering their own demeanor and attire in India?
I can provide numerous examples of individuals who have achieved a distinguished reputation in the country while wearing traditional clothing. So, why does the field of HR place more emphasis on personality rather than skills and knowledge?
Thank you.
Deen Mohammed
From India, Chennai
First of all, I thank all those who spend their precious time reading my post. I am a postgraduate of Business Administration, and I am also an Islamic scholar. Therefore, I have a beard and always wear a cap. I completed my MBA with this appearance at one of the most popular colleges in Chennai. However, after finishing the course, I attended interviews at some companies, but they refused to recruit me for the positions they had available. From their initial expressions, I could tell that they were going to reject me based on my appearance. One recruiter even asked me directly about this, and I was rejected there as well. Currently, I work in Bahrain in a good job with a competitive salary package.
From the above passage, you may understand my question. How does a person's personality significantly impact their job productivity and the assessment of their competencies before being hired?
Furthermore, if personality plays a crucial role in evaluating one's attitude and character, what kind of personality did Mahatma Gandhi have? How does our Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh's personality shine through, considering their own demeanor and attire in India?
I can provide numerous examples of individuals who have achieved a distinguished reputation in the country while wearing traditional clothing. So, why does the field of HR place more emphasis on personality rather than skills and knowledge?
Thank you.
Deen Mohammed
From India, Chennai
Dear Deen Mohammad,
Well, gentleman, you have got confused with "personality" and "personal preferences". Your candidature was turned down because of personal preferences and not because of your personality.
India is a secular country. Everybody is free to practice religion, but then it should be done at home. There is no need to carry outside the symbols of one's religion unless it is absolutely mandatory, like in Sikhism wherein it is mandatory to grow a beard or wear a bracelet.
India is a country, but it is also a sort of planet with so many religions, castes, creeds, etc., living together. For employers, it is not possible to give prominence to one particular religion. Today, if you are permitted to come up with a beard, tomorrow someone will ask to come in black outfits because they are devotees of ____. Demands will go on endlessly. Should employers run their enterprise or keep on fulfilling the personal preferences of their employees?
Every employer has their right to frame rules of employment. As far as growing a beard is concerned, almost some 20-25 years ago, the High Court of MP ruled that as per Islam, it is not mandatory to grow a beard. The verdict of the High Court does not mean that you should not practice your religion. Please practice it, but then for the sake of this practice, do not blame the other side for not being accommodative.
Some European countries have gone even a step forward. They have banned women from wearing a veil in public.
Well, you have given the example of Mahatma Gandhi. It appears that you have not read his book "My Experiments with Truth". Please read it.
By the way, one's actions speak louder about one's religiosity. Look around, and you will find that religion has not helped in any country to bridge the gap between the rich and the poor. In fact, this gap is widening. Member countries of the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) are no exception. Therefore, the less we project our religion, the better!
Thanks,
Dinesh V Divekar
From India, Bangalore
Well, gentleman, you have got confused with "personality" and "personal preferences". Your candidature was turned down because of personal preferences and not because of your personality.
India is a secular country. Everybody is free to practice religion, but then it should be done at home. There is no need to carry outside the symbols of one's religion unless it is absolutely mandatory, like in Sikhism wherein it is mandatory to grow a beard or wear a bracelet.
India is a country, but it is also a sort of planet with so many religions, castes, creeds, etc., living together. For employers, it is not possible to give prominence to one particular religion. Today, if you are permitted to come up with a beard, tomorrow someone will ask to come in black outfits because they are devotees of ____. Demands will go on endlessly. Should employers run their enterprise or keep on fulfilling the personal preferences of their employees?
Every employer has their right to frame rules of employment. As far as growing a beard is concerned, almost some 20-25 years ago, the High Court of MP ruled that as per Islam, it is not mandatory to grow a beard. The verdict of the High Court does not mean that you should not practice your religion. Please practice it, but then for the sake of this practice, do not blame the other side for not being accommodative.
Some European countries have gone even a step forward. They have banned women from wearing a veil in public.
Well, you have given the example of Mahatma Gandhi. It appears that you have not read his book "My Experiments with Truth". Please read it.
By the way, one's actions speak louder about one's religiosity. Look around, and you will find that religion has not helped in any country to bridge the gap between the rich and the poor. In fact, this gap is widening. Member countries of the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) are no exception. Therefore, the less we project our religion, the better!
Thanks,
Dinesh V Divekar
From India, Bangalore
Hi Mohd,
Somewhere, I agree with you. It's not related to our religion, whether we are Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, or Christian. Personality matters for everyone. However, I have also experienced this thing in North India - most people have fair skin color and they don't give so much importance to darker skin sometimes. But it's not exactly the case everywhere. Those who are well-educated, have a nice nature, and are serious about professionalism - for them, your talent and your qualities matter.
From India
Somewhere, I agree with you. It's not related to our religion, whether we are Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, or Christian. Personality matters for everyone. However, I have also experienced this thing in North India - most people have fair skin color and they don't give so much importance to darker skin sometimes. But it's not exactly the case everywhere. Those who are well-educated, have a nice nature, and are serious about professionalism - for them, your talent and your qualities matter.
From India
While not delving into the subject of religious discrimination, we must accept that there is large-scale discrimination happening during recruitment. I have seen discrimination in various companies based on caste (where people of higher caste are given preference over lower caste), skin color (of course, a fair and presentable girl is given preference over a not so presentable and fair girl), regional bias (usually preference is given to the candidate who shares the same religion as their potential boss), etc.
For this, I believe to a great extent the HR fraternity is to blame, as we tend to follow external and discriminatory rules rather than focusing on the competency of the person being interviewed.
From India, Mumbai
For this, I believe to a great extent the HR fraternity is to blame, as we tend to follow external and discriminatory rules rather than focusing on the competency of the person being interviewed.
From India, Mumbai
Dear Dean Mohammed,
Clashes between personal and organizational preferences occur in one form or another in all places, including workplaces. In some jobs, such clashes lead to not being selected owing to the fear of how the clients or customers of an organization will react. I am sure that if another person had attended the interview with a dhoti and religious symbols prominently displayed on the forehead, he would not have been appointed. You say that you got a good job in the Middle East; I wonder whether I would get one if I went there in my dhoti!
Coming to your examples of Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Manmohan Singh succeeding in politics, I wonder what attire the former wore when he practiced as a lawyer or a student in the UK! I am confident that he did not go about in his dhoti above the knee and a cloth to cover the top or topless. I have given lectures and seminars in Indian institutions. If I had turned up like Gandhi to such events, I am convinced that the institutions would not have hired me.
Dinesh Divekar has clearly explained the differences between personality and personal preferences, and I have nothing more to add to that.
From United Kingdom
Clashes between personal and organizational preferences occur in one form or another in all places, including workplaces. In some jobs, such clashes lead to not being selected owing to the fear of how the clients or customers of an organization will react. I am sure that if another person had attended the interview with a dhoti and religious symbols prominently displayed on the forehead, he would not have been appointed. You say that you got a good job in the Middle East; I wonder whether I would get one if I went there in my dhoti!
Coming to your examples of Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Manmohan Singh succeeding in politics, I wonder what attire the former wore when he practiced as a lawyer or a student in the UK! I am confident that he did not go about in his dhoti above the knee and a cloth to cover the top or topless. I have given lectures and seminars in Indian institutions. If I had turned up like Gandhi to such events, I am convinced that the institutions would not have hired me.
Dinesh Divekar has clearly explained the differences between personality and personal preferences, and I have nothing more to add to that.
From United Kingdom
Dear learned members,
A few members who have posted their opinions have written that what happened with Deen Mohammed was "workplace discrimination." I beg to differ with you. Had Deen Mohammed's candidacy been turned down because of his religion, it could have become a case of discrimination. However, in his case, it is his preference to express his religion outwardly that has cost him this job. Giving differential treatment because of caste, creed, religion, race, etc., is workplace discrimination, not otherwise.
Employers have the complete right to keep the workplace the way they want. I have seen in some companies that visitors have to remove their footwear before entering their office! Now, it is that employer's office, and he has made this rule. Whether to deal with this company or not is a personal preference of job candidates, vendors, consultants, etc.
Thanks,
Dinesh V Divekar
From India, Bangalore
A few members who have posted their opinions have written that what happened with Deen Mohammed was "workplace discrimination." I beg to differ with you. Had Deen Mohammed's candidacy been turned down because of his religion, it could have become a case of discrimination. However, in his case, it is his preference to express his religion outwardly that has cost him this job. Giving differential treatment because of caste, creed, religion, race, etc., is workplace discrimination, not otherwise.
Employers have the complete right to keep the workplace the way they want. I have seen in some companies that visitors have to remove their footwear before entering their office! Now, it is that employer's office, and he has made this rule. Whether to deal with this company or not is a personal preference of job candidates, vendors, consultants, etc.
Thanks,
Dinesh V Divekar
From India, Bangalore
First thing is that they do not reject you based on your personality but the appearance and the standards you follow.
While going for an interview, you must follow the professionalism and etiquette depending on the job you are going for. For corporate jobs, you must follow the same. Being religious is good, but unnecessarily showing off among others can be a cause of a problem. Also, companies have their own rules and regulations, and they have the right to reject a candidate if they find that a particular candidate doesn't fit among others or does not fulfill the company standards. Sometimes, it's a personal choice. So, if you find yourself not following the standards for the company, then it's better you leave and move to places where your standards will not be an obstacle in getting a job. Companies and corporates are not going to compromise with their standards to offer you a job with the standards you follow.
From India, Lucknow
While going for an interview, you must follow the professionalism and etiquette depending on the job you are going for. For corporate jobs, you must follow the same. Being religious is good, but unnecessarily showing off among others can be a cause of a problem. Also, companies have their own rules and regulations, and they have the right to reject a candidate if they find that a particular candidate doesn't fit among others or does not fulfill the company standards. Sometimes, it's a personal choice. So, if you find yourself not following the standards for the company, then it's better you leave and move to places where your standards will not be an obstacle in getting a job. Companies and corporates are not going to compromise with their standards to offer you a job with the standards you follow.
From India, Lucknow
Dear Senior Members,
Once again, I thank you all for posting replies to my thread. I am sorry if there has been any misunderstanding regarding my initial post. What I am trying to express is, as Mr. Dinesh mentioned, "There is no need to display outward symbols of one's religion unless it is absolutely mandatory like in Sikhism, wherein it is necessary to grow a beard or wear a bracelet." If something is deemed absolutely mandatory, it should be permitted in all organizations, ranging from lower-level positions to high-level corporate offices. Similarly, the wearing of a beard is mandatory in Islam as well. I am even willing to remove my cap in the workplace since it is not as significant. However, Sikh individuals, who wear large turbans along with beards, are employed in various organizations worldwide, not just in India. So, why are recruiters not allowing individuals of other faiths to follow their traditions?
Regarding the impact of personal preferences on one's job, as Mr. Dinesh stated, "Personal preferences" should not influence one's performance in the workplace. A person's productivity is not determined by their personal choices but rather by their attitude, skills, and knowledge that they contribute to the company.
I would like to address Ms. Couvery's comment: "While going for an interview, you must adhere to professionalism and etiquette based on the job you are applying for. For corporate positions, the same standards should be followed." What if a Sikh individual attends an interview with their beard and turban and gets hired, while another individual with a beard and cap or someone with religious markings on their forehead gets rejected, despite all candidates having equal qualifications? What reasoning can be provided for this discrepancy?
Thank you for your attention and consideration.
From India, Chennai
Once again, I thank you all for posting replies to my thread. I am sorry if there has been any misunderstanding regarding my initial post. What I am trying to express is, as Mr. Dinesh mentioned, "There is no need to display outward symbols of one's religion unless it is absolutely mandatory like in Sikhism, wherein it is necessary to grow a beard or wear a bracelet." If something is deemed absolutely mandatory, it should be permitted in all organizations, ranging from lower-level positions to high-level corporate offices. Similarly, the wearing of a beard is mandatory in Islam as well. I am even willing to remove my cap in the workplace since it is not as significant. However, Sikh individuals, who wear large turbans along with beards, are employed in various organizations worldwide, not just in India. So, why are recruiters not allowing individuals of other faiths to follow their traditions?
Regarding the impact of personal preferences on one's job, as Mr. Dinesh stated, "Personal preferences" should not influence one's performance in the workplace. A person's productivity is not determined by their personal choices but rather by their attitude, skills, and knowledge that they contribute to the company.
I would like to address Ms. Couvery's comment: "While going for an interview, you must adhere to professionalism and etiquette based on the job you are applying for. For corporate positions, the same standards should be followed." What if a Sikh individual attends an interview with their beard and turban and gets hired, while another individual with a beard and cap or someone with religious markings on their forehead gets rejected, despite all candidates having equal qualifications? What reasoning can be provided for this discrepancy?
Thank you for your attention and consideration.
From India, Chennai
I was discussing this issue with a friend during our daily walk. He said that there is a saying in Kannada language "PAthrakke takkaMte vEsha". That means "Dress according to the role." He gave me an example: just because someone is a good actor and knows all the script, he can't wear a suit or wear a turban, etc., for the part of Mahatma Gandhi (MG). Ben Kingsley wore a dhoti like MG did, and the role was successful. Had he depicted with any other attire, the film would have been a flop. Similarly, if one has to act as Mualana Abdul Kalam Azad, he cannot be shown with a dhoti and clean-shaven head. The same goes for the need to wear certain attire for certain jobs.
Though orthodox Sikhs wear a turban and grow a beard, etc., there are a lot of Sikhs who do not do that and are successful actors. If these actors had grown a beard and insisted on wearing a turban, the number of parts that they would have been chosen would have been limited.
From United Kingdom
Though orthodox Sikhs wear a turban and grow a beard, etc., there are a lot of Sikhs who do not do that and are successful actors. If these actors had grown a beard and insisted on wearing a turban, the number of parts that they would have been chosen would have been limited.
From United Kingdom
Please see RARE PHOTOS: Remembering The Mahatma - Rediff.com News to appreciate how Mahatma Gandhi's attire changed over the years.
From United Kingdom
From United Kingdom
Engage with peers to discuss and resolve work and business challenges collaboratively - share and document your knowledge. Our AI-powered platform, features real-time fact-checking, peer reviews, and an extensive historical knowledge base. - Join & Be Part Of Our Community.