Having recently graduated from Uni I'm in the awesome position of trying to find a job. The job centre has just posted a couple of openings that I'm interested in but I need to send an email to the respective companies in order to apply. The problem is I have no idea how you're supposed to address the person in question. I think one needs to be "To whom it may concern", since it's a generic email address at a recruitment agency acting as a proxy, but the other is a person's full name. Should that be "Dear Mrs _______"? Or is it better to use Ms.? It is definitely a woman, by the way

Or in the first case, should I avoid "to whom it may concern" as it's a little formal? Like using "Dear Sir/Madam" instead?

Hopefully this gets a few more replies than my DA2 thread...

Use the first name if you can.

If it's to HR, then Dear All / Dear HR would do just as well IMO.

PS. The only thing that I hate more than "To whom it may concern" in bizzspk is "please do the needful." I always have a feeling that they're telling me to go **** myself.

"To whom it may concern" is silly. It doesn't tell the recipient whether or not to read it until they've actually read it.

I suppose it depends on the field but every job I've ever applied to that started out with "Dear Mr. ___" ended up with "Hey Mike" in later e-mails. Most reasonable people don't like to be that formal (probably because "formality" is artificial bull****).

I don't think "To whom it may concern" is bad, it usually just means the person isn't sure if the email address will be the person they need to contact.

I've never even heard "please do the needful." NNN DOES NOT COMPUTE!!1

The problem with "to whom it may concern" is that it's a completely pointless address. OF COURSE it's only for the people it affects, who else would it be for? It's like saying "you don't need to read this if it doesn't affect you" well no ****.

I see your point, Emon, but KOP's idea is the same thought I had. I don't know who these emails are dealt with by the company, so how do I address them?

Mr. or Mrs. if you know their sex and marital status (Miss, Ms., Mrs.)
Dr. if appropriate

But if it's a generic email address (resumes@xyz.com or jobs @xyz.com) or nondescript (like smith @xyz.com or "A.Jones@xyz.com) I would go with:

"HR Department/Hiring Manager,"
"Dear Sir/Madam,"
"Engineering Manager," "Marketing Manager," etc for whatever department you are interested in.

Livid, what industry are you in? What's the position for? Because this greatly affects how formal you should carry yourself. If you're applying for some stuffy government job or a business or marketing type position that requires that you interact with people in a formal matter as part of your job, then you should probably address them formally. If you're applying for an engineering position (particularly within software) or a creative/artistic position you can (and should) be much less formal. Like Steven said, I'd try to address the person if possible. If it's a group, "Dear all" is fine as Koobie mentioned. Really, most people aren't going to care that much as long as it doesn't read "Dear f***face"

(Edit: Rant follows, I hate formal business nonsense)

I'm in software so I'll use that as an example. Of all the big software companies you could work for, the best are the ones that are informal. Microsoft, Google, Apple, Amazon etc. You'd never interview with those guys wearing a suit. Wearing a t-shirt and jeans is completely acceptable. You'd never write a formal business letter to a recruiter. These are pretty smart companies and they recognize that these traditional practices are garbage and have nothing to do with how well you do your job. All the people I've talked to and interviewed with at these types of companies really just prefer to talk to people. Address them as individuals like you're having a normal conversation.

And just as an aside, I think dress code can be an oddly telling factor about a lot of companies. I hate dress codes, with a freaking passion. If all I do is sit in an office or cube all day and write code, occasionally meeting with coworkers, there's no need for me to dress up. It does not make me "more productive," that's early 20th century managerial bull****. A lax dress code doesn't necessarily tell you anything good about a company but a strict dress code, at least at a software company, is a sign to run far, far away. If I walked into an office and saw all the developers in shirts, ties or suits I'd immediately think "this company writes terrible software." If someone told me that I had to wear a shirt and tie to work everyday I'd head for the door.

^ This is why you'll never be in charge of anything important.

[I'm not in software, maybe that particular industry is an exception, but for the most part, you're full of ****]

I'm not in any industry, to be quite honest. I just need a job and I've finally found openings that are both in reach and work I can do very well.

I'm just taking the tone that the job posting was written in and trying to respond in kind. I don't know if it's a regional thing but I couldn't imagine attending a job interview in a t-shirt. Like Steven said, maybe that is an exception in the case of software engineering. I'm certainly not applying for positions that require creativity or an artistic flair, so maybe that's where the difference lies.

Anyway, thanks to everyone for their advice.

Oh, and how is that? In what way does dressing up for an interview say ANYTHING about how well someone can write software, design a part, make a 3D model? I'm not talking about positions that specifically require customer interaction. That's a lot more delicate. I'm talking about the positions that 90% of students coming from an engineering school apply for. Yeah, plenty of companies still care about this stuff. And plenty of companies aren't worth working for, either.

Technically all addresses are pointless then, using that logic. If you're emailing to someone at johndoe@thejobyouwant.com, then why open with: "Dear John" or "Dear Mr. Doe". Isn't it obvious you are addressing the person you are sending the e-mail to?

I'm just being overcritical of course and I don't really think what I just said. I was simply making a point that because "to whom it may concern" may be a pointless address, it's just a way of opening the e-mail or letter, just like all greetings.

Emon, your on to something there. I started working at a software company about 4 months ago. There is a dress code, nothing serious like ties and tucked in shirts but for instance they look down on shorts (I'll call it business casual). The software is definitely sub par.

That's a fair point. With e-mail the only time you actually need to address someone is if it's going to a mailbox where more than one person might read it (like a department mailbox).

Software development is different.

I'm not a huge fan of dress codes either, but honestly I'd do it for the pay. I don't mind dressing "business casual-lite" (eg, clean jeans/polo or clean jeans/button-up + no sneakers) but suit and tie is just way beyond the norm for software development.

I wore dress pants + dress shirt + jacket to an interview once. I was interviewed by an HR manager, and one of the lead developers - HR manager was semi-formal, developer was t-shirt and shorts. We had a bit of a laugh over how formally dressed I was, but it wasn't uncomfortable or anything.

I'd hardly use it as a rule but it does set off a red flag when a company tells me I have to dress up for something that doesn't actually require me to dress up.

The old train of thought is that if you look more productive you will be more productive. It's rubbish and there's a ton of research showing the exact opposite. People are productive when they are comfortable.

Oh look at me! I'm in charge of 20 people and I wear a tie to work everyday! Everyone should be like me!

Look at me! No one loves me and I can't make any cogent argument, so I'm going to resort to unfounded personal attacks! My mom is more popular on this internet board than I am!

Grow up.

I guess my root of the disagreement is that at some level society has decided that some things need to be "formal" and "professional" and that how you dress and speak should somehow have any bearing on who you are or what you can do. It's just a way for people to judge you without actually looking at who you are or what you've done, and it's shallow and stupid. There are plenty of jobs that require you to interact with the outside world, so on that side it's unavoidable. I'm not talking about those positions. If your job necessitates that you interact with clients at other companies on a daily basis then it's probably worth showing that you can conform to said artificial "professional" conduct. But the rest of us? Yeah, no thanks.

You're only looking at things from one perspective: the lackey. You have to think about it from the perspective of the employer. Slovenly, disheveled employees are bad for business, in many ways. I'll write a more detailed response later, because right now I have to go to a meeting. I just wanted to let you know I'm not bailing on the argument, I'm at work right now.

Well the examples above, microsoft, google ect, I wouldn't call them dirty but their business isn't going to bad.

Who said anything about slovenly and disheveled? Informal clothing is neither. What exactly is "bad for business?" It's probably not a good idea to have a press release while wearing flipflops. But I fail to see how your employees dressing casually every day has any affect on the business.

If you go to one of the big places I mentioned like Google or Microsoft you'll find high level project managers dressed in summer shirts and flip flops. It's really not uncommon. I interviewed with various team leads at Microsoft and not one of them had a shirt tucked in.

It's your own preference that you want to push onto everybody else and you know it.

Well um, before we take this way off track, Livid, do you have an answer to your question?

"Hey mofo, read this mail yo"

Haha! Yes, thanks. Carry on

Don't you tell me what I know and what I don't know. Your ignorance and hated for "the man" and "the corporations" has destroyed your grasp on reality, and your constant need to bicker and argue about the above "evils" has ruined any legitimate argument you may have had. You are a joke.



Anyway, dress codes. While I don't agree with the totalitarian dress codes most of you have in mind (stuffy three piece suits), dress codes do serve some important purposes. Please note: every corporation in the world is not the same. Some companies can do things some ways, others can do things other ways. I would like to assert this, however: people will try to push to the boundaries. People are always trying to see how far they can go before getting in trouble. Have a loose or nonexistent dress code, and there will be the one guy or girl who shows up sweatpants. I am not advocating three piece suits; I am advocating having a written standard.

When a company has a dress code, the overall appearance of the employees looks neat and uniform. In companies where the employees are not dealing with customers, this may not be quite so important, but it will never hurt the company for employees to look neat and professional. When things look organized, it actually helps the employees to be organized. How the public perceives your company is important to the type and amount of business you will do.

Creating a dress code eliminates the guess work for employees. Everyone has different ideas of what is professional and even more so what is appropriate. When the dress code is clear, it can reduce distraction caused by the guys trying to look up that really short skirt and the ladies making "catty comments. Or, the guy whose pants are so tight they look like they were painted on. This means people are more likely to be working or discussing work than chatting about what their coworkers are wearing to work "this time". This can avoid many sexual harassment suits, though new lawsuits are being brought that dress codes "inhibit my sexual freedoms" and "deny my my ability to express my religion" and other bull**** like that.

Within any potential dress codes, a word of caution is in order. Employees like to express themselves in their manner of dress. Happy employees need to feel as if they look good, so individual expression should not be totally eliminated by overly strict control of attire. Image, and professionalism are not synonymous with being a control freak!

I love that I can wear pretty much whatever I want to work, but I understand the point of dress codes and why they're necessary for some companies. My last job had a fairly standard dress code (slacks & polos or button-down shirts at minimum), but that never lead me to think anything less of the people that worked there or their abilities.

I suppose that's fair. It's also worth noting that even "no dress code" is still really a dress code. So perhaps dress codes should be about don't's, not about do's.


I'm going to call BS on this, because I've specifically seen many studies that show the opposite: people are most productive and organized when they self organize. Micromanagement is a terrible idea, and a dress code is just another (albeit small) form of it. (I can find this when I get home from work)


That's definitely true and I agree. Sorry if I was overzealous in my original rant post... I didn't mean to imply the opposite of this. I'm specifically talking about jobs where the employee has minimal contact with people outside the company.


Harassment suites aside (I am not advocating that women should wear nothing to work), I also have a problem with this. Knowledge workers are not production workers. This statement assumes that for every minute in conversation, a minute of work is lost. It doesn't work that way. It's not a production line. This applies to all knowledge jobs I think, but software provides perhaps some of the more outspoken criticisms of it. It's a classic mistake thinking that more hours = more work done. Software engineers actually spend very little time writing code and instead spend a lot more time thinking and designing, and you can't force more of that by having people work more hours. Same goes for anything knowledge based. Doesn't matter if it's designing software, a component for a microprocessor or even a graphic design for a flyer.

Reducing work weeks by 5-10 hours can increase productivity but will reduce volume (again, references when I get home). If I recall correctly, the average work week for knowledge workers in Germany is 30-35 hours. I imagine that I waste at least 5 hours at work every week because I just can't think about my work after a certain point. Throwing more time at it just doesn't work. It would usually be better for me to just go home, but I work for a government contractor and hours have to be logged and I don't feel particularly good about lying about them.

Your counterpoints are fair, and I mostly agree with most of them. I don't disagree with any of them enough to bother arguing. It seems that if we're 80% agreed, there is no sense in arguing the last 20%. We've found a happy medium.

What the hell? This is Massassi! The discussion forum exists for nothing else than to needlessly debate the 20%!

How about you and me go toe-to-toe on bird law and see who comes out the victor?

Why... why aren't you.

At least I don't delude myself into thinking I have a grasp on reality, like some people. Besides, if anything's the joke around here, it's your "written standard" dress code. How does it feel knowing that no one takes it seriously, and the few who do hate whoever wrote it?

I'm not even going to bother. You're either ignorant, or insane, or both.

Didn't read the rest of the thread, but I STRONGLY STRONGLY STRONGLY recommend "Dear Sir," or "Dear Ma'am," (or in the event that you don't know if the person you're addressing is male or female, "Dear Sir or Ma'am,").

It's professional and courteous without being overly formal.

Is this how you treat your employees?

No wonder you're the boss..

Haha, you're doing it on purpose. You're silly. I guess you had me going.