Imagine two candidates with identical qualifications interviewing for the same job. One arrives carrying a bottle of water, while the other walks in with an iced coffee. Should that difference matter?
Author
- Eddy Ng
Smith Professor of Equity and Inclusion in Business, Queen's University, Ontario
A recent TikTok from an American recruiter argued that it can. Discussing Gen Z candidates, Wehniainen said arriving at a corporate interview with an iced coffee can make someone appear too casual, as though the interview were simply one more errand in the day.
The video prompted a lively online debate. Some users agreed wholeheartedly, while others called the advice outdated and arbitrary. The discussion quickly became another round of the familiar "Gen Z versus everyone else" debate .
But the real question isn't whether bringing a coffee to an interview is good etiquette; it's why something so trivial can influence how we judge a candidate in the first place. Do these snap judgments actually help employers identify candidates who will perform well on the job?
The coffee is not the real issue
Nobody wants a spilled latte on the boardroom table. Slurping, rattling ice cubes or juggling a drink during a handshake can be distracting. But some reactions to interview coffee go beyond these practical concerns.
Most interviewers would probably think little of a candidate carrying a bottle of water. Many employers even offer coffee to candidates when they arrive. But bringing an iced coffee from elsewhere can evoke a different response.
The "offence" may be symbolic rather than practical. An interviewer might interpret an iced coffee as a sign that a candidate is too casual or not taking the interview seriously. Another might see the same behaviour as a sign of confidence or comfort.
The important point is that these interpretations are subjective. They may tell us more about an interviewer's expectations about what professionalism should look like than the candidate themselves.
First impressions can mislead
Research suggests interviewers can form impressions of candidates very quickly. A 2010 study , for example, found that interviewers often form impressions during the first few minutes of an encounter, sometimes before any substantive interview questions have been asked.
Those early impressions can shape how the rest of the interview unfolds. But there is an important difference between predicting interview outcomes and predicting job performance.
A review of research on job interviews found that candidates' appearances, self-presentation and non-verbal behaviours influence interview ratings more strongly than they predict future job performance.
In other words, candidates who make favourable first impressions may receive better interview without necessarily being the people who will be the most effective employee later on.
This is one reason why hiring experts generally recommend structured interviews , in which candidates are asked the same questions and evaluated using consistent criteria.
Structured interviews are among the more reliable ways of predicting future job performance, in part because they reduce the influence of subjective impressions and personal preferences.
It's not really about Gen Z
It didn't take long for an iced coffee to become a story about Gen Z. Generational labels are an easy way to explain behaviour that seems unfamiliar or inconsistent with our own expectations.
Ironically, many of the managers now judging Gen Z applicants are millennials, the generation once labelled "entitled ." Many young job seekers feel they are being judged on minor signals and unwritten rules in an increasingly competitive entry-level market.
Meanwhile, some managers and older workers are navigating more flexible and remote workplaces that have disrupted traditional workplace norms since the COVID-19 pandemic.
Social media can turn these differences into "everyone versus Gen Z" narratives because conflict attracts attention online . But many of these disagreements are really about differing assumptions about professionalism and respect.
In my study of Gen Z's workplace expectations and behaviours with colleagues , we found them to be cautious and security-focused. So what one generation considers obvious interview etiquette, another may never have been taught.
From my experience as a professor, the COVID-19 pandemic also disrupted how many young adults learned expectations in the classroom and workplace.
The problem with unwritten rules
There is another reason employers should be cautious about evaluating candidates based on small behavioural cues: standards of professionalism are rarely applied equally.
Research shows that seemingly neutral judgments about "polish," "fit" and professionalism can be influenced by age , race , gender and social class .
A senior executive carrying a cold brew might look as though he is deliberately breaking a rule - the " red sneakers effect" - while a 22-year-old first-time applicant may be seen as someone who simply doesn't know the rules. The same behaviour that is interpreted as confidence in one person can be interpreted as carelessness in another.
When hiring decisions rely heavily on unwritten rules, candidates with access to professional networks and insider knowledge also gain an advantage. First-generation professionals, newcomers or individuals unfamiliar with particular workplace cultures may be unfairly disadvantaged.
Hire for the job, not the etiquette
For job seekers, my advice is simple: if you're worried that an interviewer might judge you for bringing an iced coffee, finish it beforehand. Leaving it outside costs nothing, while bringing it in risks creating a negative impression that has little to do with your talents or ability.
But the larger issue is for employers. It's natural for interviewers to pick up on small cues, but making hiring decisions based on them is unfair and misses the point.
The goal of interviews is to find who can do the job, not who already knows every unwritten social rule about iced coffee. The less hiring depends on knowing a particular set of unwritten social rules, the more likely it is that candidates will be evaluated on the qualities that actually matter.
Eddy Ng receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
