Be Professional” is Code For “Fit In

“Be professional.”

That request (or rather, expectation) feels like yet another demand placed on us to conform to an already ill-fitted environment. We're left with the responsibility of making our behavior, our presence, our existence, another thing we must change to survive.

And yes, it is survival, because Capitalism, amirite?

“Be professional.”

When I hear that, I have to wonder: did my mask drop, or did I just perform some kind of workplace faux pas, some social awkwardness? Either way, in that demand, you’re asking me to audit myself and my behavior. And once I’m auditing myself, I have to wonder about you. Who’s making the demand, and wtf do they mean by that?

Professionalism is such a loaded word that the demand lends itself to immediate scrutiny.

The Dog Whistle

That blanket statement is conveniently applicable across all domains, yet what it omits is specificity. That's corporate for: one size fits all is the new weapon.

Now we're having to ask what it is about what we're doing that is unprofessional. We're unpacking a simple phrase that carries layers of microaggressive meanings and insinuations.

Underneath all of it, it's an image thing, an optics thing, an aesthetic thing, a superficial thing that's not rooted in anything legitimately skill-related.

We've all likely had a comment about one or five of these in our lives. Tone policing. Hair texture, style, color. Shaking hands, or the refusal to. Firm boundaries around work-life balance. What our faces look like when we're in the zone. The list goes on.

It’s about perceived conduct.

The Rebrand

Once it's about optics, it becomes personal. Code-switching, masking, the CROWN Act, AAVE, culture fit. Those are prime examples of where professionalism crosses the boundary into profiling.

When a company uses abstract descriptors that don't claim anything in particular, it gets the perfect ammunition to make anyone it deems inconvenient the problem at any time.

The new language gives companies, hiring managers, whoever, the opportunity to pick and choose the thing they can single out. Because what is company culture? What is the vibe? If they don't explicitly say what it is, they can make any claim they want.

We'll find the language out in the wild before we join a team or company, on job applications, on company websites, and in interviews. And when our marginalization lends itself to unintentional visibility, we become the easiest to scrutinize, the easiest to single out.

That vagueness cuts both ways, though. Language selling a false sense of equality is a red flag, because no matter what, there's a hierarchy, and to suggest otherwise is a misrepresentation. People need the job, they are the ones asking, and that is inherently hierarchical.

One silver lining is that it gives us a chance to screen them before they screen us.

Policing the Person

It's a lose-lose. When a company makes a demand of a person's conduct that has little impact on what they produce, it's slowing down the process. It's slowing down efficiency. It's misdirecting attention. Because now they've put someone in the position where they have to defend their behavior instead of the work they're actually doing, and that effectively holds up the work. It turns a working dynamic into a problem and a solution—the problem being the person under scrutiny.

That's such a slippery slope. The second that person needs accommodation or holds a boundary that relates to their accessibility, they are again being policed, viewed as a wavemaker, and a disruption. But that was because expectations remained rigid when inviting this person in, instead of opening up and accommodating them.

That's part of the problem with large corporations and faceless companies. They don't take the time, nor do they want to invest the time, in actually being diverse. They want to appear diverse, and there's a difference. That difference lies in how the individual person is viewed in the workspace.

When a company doesn't take the time to have a diverse group of people and also educate its people, what you'll find is the person who sticks out against the grain, simply because they are different and work differently. The conversation stops ever being about what they can do. It becomes about what they aren't doing, what they lack, what they need.

It's micromanaging a human being, rather than facilitating output.

What They Should Be Hiring For

The fix is straightforward. Companies and recruiters search for company fit when they should be searching for company assets: experience and applicable skills. Reframe it that way, and the lose-lose becomes a win-win.

You present yourself as an asset, and they look at you as one. The practical version is an exchange. You say, "This is what I can do for you, and this is how you get it." They say, "This is what I need from you, and this is what it will take." And where you are holding a boundary or naming an accommodation, they are building the environment that lets you be the asset they sought out and hired.

Timing is everything here. This is not an interview conversation, and it is not a conversation for when they are still considering you. This is the conversation for when they have decided they want you. When they say, "I want you," you say, "yes you do want me, and here are the conditions in which you get me."

I know that posture because I work as an independent contractor, probably the healthiest thing I have the luxury of doing for myself as an adult in my field.

The caveat is that it comes with uncertainty and inconsistency, depending on what your skill set is based on. But the great thing about the contractor dynamic is that I make my boundaries, and they are clear. When a contract is signed with me, those boundaries are laid out, established, and I own them.

You can carry that same mentality into the negotiation room. I hate that it has to be a negotiation, and it shouldn't read as an ultimatum. It is simply, "This is how I work, this is what you will get out of it, and this is what I need in order for you to get it."

That is professional. That is clear.

This isn't the time to shy away from strong language. You say accessibility. You say accommodations. You say ADA. You know your rights. This is not a power move or a takedown. When you show up the first time, knowing what you know and knowing your rights, you get a yes more often than a no, because you are not asking for more than what they are required to give you. If you don't ask, and you come back months later saying, "I need this," they have more ammunition to push back.

It is a working relationship, and it is mutually beneficial. You have a right to ask, they have a right to refuse, but it is likely they won't.

You're an asset.

When You’re Already Inside

Not everyone gets to set terms at the offer. If you are already inside, the unfortunate burden of challenging those systemic frameworks lies on the person who is scrutinized.

That conversation should not be had peer to peer. It needs to be taken immediately to the top, to somebody who can make the decision and make the change. Your hope is that they see the disparity, or are open-minded enough to see your point of view. But you do have to make the noise. It's not fair. You would want a company to have systems in place where you have an advocate, but you have to be your own advocate, especially in a large company.

You push back, and you show them that you can do your work and still be accommodated, and this is professional.

Redefine Professional

We have to redefine professional. They've rebranded it for optics, and we need to reclaim it for function and productivity. Producing something.

The way in which that gets executed has to vary. We are not a monolith as human beings, and it's insane to expect that we are. One person's work ethic will not look like another's, and to expect otherwise is the issue. It's especially an issue for people with chronic illness, people who get overstimulated, and people who are prone to burnout. We live in a world that doesn't make any of that easy, so we're constantly navigating it.

The last thing we want is to explain ourselves and justify why we need something, when we just need to do the thing you want from us. We should not have to get bogged down in the nitty gritty just to get it.

It's time for professionalism to be measured by what we can deliver under conditions in which we were invited to thrive.