‘Just Play The Game’ Is The Career Advice, But Who Holds The Game Accountable?

A candidate’s ability to navigate unwritten rules should not excuse an employer’s failure to question them.

Written by Miles FromHR

Before the candidate has answered a question, the iced coffee has apparently said too much.

That is the premise behind the latest debate about interview etiquette: whether arriving with an iced coffee signals that a job applicant is too casual about the opportunity. Recruiter Caitlin Wehniainen helped ignite the discussion after suggesting that the drink could make an interview appear like another stop on someone’s errands.

The familiar advice follows: Give them nothing to criticize. Just play the game.

For someone who needs a paycheck, that guidance can be useful. A candidate should not have to sacrifice an opportunity to make a point about beverage etiquette. But the conversation becomes troubling when the applicant’s willingness to adapt receives more scrutiny than the employer’s reasoning.

Why does the person with the least power in the hiring process receive the most homework?

As a former recruiter turned organizational development and change management consultant, I approach this question from both sides. Candidates need strategies that help them navigate the hiring process as it exists. Organizations need to examine whether that process actually helps them identify top talent.

“Just play the game” addresses the first responsibility. Too often, it becomes an excuse to abandon the second.

A consequential leap exists between observing a behavior and assigning it meaning. A candidate arrives with a drink. An interviewer interprets that as insufficient seriousness. That interpretation becomes a judgment about professionalism, which may then influence a hiring decision.

At what point must the interviewer explain the connection?

If someone repeatedly interrupts the conversation, ignores instructions, or creates a safety concern, there is a specific behavior to discuss. The presence of a cup alone requires a much larger inference. The fact that something “looks like” a lack of seriousness does not establish that it is one. An interviewer’s confidence in that inference does not make it evidence.

Employers should be able to explain what a standard measures, how it relates to the work, and whether it is applied consistently. Candidates already face a version of that demand. They are asked to substantiate their qualifications with examples, results, references, and work samples. Hiring judgments deserve scrutiny, too.

For Black professionals, the question of who defines professionalism carries stakes that extend far beyond interview refreshments.

Research by Christy Zhou Koval and Ashleigh Shelby Rosette illustrates why. Across four studies, they found that Black women with natural hairstyles were perceived as less professional and less competent, and were less likely to be recommended for interviews than Black women with straightened hair and white women with straight or curly hair. These evaluations of candidate profiles demonstrate how appearance could shape assessments ostensibly concerned with professional ability.

A disposable drink and a racialized judgment about natural hair have different histories with parallel consequences. The relevance is the authority granted to the word “professional.” Without a clear definition, it can make a subjective preference sound like an objective qualification.

Once that preference becomes a hiring expectation, candidates are left to absorb the cost.

This is where career advice begets nuance.

A recruiter can advise a candidate to leave the coffee outside and still ask a hiring manager why it matters. A mentor can explain an organization’s expectations and still question whether those expectations deserve to persist. Helping someone navigate a standard does not require endorsing it.

For HR professionals, the responsibility becomes especially important when a hiring manager offers vague feedback. “Not polished enough.” “Not the right fit.” “I couldn’t picture them in front of clients.”

Those statements should begin a conversation. What specifically happened? Which responsibility would it prevent the candidate from performing? Would the same behavior prompt the same concern from another applicant?

The answer might reveal a legitimate requirement. It might also reveal an assumption nobody has previously been asked to defend.

If a presentation standard genuinely matters to the role, communicate it. If it cannot be explained clearly enough to disclose, reconsider whether it should influence the decision.

Leaders should also examine how their own conduct measures up. An organization that expects preparation, punctuality, and respectful communication from applicants should demonstrate those qualities throughout the process. Professionalism gains credibility when it creates reciprocal obligations.

Candidates will continue making practical choices. They may leave the coffee in the car, rehearse their introductions, and adjust their presentation. There is no shame in protecting an opportunity.

But their willingness to accommodate a hiring manager does not establish that the manager’s expectations are sound.

“Just play the game” may help someone get through an interview today but the people who design and oversee hiring have a responsibility to improve what happens tomorrow.

Since applicants are expected to prove they can do the job, employers should be expected to explain how their hiring standards help them identify who can.