Generally, this is a defensive approach. Your appearance must at least match what the other party expects. If you don’t look the part, you’re signaling, intentionally or not, that you don’t care about industry norms. Iconoclasts may be interesting, but they don’t inspire trust. Of course, the specifics of your appearance depend on your industry and situation.

A legal or financial professional or a corporate executive needs to be cloaked in a conservative business suit. Midlevel sales or marketing person or a creative professional can be a bit less staid. A younger sales or marketing person or creative individual is expected to be trendy. The key is to meet expectations. Show up in a three-piece suit for an interview to land a computer graphics assignment and you’ll raise eyebrows as high as if you showed up to meet a legal client wearing a pair of Dr. Martens.

There’s only one instance that I can recall of garb and hygiene actually being used as more than just a defensive measure. Andrew Douglas came to me for help in formulating a promotion request. A structural engineer working for a new automaker, Andrew had been stuck at the same career level for five years. Together we formulated a good plan and then prepared a powerful memo outlining Andrew’s case. Andrew was supremely confident until he made his appointment to speak with his supervisor. Andrew called me in a tizzy. I asked what was wrong and he said that his meeting was set for Friday morning. I said I didn’t understand the problem. He explained that Fridays were dress-down days. Andrew felt like he was facing a catch-22.

Dress formally, as he normally would for a business meeting of this importance, and he’d stick out like a sore thumb. Dress informally and his request might not be taken as seriously. After I calmed him down we came up with a solution. Andrew dressed formally but used his out-of-the-norm garb as an icebreaker at the meeting. He started by saying that even though it was a dress-down day he wanted to dress in a manner that reflected his respect and admiration for his superior and the company. At that point, his boss literally rose from his chair, shook Andrew’s hand, and thanked him.

Implying or suggesting the other party has made a mistake will only force him to dig in his heels to defend his position and insure he doesn’t lose face. Asking someone to change her mind is the equivalent of pouring concrete around her feet: she will never change her position.

Instead of asking for a change of mind, you need to ask for reconsideration, based on new facts, facts that just happen to address the very points cited as being behind the no. Blame yourself for not having understood the situation in the first place. Say you made a terrible error in failing to include certain information. Explain that you forgot to provide all the necessary information.

Americans revere justice and the appeals process. We love the notion that last-minute revelations of new information can keep an injustice from being committed. It’s so ingrained that it has become a recurrent motif in American literature, television, and film. Most people will be happy to play a part in such an exculpatory adventure. If you come to someone as a supplicant, offering new information, he will almost certainly agree to listen and see if the new facts could change his reaction.

And if the decision was actually originally based on emotion, rather than facts, he will be under tremendous emotional pressure to now make an objective decision. Having been forced to give a factual reason for his emotional decision, and then having been offered new exculpatory facts, it will be very hard for him to say no again. Being provided with new facts also makes available a face-saving way of reversing one’s emotion-based decision. But even if he does say no, he will now be forced to provide yet another factual reason, which can, of course, be appealed with new facts. Repeated emotional nos cloaked in fake objections can only go on so long before the charade becomes apparent . . . and legally actionable.