All Posts in Policies and Procedures

|In: Leadership|Last Updated:

I heard, through a back channel, that a Very Important CEO (VICEO) was giving an award to a project manager who had just led a difficult undertaking to success. In a large gathering, the VICEO invited the project manager to the podium. She stepped up in an outfit that revealed her midriff, replete with ornamented navel.

How should the VICEO have responded? He could have given her the award without comment. He could have announced that this is how all project managers should dress, and that from here on in he would dress this way, too.

Instead, he instituted a business-formal dress code for the entire company, probably because (follow closely now):

1. A high-performing employee,

2. Dressed inappropriately for an occasion, so

3. He’d better institute a rigid dress code, to prevent

4. The poor performance that comes from inappropriate dress, as evidenced by

5. The high-performing employee who dressed inappropriately.

Or maybe he just figured, “This woman’s attire is disrespectful (to me), so I’d better do something about it.”

Abraham Lincoln faced a similar circumstance. To the woman who informed him, disapprovingly, that Ulysses S. Grant had been known to (ohmigawd!) drink he famously responded that he wanted to know the brand of bourbon so he could give it to his other generals.

The past two columns on dress codes generated quite a bit of mail. One letter described the “eyebrow test” suggested by A. J. (“Flip”) Filipowski, president of Platinum Technology back in the good old days: If co-workers raise their eyebrows when they look at you, you might want to reconsider your fashion choice. Filipowski also, on one memorable occasion, broadcast a voicemail describing the company’s new dress code policy: If any manager tried to establish a dress code at Platinum Technology, he’d immediately fire that manager. (But eventually, Platinum sold out to Computer Associates. Draw your own conclusions.)

Ron Watson recounted his experience. In the 1970’s he managed a small data entry group. The ‘uniform’ of the day was, for the women, a skirt and blouse. Most looked a bit frumpy. Ron figured they didn’t make a lot of money and had families to take care of, so he told them they could wear casual and more comfortable clothes if they wanted. They all started wearing pants, and looked much better. They were unwilling to spend much on clothes worn only to work. They spent more when it came to clothes they could wear in private life as well. And, there was a distinct improvement in morale.

Dr. Ronny Richardson, professor of management at Southern Polytechnic State University, has both military and corporate experience. He suspects the preference for business formal originated in the military, where who must defer to whom is evident at a glance.

In the Fortune 100 companies he’s worked with and in, the price and fit of the suit correlates well with rank: Shirtsleeves and tie at low levels; a sport jacket at the next; then a JC Penny suit, and so on. Rank is immediately apparent as well.

Another military anecdote described a base in Texas where the dress was fatigues and morale was poor. The cause? Nobody expected the commies to invade Texas. Which made their duty rather pointless. The solution? The base commander instituted formal dress on Fridays, and morale and discipline immediately improved.

Which leads to speculation regarding the impact on morale had the base commander tried to establish a sense of importance regarding the actual mission of the base. And if dress attire improves morale so much, why not require it during combat?

Instead of worrying about how employees dress, consider this policy: “We hire responsible adults. Our success depends on our employing responsible adults. We treat the men and women who work here as adults, and expect them to be adults, act like adults, and show mature, adult judgment. If, in the judgment of your manager, you aren’t acting like a responsible adult, your manager has a responsibility to work with you to determine whether you’re capable of doing so in the future or whether you’d be better off working elsewhere.” It’s the policy we’d institute at IT Catalysts, Inc. if we had a policy manual.

Which leads to a comment made by several correspondents: that two (now three) columns about dress codes is a lot of time and effort expended on an unimportant issue.

That’s my point exactly. I’m glad you agree.

Comments

|In: Leadership|Last Updated:

Picture this. Your telephone rings at 1:55pm. The call is from the person with whom you have a 2:00pm appointment. He has to cancel your meeting. Suddenly, you have an hour free. How should you spend that hour? You could focus on:

  • New ways to improve the application integration process.
  • Figuring out what to do about some new IT managers who were talented staff members but who aren’t making the transition to leadership well.
  • Deciding who needs to be part of the ERP system selection committee.
  • Writing a twenty-page dress code.

I’m still trying to figure out how any executive in a 21st century enterprise could have the time to worry about writing any dress code more complicated than the one used by General Mills, reported here last week, which says, “Dress for your day.”

Still, there are plenty of executives who become downright excitable about this issue. Supporting them is a widely cited study by Dr. Jeffrey L. Magee, who surveyed 500 firms of varying size. According to published summaries of his research, Dr. Magee found a wide variety of deleterious effects result from a move to business casual:

  • Decrease in ethical behavior.
  • Decrease in polite, mannerly behavior.
  • Increase in gutter language and conversation.
  • Decrease in morality.
  • Increase in provocative actions.
  • Decrease in productivity and overall quality of work.
  • Decrease in commitment and company loyalty.
  • Increase in complaints to HR.
  • Increase in litigation.
  • Increase in tardiness.

I’m skeptical, in part because the phrasing used in describing these results strongly suggests methodological bias. I’d be interested, for example, in finding out who’s judging whom, and how, with respect to what constitutes polite, mannerly behavior. It would be unsurprising if the underlying issue is reduced deference to those in positions of authority. This might be a consequence of a move to business casual. If so, it’s a benefit. In my experience, reduced deference is good for those in authority. It helps them avoid the misguided sense of infallibility that infests so many executive suites.I also have to wonder just how casual attire links to an increase in “gutter language.” And to anticipate the inevitable wisecrack, yes, I’d be wondering even had former CEO Dick Cheney not used the effenheimer while wearing an expensive suit and tie.The decrease in morality is also suspect. Most likely the subject is revealing clothing as worn by low-level female employees rather than insider trading and fraud as practiced by high-level executives — a different form of immorality closely associated with custom-tailored suits and expensive silk ties.

As for the reduction in commitment and company loyalty, oh please. This is a direct result of several decades in which U.S. corporations have increasingly and with increasing openness treated employees as fungible commodities. To the extent there’s a correlation between this and the non-wearing of suits, it’s more likely that formal clothing is symptomatic of a culture of subservience than that casual attire causes disloyalty.

It turns out, by the way, that Dr. Magee isn’t responsible for these published summaries and is concerned that they’ve oversimplified his findings. His research was confidential, on behalf of several large clients, so he couldn’t share the details — it was one of the clients that provided information to the business press. He did say, in response to my inquiry, that his research dealt exclusively with externally-facing positions and had been inappropriately generalized to cover internal functions as well; he finds the case for business formal attire in internal positions to be far less compelling. And in fact, while Dr. Magee holds a strong opinion that how you dress has a significant impact on how you behave, he also advocates “situational attire.”

(Me too: I wore a suit and tie for the photo accompanying this column; I’m wearing jeans and a t-shirt as I write it in my home office.)

Certainly, there is no sharp, bright line separating appropriate business casual dress from inappropriate sloppiness or overly revealing clothing. So what: Most issues in our lives are defined by continuums and gradations, not binary criteria that establish unambiguous boundaries.

There’s little question that a rigid dress code makes managers’ lives a bit easier, in much the same way that zero-tolerance policies simplify the lives of school principals. They’re examples of a popular principle:

When you’re incapable of providing leadership or exercising good judgment, substitute an inflexible policy.

Comments