Work in Your Pajamas
If casual Friday is good for business, why isn't every day casual? If casual Friday is not good for business, why do it?
I once asked a friend who worked for a big three accounting firm why they had to wear suits everyday. This was after shopping for many suits and seeing the financial impact. Her response was "we interact with customers daily". That's the only defense of business dress I've ever heard. Most people have no fundamental reason for why business dress is required. Unless you are selling suits, there's no reason a customer should care if you are wearing one.
To understand why business dress code is important to a business, you have to remember that the most important thing to a business is making a profit. In fact, it must be. Business can't do anything else without making a profit (or at least breaking even). So any change in dress code should be toward that end. Simply increasing revenue does not increase profit. Simply decreasing costs does not increase profit either. Any action a business takes has an impact on both revenue and costs. The trick is to maximize one while minimizing the other. Simply increasing productivity does not increase profit either.
I've never heard a suit-proponent cite studies on business dress affecting profit (or shareholder value) either positively or negatively. I was pretty sure there aren't any, but I'd never researched this.
So here's some googling, analysis and explanation. This is definitely not research, but it's enough to keep me satisfied.
It's very interesting that if you search for the phrase "productivity dress" the top-ranked links are to studies that show dressing down increases productivity.
Now look at the highly-ranked pages that claim dress codes increase productivity.
The Consell Institute of Image Management (in a somewhat dated study) says that
Their research shows a laundry list of evils caused by casual dress in a large number of firms. Some of their points are well stated and quite reasonable, such as more casual dress leading to HR complaints about sexual harrassment. Some of the points are questionable, such as seeing a "decrease in morality". Evidently immoral people are less profitable employees?
There's one non-sequitor: "loss of individuality". How can rules about what clothes you are allowed to wear cause a loss of individuality? Clothes make the person.
The most glaring omission, however, is the impact on profit. No mention of declining stock value, or earnings reports being off. Many increased costs are mentioned but that's only half of the equation.
Finally, if you want people to take your report seriously, you shouldn't conclude it with a plea for the fashion industry and the loss of jobs from people not wearing nice clothes.
Certainly Profitguide.com can shed some light on how dress codes increase profitability. Here's a good article on how to implement a dress code because "casual attire could be hurting your bottom line". Conspicuously absent is any mention of how profit is increased (in fact, the article says "could be hurting"), and only a non-cited mention of studies on productivity.
Expert Magazine cites two studies on the impact of casual dress. One is the same study by Jeffrey Magee that the Consell Institute cites, and the other a poll by labor law firm Jackson Lewis. This firm only published one set of poll results for 2000 on their website.
The 2000 JL poll, doesn't talk about the bottom line either, and also says the casual dress has a "positive effect on employee morale" and that 70% of the companies they polled have some sort of dress down day.
But then in 2001, JL says this in another poll:
Expert Mag also says
If there is a clear link between profitability and formal business dress, why isn't there a single company who can make a direct correlation between the two? Even the productivity and revenue increases cited in these articles aren't specific. Companies are proud when they find things that make them more profitable.
In reviewing a few other articles, I noticed a lot of language like this.
My suspicion is this sort of attitude is really why people want formal dress. It's about control. If we let people wear comfortable clothes they will want comfortable chairs as well.
I once asked a friend who worked for a big three accounting firm why they had to wear suits everyday. This was after shopping for many suits and seeing the financial impact. Her response was "we interact with customers daily". That's the only defense of business dress I've ever heard. Most people have no fundamental reason for why business dress is required. Unless you are selling suits, there's no reason a customer should care if you are wearing one.
To understand why business dress code is important to a business, you have to remember that the most important thing to a business is making a profit. In fact, it must be. Business can't do anything else without making a profit (or at least breaking even). So any change in dress code should be toward that end. Simply increasing revenue does not increase profit. Simply decreasing costs does not increase profit either. Any action a business takes has an impact on both revenue and costs. The trick is to maximize one while minimizing the other. Simply increasing productivity does not increase profit either.
I've never heard a suit-proponent cite studies on business dress affecting profit (or shareholder value) either positively or negatively. I was pretty sure there aren't any, but I'd never researched this.
So here's some googling, analysis and explanation. This is definitely not research, but it's enough to keep me satisfied.
It's very interesting that if you search for the phrase "productivity dress" the top-ranked links are to studies that show dressing down increases productivity.
"Seven in 10 employers believe 'dress-down' days have a beneficial effect on employee performance, with more than half believing that formal attire has a negative impact on staff." Link.
"Firms that allow their staff to wear casual clothes can benefit from increased productivity, new research suggests." Link.
""A survey by employment law firm Peninsula found that the majority of employers and their staff believe workplace 'dress down' days improve employee work performance." Link (note same study as first one above)
Now look at the highly-ranked pages that claim dress codes increase productivity.
"Looking to increase your companies productivity this year? Start with the Dress Code...How does your staff look ? Are they dressed for business? The office casual 90's are over." LinkThe above statement is by business productivity authority Dennis Dann. Dann became a management guru by selling suits, and he still does.
The Consell Institute of Image Management (in a somewhat dated study) says that
"Contrary to popular belief, dress-down days in the workplace bring a decrease in mannerly behavior and productivity" LinkBearing in mind the Consell Institute is an organization devoted to "image consultation", let's look a the specifics of their study.
Their research shows a laundry list of evils caused by casual dress in a large number of firms. Some of their points are well stated and quite reasonable, such as more casual dress leading to HR complaints about sexual harrassment. Some of the points are questionable, such as seeing a "decrease in morality". Evidently immoral people are less profitable employees?
There's one non-sequitor: "loss of individuality". How can rules about what clothes you are allowed to wear cause a loss of individuality? Clothes make the person.
The most glaring omission, however, is the impact on profit. No mention of declining stock value, or earnings reports being off. Many increased costs are mentioned but that's only half of the equation.
Finally, if you want people to take your report seriously, you shouldn't conclude it with a plea for the fashion industry and the loss of jobs from people not wearing nice clothes.
Certainly Profitguide.com can shed some light on how dress codes increase profitability. Here's a good article on how to implement a dress code because "casual attire could be hurting your bottom line". Conspicuously absent is any mention of how profit is increased (in fact, the article says "could be hurting"), and only a non-cited mention of studies on productivity.
Expert Magazine cites two studies on the impact of casual dress. One is the same study by Jeffrey Magee that the Consell Institute cites, and the other a poll by labor law firm Jackson Lewis. This firm only published one set of poll results for 2000 on their website.
The 2000 JL poll, doesn't talk about the bottom line either, and also says the casual dress has a "positive effect on employee morale" and that 70% of the companies they polled have some sort of dress down day.
But then in 2001, JL says this in another poll:
"Three out of four companies (75%) said they have a policy permitting business casual dress. Of these, 56% allow casual attire every day of the workweek. This is a 22% increase from 1999 when only 34% of those answering the question said they allow casual attire every day. The vast majority (75%) described their experience with casual dress as positive and said it improved morale (70%) and was an effective recruiting tool (34%). The only disadvantage was an increase in flirtatious behavior, cited by 17% of those who permit casual dress."So 75% of the polled companies are all making the same unprofitable mistakes? Unlikely.
Expert Mag also says
"Many companies reverting to a suits only dress code are seeing a positive impact with increased revenue generation, thus using a dress code as a marketing device"but does not mention companies, and again is half of the profit equation. Revenue generation does not mean increased profit.
If there is a clear link between profitability and formal business dress, why isn't there a single company who can make a direct correlation between the two? Even the productivity and revenue increases cited in these articles aren't specific. Companies are proud when they find things that make them more profitable.
In reviewing a few other articles, I noticed a lot of language like this.
"A new generation of workers, more interested in comfort and individual expression than in trying to fit into a rigid corporate mold, have worked their way into positions of leadership and influence. And they have begun to exercise this influence to dismantle traditional dress policies in the most conservative institutions in America."Take the word "dress" out of this statement and it reads like a speech about the threat of Communism. Casual dress is subversive and contrary to conservative business values (arg, businesses don't have values, people have values.).
My suspicion is this sort of attitude is really why people want formal dress. It's about control. If we let people wear comfortable clothes they will want comfortable chairs as well.
posted by Rob at 7:28 AM
3 Comments:
I think you quite rightly point out the spuriousness of the claim that profitability is in any way linked to business attire. I wonder if some of what is going on in these claims is a struggle with changing social norms and how to integrate these into the workplace. Until about 1968, no one would have gone to class at KU in anything more casual than business casual is today--ties were still the norm for men and women were typically in skirts (there were still debates in national mags over whether it was appropriate for women to wear pants to work). Likewise, in the business world, suits, or at least ties, offered a way to signal one's respectability, one's understanding of the norms of the business world, and thereby give an indication of one's professionalism--that is, it was an announcement of trustworthiness. I'm enough like you, I share enough of your values, that it's safe for you to do business with me.
Then in the late 1960s we get movements that challenged all forms of previously unquestioned authority, from politicians to classroom teachers. Throw in the civil rights and feminist movements and you get a situation where there's more variety in employees and, with that, more variety in social norms. It wasn't accidental that women's business suits in the late 70s and early 80s were basically mens' suits with a skirt--it was a two-way street of social pressure to make women adapt to a heretofore mens' world and of attempts by women to indicate that they could fit into this mold--that they, too, could be trusted in business.
As the older generation of business gatekeepers has retired, however, baby boomers and their progeny have come into workplaces and asked exactly the questions you posed: what does a suit have to do with productivity? My sense of the current debates is that they reflect this generational transition and highlight the gulf between those of our parents who were in any way hippies and those of our parents who called (and really believed) the hippies communists and worked to maintain the social norms of old and saw challenges to old orders as scary and threatening (couched in language of "immorality").
From my view, I willingly say good riddance to business suits as a requirement. However, I have a couple of caveats on that. First, I wish people could maintain a sense of the variation in the social environments they move through each day and respond accordingly. The salesperson who recognizes that this client will be put off by formal attire but this other client will only trust someone in it is the salesperson who will get the accounts. I feel like this goes with the fact that my students, having grown accustomed to saying anything and everything to friends in casual cell phone and email conversations, will tell me things that I don't want to know--that I can't believe they'd ever say to me--in explaining their absences. I feel like too many people are of the mindset that there is no need to alter anything about oneself--demeanor, language, depth of information, dress--no matter who they are dealing with. And while it would be nice if all of us were that open, to not care whether we can see the thong underwear of the woman who sells us our house, it usually doesn't work that way. Quite frankly, since this so isn't the norm, I'd wonder if she truly knows the norms--how to negotiate the offer--in general in her profession.
Personally, I don't want to cut myself off from the people who do have different norms. I'm not going to say "fine, if they don't like me the way I am, that's their problem." Well, to an extent I am--if they don't like me, the mind and heart and spirit that define me--that is their problem. But I think there are an awful lot of people out there--my grandparents, for example, whom I adore--who I would hate to not have gotten to know (if I weren't related to them) because we couldn't negotiate differences in ideas of what's appropriate. I hate that some businesses won't hire people with nose rings or tattoos, but I see them as trying to negotiate that line between the single view of respectability of old and a broader idea of respectability that can be found in attitude and beliefs. Alot of people assume that with the nose ring comes a snarl at other social conventions--like politeness.
Second caveat--we ought to make allowances for those around us who are more comfortable in the formal attire to wear it without this reflecting badly on others who don't. Case in point--if I could afford it, I would have a closet full of kick ass business suits and awesome heels to go with them that I would wear to teach in. I think women in well-put-together, well tailored, and well-chosen suits look fabulous, like they are on top of the world. But I would in no way want this to be taken as judgment against those GTAs or profs who are in jeans--it should be up to each of us. For me, the comfort of feeling like I look good and in charge is more important than the comfort of jeans (though well-made dress clothes are often as comfortable as jeans--just most of us can't afford them), while others will likely define comfort differently. And this should be fine.
A final point here: for me, I like noting the occasion of moving between environments with dress. So, for example, I love that it's not quite wrong but not quite the norm to wear jeans to Lidia's restaurant in KC--it makes it more fun to me, to dress up a bit, get out of my routine, and mark the specialness of the evening. And I love seeing what other women are wearing in this sort of setting, and watching how both the women and men carry themselves there. For me, this is all part of the fun. Too many people use dress as a way to disdain others, and I'm sure some of the folks eating at Lidia's do so. But from my perspective, I like the variety in environments.
And while on the one hand I want my students to feel like coming to class is such an integrated part of their lives that they can traipse in in pajamas, on the other hand I wish that they maintained more of a sense of how lucky they are to be in college and spending these years getting exposed to ideas and learning that most people don't--and in maintaining this sense, brought a bit more respect for the work of the classroom into the class by at least putting on jeans, ideally jeans that cover their ass crack. Yes one can recognize their good fortune without dressing well or up, but generally speaking I don't think they give this a thought.
Leonard Pitts also addressed these issues today, and I heartily agree with his conclusion about a sense of the occasion:
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/jul/25/baring_sole_white_house/?opinion
This is very, very interesting and goes a long way to explaining a lot of he background behind the feelings about dress codes at work.
If anything though, it shows there are far more reasons why people think this is important not for business reasons, but for other social reasons. Respect, social norms, etc.
In that context though, the term "business attire" is even more of a euphemism for uniform. Your boss wouldn't dare say "your uniform will demonstrate respect for your superiors".
Pitts' article doesn't say why there was such a flap over the flip flops. Do more terrorists wear flip flops?
this is very much interesting
https://performtogrow.com/
Post a Comment
<< Home