Earlier this week I was having coffee with another professional talking about work and the related environments when the topic of workplace attire came up.  I have to agree with her final conclusion that throwing on a pair of yoga pants to go into the office would be most desired!  She was spot on for me!

But, just like a college degree sends a message to an employer (or potential employer) so does our outward appearance (like it or not).  The Signaling Theory[1] was offered by an economist in 1973 to explain how education is used by employers to evaluate ability when it is not readily observable.  Employers don’t readily have the data available on an individual’s productivity so they use things like the willingness to get an education to measure their ability to produce.  How one appears in workplace is also a signal.  Seems straightforward and I’m sure we all have understood this for some time.  We’ve all been told to “dress for success” or “dress for that next position you want.”

How women dress in the workplace can present its own set of challenges.  This isn’t to say it can’t be a challenge for men as well (yes it can be).  However, for different reasons women have to be aware of how we are judged by our co-workers (male and female) in the business setting.  The fact is that our outward appearance sends messages to those at work that can impact progress.

Every work environment is different and company policies vary widely.  Company policies can be based on long-standing company and/or industry cultures (e.g. Wall Street conjures up a certain expected appearance).  Conservative banks typically favor suits or at the very least business casual.   Construction sites, not so much.  Also, a company sets dress code(s) that in some cases is both written and unspoken.   The company policy states “business casual” but the expectation at a certain level (or even to get to that level) is more formal.  What do you do?

A former colleague of mine, Paula, worked at a firm that had a business casual policy when she started.  She observed a couple of things: 1.) the men at the top wore traditional suits, some even tailored; 2.) any employee who worked at corporate headquarters rarely just wore business casual, especially if they would be meeting with “top brass” that day; and 3.) the CEO’s view: “if you dressed sloppy, you’re thinking must be sloppy.”  She decided she would wear a business suit every day that were both pant suits and those with skirts.  She did this purposefully to look as much like the men at the top as possible.  She figured it would have a positive (or at the very least neutral) impact on her career at that firm.

Over time she was known for her dress in both a positive and negative way.  A male senior executive commented to her one day that she was the best dressed woman in the bank.  Not too long after that a female senior executive told her she needed to lose the banker look.  This particular female senior executive didn’t wear business suits, nor did she wear business casual but instead wore more of a chic and tasteful Glamour look.  I find the differing views and their owners very intriguing.

In July of 2013, the all-male Iowa Supreme Court upheld a ruling that a dental assistant had no legitimate claim to unlawful sex discrimination against her boss after he fired her.  The former boss and dentist (Dr. James Knight) fired her because he “didn’t think it was good for him to see her wearing things that accentuated her body.”  Dr. Knight’s wife demanded that she be fired, testifying “She was a big threat to our marriage.”  If Dr. Knight is so easily distracted, I’m very happy he’s not my dentist!

Personally, I think it’s great that women have so many choices in terms of work wardrobe: dresses, suits, skirts and blouses, pants and blouses, etc.  It’s far better than just khakis like Jake from State Farm!  (That sounds hideous!)   But our choices can have consequences as it can lead to the disapproval and criticism of others in the workplace and even your boss’ wife.   Even more serious, it can have an impact to employment, promotions, raises and bonuses.

Most days, like my coffee companion, I’d prefer to get up and throw on those favorite yoga pants for work, but unfortunately it wouldn’t be within company policy.  So then it’s the important decision of what message I want to send.  Like it or not, the style of fashion I chose is read by those I work with every day.  They may see classy, trampy, sloppy, neat, or disheveled depending on their perspective and make judgments about my work ethic, intelligence, intentions and abilities.

So as we wait here for that next job or promotion or raise, we have to decide what to wear and understand it may impact that next job, promotion or raise.  In the end, we have to decide what is right for us as individuals and how that aligns with our values and goals.

So what are you wearing, “Jake from State Farm”?

P.S. If you don’t get the Jake reference, it’s a U.S. commercial.  YouTube “Jake from State Farm.”

[1] Spence, A. Michael 1973. Job market signaling. Quarterly Journal of Economics 87, 355-74.

After several grueling years of working at an organization following an industry crisis, I was fried.  Those years had taken quite a toll on me both mentally, physically, professionally and personally.  70+ hour weeks in a high-stakes, male dominated environment for several years had left me ragged!  The stress had manifested into frequent heart palpitations, hives and eye twitches.  Despite this, I was able to lead my team to accomplish a great deal in the face of daunting requirements and unrealistic timelines that resulted in considerable financial rewards for the organization.  I had much to be proud of.

But the die was cast and the decision made that a replacement would be found.  It really was in the best interest of the organization and myself.  My boss, an executive manager in the organization, and I worked closely on the replacement strategy.  My goal was to ensure the organization, my team, the company’s shareholders and I were all well positioned for ongoing success. 

During one of our strategy meetings, my boss asked if I had thought about how we would communicate my changing role to the team and the organization.  Before I could say a word, he said “How about this: You’ve been working so hard for the last several years through the crisis and other big matters.  Through such hard work, you’ve managed to turn things around.  You are tired!  You want to stay here in a lesser role and get a much needed break.  You’re engaged now and you want to be able to go home and fix your fiancé dinner.”

I was floored!  I suggested that first we should start with something that is believable (I much prefer picking restaurants and everyone that knows me knows this) and telling the truth is much better in the long run to ensure we keep the trust and respect of our colleagues.  Now he was floored. “You’d really take the hit of telling people the truth, that we want to make a change.” 

Why is the truth a problem?  I was tired and a male-dominated company needed someone other than an opinionated, curly-haired blonde in the position.   But somehow following this exchange, I felt as I failed to produce top-notch work for the organization and pull off a few miracles along the way (all of which I know I did).  So why did I let this comment lead to self-doubt?

I also felt marginalized by the suggestion that I would tell people I was going home to fix my future husband dinner.  Aside from the fact he is a good cook as well, I wondered if this suggestion would have been made if I was male.  I had more than proven myself in a male-dominated culture and yet I was going home to fix dinner now??

In the end, I think my boss’s comments boiled down to the fact that he lacked diversity intelligence.  This isn’t to say he is not an intelligent person because he definitely is; he didn’t, however, understand the impact and implications of his comments.  He’s just unaware.

More importantly, why was I doubting myself?  Self-doubt or a lack of confidence is often an issue for women.    This is well documented and qualified.  In 2011, the Institute of Leadership and Management surveyed managers about how confident they feel in their professions.  Half the female respondents reported self-doubt about their job performance and careers, compared to fewer than a third of male respondents.  Many other studies demonstrate the same thing. 

Compared to male counterparts, women have less confidence.  Is this because women are more likely to be perfectionist?  Is it attributable to differences in the brain (yes, they do display differences in structure and chemistry)?  What about the backlash (yet again proven) both socially and professionally, for women who come across too confident?  Does this mean even more gender self-awareness work?

What do you think?

In the book “Lean In,” there was a chapter titled Sit at the Table which evaluated a meeting situation that included both men and women where the women sat in chairs off to the side of the room instead of at the conference room table.  Even after the author, Sheryl Sandberg, motioned them to move to the table, they remained in their seats to the side.  The author suggested that their seating choice made them seem like spectators rather than participants.  Their behavior to sit to the side of the room was surmised to be due to their gender and a related internal barrier that altered the women’s behavior.

This, indeed, could have been the case, but I’m not completely convinced.  There have been times where I have intentionally sat at the head of the table and it had nothing to do with my gender, but my own agenda for the meeting.  More specifically, I wanted to assert my leadership position with the intention of influencing the outcome of the meeting.  More often than not, it’s worked.

Shortly after I read “Lean In,” I observed a very interesting situation that reminded me of that particular chapter.  The meeting was being held in the company’s boardroom.  The boardroom was impressive with a large mahogany table that seated approximately 50 people, video conferencing capabilities, a podium and a sweeping view of the city.  Additionally, there was a couch area off to the side.  The meeting included a diverse group of senior and executive management from all business units and support areas.  The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the strategy of a very important project that was well underway.  We were at a key interception where we needed to determine how much money and human capital we were willing to commit and spend to ensure the success of the project.  Obviously, we didn’t want to overspend, but if we missed the mark and the project failed for any reason (including underspending) the domino effect would have considerable negative impact on the stock price.  It was high-stakes poker!

A member of executive management, Clark, who ran one of the company’s largest business units, entered the room just as it was beginning.  There were still two seats available at the board room table, but he chose to sit in the couch area off to the side.  The meeting got underway and a lively, even passionate, discussion ensued with participants often speaking over one another.  Clark was quiet for about the first 30 minutes of the meeting, but eventually he piped into the discussion and gave his opinion.  The room responded very interestingly when Clark spoke.  Everyone physically searched for the voice.  People physically turned in the chairs and craned their necks to see Clark speaking.  No one spoke over Clark as he shared his opinion.  I should mention he wasn’t the only member of executive management present so he wasn’t the highest ranking person there.

After the meeting, I approach Clark because I had to know why he chose to sit where he did, away from the table.  Was he trying to be accommodating and polite to those who would enter after he did so they could have a seat at the table? Was he choosing to be a spectator?  Was there some internal hurdle that made him chose the couch?  And so I asked him why.  His answer was fascinating!  He said he sat there intentionally for effect so when he decided to share his opinion he wanted it to be different than the others.  He wanted to cause people to physically seek out his voice.  He believed a booming voice off to the side would have a more lasting impact than if he were at the table.  He also wanted a different view to observe body language.  From his perspective and for that meeting, sitting off to the side was a better vantage point to accomplish his goal; in this case, to be heard.

While I sometimes chose the head of the table for effect, he chose away from the table for effect.  I’ve since added that possibility to my own “play book.”  His answer also reminded me that I needed to be aware of cognitive biases when evaluating behaviors.  I feel certain males and females decide where to sit in a meeting setting for a whole host of reasons and those reasons probably change from meeting to meeting based on a whole host of factors.  Sitting off to the side doesn’t necessarily mean that is where a woman feels she is supposed to be; it could be exactly where she wants to be “waiting.”

Where do you sit in meeting?