A Reversal of the Casual Dress Trend

Economists may still be arguing over the extent of America’s current recession, but most business owners agree that they have noticed a shift in the balance of power in the job market.

Since the 9/11 attacks, over a million jobs have disappeared and the national unemployment rate has crept up to as high as 5.8%. Suddenly, employers have fewer jobs to fill and more potential employees to fill them, which might explain why so many people are dressing up even as the economy trickles down.

In a Washington Post article titled “More Business, Less Casual” in the Sunday, March 17 edition, writer Amy Joyce comments that a more serious attitude permeating throughout the business world has been reflected by a return to more formal attire.

“As job seekers vie for fewer positions, a more formal dress code is emerging,” wrote Joyce. “And guess what? The dress code is being self-imposed, by applicants trying to shine brighter than other candidates, and even by employees trying to avoid a pink slip.”

In the article, Joyce cites fashion consultant and personal shopper Pamela Burns as an example of the trend. Many of her clients are asking her to help them attain a more professional look — one that does not include “business casual” staples such as khakis or T-shirts.

Another reference is made to Mike Kirkland, managing director at the Washington, DC-based office of executive recruiting firm Korn/Ferry International. He offers his theory on why so many people are opting to dress up now: “I think people think, ‘When I dress up, this [recession] will get better. When things get bad, we think coats and ties.”

Korn/Ferry International is just one of many major business firms that have adopted a more solemn attitude toward its business practices and have reinstated dress codes for the office. Another company, Lehman Brothers, a global investment bank headquartered in New York, London and Tokyo, rescinded its all-out business casual code in favor of formal attire.

The change in attitude is not just relegated to the East Coast, either. Denver Business Journal writer Bob Mook wrote about “Dressing for success in a sluggish economy” in January, adding that “It’s clearly out of style to be cavalier about being employed. Even if you try to pay restitution for your crimes by wearing a herringbone jacket, there’s a certain arrogance about wearing jeans and tennis shoes in a ‘white collar’ environment.”

In his article, Mook interviewed Judith Rasband, an image management professional for Conselle Institute of Image Management in Salt Lake City, UT, who believes that the September 11 attacks are partially responsible for America’s return to more formal days. “Anytime there is an attack on life-style or security, you’re going to see fashion return back to the traditional styles,” she said.

The war of business dress vs. business casual has been waged for quite some time, but the tide seems to be turning back toward the direction of professionalism. Though the terrorists attacks served as a catalyst for creating a more serious tone in American business, other factors have certainly played a part in the gradual change, as well.

Accountemps, the world’s largest temporary staffing service, conducted a revealing study in 2000 that sought responses from executives from the nation’s 1,000 largest companies.

When asked, “How would you describe the appearance of most employees on casual dress day?”, 39% believed that employees appeared too casual.

The statistics confirmed what many people had been thinking for quite some time: casual wear in the workplace had become too casual. In fact, many employees didn’t even know what fashions the word “casual” even encompassed.

In an effort to lessen the confusion over what constitutes appropriate casual attire, a coalition of clothing retailers and manufacturers known as the Men’s Apparel Alliance came up with a “Professional Style Scale” to educate the public.

The organization’s president, James Ammeen, felt strongly on the subject. “The trend of casualization has gone too far,” he said in a press release. “CEOs who were originally pressured by their management to institute a casual dress policy to attract new employees and retain existing ones are now trying to figure out how to repeal this so-called ‘perk’ in order to increase professionalism and productivity.”

The MAA released their scale to the general public, breaking fashion down into four levels, including:

• Style Level 1. The “untailored level” is easy to spot — your shirt doesn’t have a collar. Wearing this outfit tells people you are “available, easygoing and responsive,” but it also sends the message that you’re “temporary.”

• Style Level 2. The “casual tailored level” is distinguished from Level 1 by the addition of a collar. It sends a message that you are “cooperative, conscientious and relaxed,” but also “less authoritative” and “less influential.”

• Style Level 3. The “softly tailored level” adds a tie and jacket to Level 2. It says you are “accessible, capable, influential and consistent.”

• Style Level 4. The “tailored level,” whose key elements include a dark wool, gabardine or flannel suit with a white or light-colored dress shirt and a contrasting tie. The message you send at this level is that you are “precise, stable, credible, confident and authoritative.”

Some proponents of formal dress felt that it wasn’t enough to simply set precedents to define the boundaries of acceptable attire. Even before 9/11, many workers felt that big business needed to return to more traditional fashion values to ensure a focussed workplace environment. One attempt to encourage Americans to head into that direction came in the form of the “Dress Up Thursdays” movement, officially known as the “Let’s Get Back to Business” campaign. The publicity effort was supported by CEOs of various large corporations who endeavored to counter the unproductive effects they attributed to the implementation of “Casual Fridays.”

Judith Rasband is one of many vocal advocates for the movement. “Change in dress, or change in any factor, sparks productivity initially and for a time,” she said. “Ultimately, however, the newness of change wears off and productivity retreats to previous levels or, more often, declines. Decline in production and participation is especially noticeable with the change to casual clothing, wherein the individual’s quest for comfort gradually overrides the effort required to produce or participate.”

Though “Dress Up Thursdays” never caught on as much as anticipated, the effort did signal to businesses that it might be time for a suitable fashion change.

Not long ago, another blow was dealt to casual wear when President Bush took office and delegated a dress code for workers in the White House that sharply contrasted with President Clinton’s relaxed policy on employee attire.

Yet, despite these efforts, many believe that casual wear isn’t going anywhere. Even in the aftermath of 9/11, several major companies have yet to follow suit and change their position on casual attire. Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, Salomon Smith Barney and Bear Stearns are all on that list.

Many businesses that haven’t yet jumped on the latest trend subscribe to a philosophy similar to Accenture, a management and technology services business with over 75,000 employees in 47 countries. The firm maintains its business-casual code in the office and allows for its employees to dress either casually or formally when meeting with clients, depending on the style of dress preferred by the client.

If the business world continues to pursue a more professional business atmosphere, then it could merely be a matter of time until everybody, even clients, prefer to dress up. Maybe there is still some merit to the old adage: clothes make the man.