Maggie Berry: Dress codes, patronising or practical?

-

With Gen Y firmly established in the workplace, traditional dress codes are largely a thing of the past. For women, “smart” no longer necessarily translates to a black skirt suit (below the knee) and a white blouse, and chinos and a shirt are often considered relatively smart for men.

However, with the departure of dress codes comes a new and murky area. Where does smart end and inappropriate begin? And is it patronising to enforce rules around these grey areas?

The dress code question is particularly hazardous for women, where the scope to get it right, and to make mistakes, is much wider. “Smart” is also subjective. While many would consider a floral dress and blazer to be smart, others would disagree.

So is a dress code really necessary to help women to navigate these unspoken rules, or does it patronise women to assume that they cannot choose appropriate clothing?
It seems there are four ways to go. The first is to let the idea of a dress code go altogether and to allow employees to wear whatever they deem to be appropriate. The second is to impose a strict dress code that details exactly what people have to wear. The third is a “wear what you want within reason” policy, detailing what is and isn’t acceptable. The fourth is to only have a dress code for client meetings.

Get our essential weekday HR news and updates.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Keep up with the latest in HR...
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
Optin_date
This field is hidden when viewing the form

 

If you do go with the first option and choose to have no official dress code, then be aware that enforcing one “as you go” may be seen as unfair and bring down morale. It may also make woman feel singled out, particularly if there is a policy surrounding length of skirts or something similarly subjective. It can mean that unspoken rules only apply to some. If there’s nothing written down, it’s best not to enforce policy that doesn’t exist.

Having a strict dress code is equally dangerous as it can feel draconian and restricting. It can be interpreted as a total lack of trust in employees and can lead to resentment and a more formal culture than you may have intended.

The third option seems to be a happy medium, but it has to state clearly where the boundaries lie. For example, it’s insufficient to state that “short skirts” are unacceptable. It’s better to specify what “short” means. That way people are free to make their own judgements but know where the line is between appropriate and less so.

The most important thing about any dress code is to be consistent. If you single somebody out for breaking said dress code, regardless of whether it’s implicit or explicit, then that could be interpreted as discrimination. A dress code has to apply to everyone, from MD to intern, otherwise it will breed discontent and is not worth enforcing.

In almost all cases, employees are quite savvy and can be trusted to choose their office attire wisely and what’s acceptable differs from industry to industry, even from office to office. With that in mind, everyone has a different approach, but the most important thing is to be fair. Good luck!

Maggie Berry, Managing Director, Women in Technology

Maggie Berry is Managing Director of Women in Technology, the career site and recruitment service dedicated to increasing the number of women working and achieving in IT. She has been involved since Women in Technology’s inception in the autumn of 2004 and manages all aspects of the website and the networking activities Women in Technology organises.

The network now has nearly 7,000 members and the job board is helping a wide range of investment banks and technology firms to recruit more women into their IT divisions. Her background is in technology recruitment within the financial services where she spent four years as a recruiter with McGregor Boyall Associates. Prior to this she worked for NatWest as a Graduate Banking Manager, providing financial advice to final year university students and graduates. Maggie is a graduate of the University of East Anglia.

Latest news

Alison Lucas & Lizzie Bentley Bowers: Why your offboarding process is as vital as onboarding

We know that beginnings shape performance and culture, so we take time to get them right. Endings are often rushed, avoided or delegated to process.

Reward gaps leave part-time and public sector staff ‘at disadvantage’

Unequal access to staff perks leaves part-time and public sector workers less recognised despite strong links between incentives and engagement.

Workplace workouts: simple ways to move more at your desk and boost health and productivity

Long periods at a desk can affect energy, concentration and physical comfort. Claire Small explains how regular movement during the working day can support wellbeing.

Government warned over youth jobs gap after King’s Speech

Ministers face calls for clearer action on youth employment as almost one million young people remain outside education, work or training.
- Advertisement -

UK ‘passes 8 million mental health sick days’ as anxiety and burnout hit younger workers

Anxiety, depression and burnout are driving millions of lost working days as employers face growing calls to improve mental health support.

Employers face growing duty of care pressures as business travel costs surge

Employers are under growing pressure to protect travelling staff as geopolitical instability, rising costs and disruption reshape business travel.

Must read

Peter Dando: Why ‘salary sacrifice’ needs renaming

Salary sacrifice schemes are designed to help employees make smarter financial choices - but they remain widely misunderstood.

Simon Girling: How to get the best out of your recruitment process

Simon Girling, founder of Girling Jones Recruitment, an agency which focuses on recruitment in the construction sector, discusses his top five tips for a smooth-running recruitment process.
- Advertisement -

You might also likeRELATED
Recommended to you