Two Years With Harry, 19

 “Dressing for Success” became a fad in the 1980s. Even Harry wrote a book on the subject, and I sent copies to both of my kids. Even today, 30 years later, they still follow the rules Harry codified, and have had a far bigger success in their careers than I ever did. But there is another side to the story, and in September 1985 I tried to address it, without success in Teleconnect or anywhere else.

Addressing Success

Ever since we elected a handsome, debonair actor to play the role of president, appearances have become paramount (or perhaps MGM). Thus it is easy to understand the current enthusiasm for the “Dress for Success” fad. Dressing for Success suggests that one should “look nice” so as to not attract adverse attention. Getting Ahead is hard enough, even without your boss thinking you’re a slob. It’s hard to argue with such reasoning, but stick with me; I’m going to show you a different way to use it to your advantage.

My office is in my home. I don’t even telecommute; I’m already there. I live in an electronic cottage, manipulating information and modeming it off to various eager editors and publishers. I only drive my car about 3000 miles year, and, more to the point, I can dress as I see fit since clients and editors seldom wander into South Jersey’s Silicon Swamp. It’s easier to phone than to find Haddonfield.

Being the boss (as well as the labor force), and having nobody around to impress and nobody to promote me to a management position, I wear shorts and a T-shirt in the summer, and turtlenecks and heavy corduroy pants in winter. And by selecting clothing to fit the weather, I can be comfortable winter and summer, letting the house range between 60 and 80 degrees.

This kind of comfort pays off in productivity as well as energy savings; I get vastly more done now than I ever did at Bell Labs or RCA. But when I walk up to the post office, particularly during the summer with the temperature and humidity both over 90, my heart goes out to all the lawyers and other “professionals” I see rushing from air conditioned offices to air conditioned restaurants in their 3-piece suits. We could probably solve our international trade deficit if we didn’t have to import energy to cool their offices enough to make it possible for them to wear today’s business costumes.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I think that people should be neat and clean and not offend the sensibilities those who have to work with them; many of us are still a little annoyed with the smelly, disheveled hippies of the 60s and 70s who felt that by dressing like something out of La Boheme they would automatically become “creative” in spite of “The Establishment” that was trying to turn everyone into a conforming, buzz-click robot. But there is another side to the argument that today’s Yuckies would do well to remember. Let me set the background.

I attended the University of Virginia, and loved every minute of it. Going to college was a high point in my life, and “The University,” as it is called even by those of us who know that there are a few other universities out there, was just about ideal for my needs. But it had one strange factor that I did NOT like: “The Coat and Tie Tradition.” You were supposed to wear a coat and tie to class, and professors were known to ask those unsuitably clad to leave their halls of ivy.

The climate in Charlottesville, from April to October, compares favorably with that of the Black Hole of Calcutta, Washington, DC, or even South Jersey. Under such circumstances I, for one, did not wear a coat and tie, and was frequently criticized for not dressing like a gentleman. I would point out that I was not a gentleman, I was an engineer. Because Thornton Hall, the E School, was segregated on the far side of Route 29, I could usually get away with it.

But others, more traditional, would put on the uniform and sweat. I remember vividly being trapped in a room full of exam-takers on a typical June day (not so rare in Charlottesville as the poet would have us believe) and wondering what was so gentlemanly about smelling like a horse. Times the 30 or so who were taking the exam, it was worse than can be imagined.

More to the point, I was a little shaken when I heard a superbly attired (although somewhat soggy) fellow student complain bitterly, “How come Goeller gets better grades than I do, and he doesn’t wear a coat and tie to class?” I have since heard that same idea repeated many times in many contexts. Apparently, those who dress for success think that’s ALL they have to do and, after carrying out the ritual, feel hurt and betrayed when those who reject its magic get ahead of them.

The problem with the coat and tie tradition, or dressing for success, is that it emphasizes appearance rather than ability. And it works. If you play by the rules, you will get ahead faster than those who don’t. Your boss isn’t the only one to be impressed; those under you are just as important and just as susceptible. But there is a catch: what I modestly call “Goeller’s first law of economics.” Goeller’s first law states that “somehow, sometime, somebody has to put in real value.” That is, you may find yourself in a position where you have to do more than look nice; you may have to do something. And if you can’t, looking pretty won’t help.

Just as having frowzy hair and wearing dirty clothes does not make you a great creative genius, so dressing up in an approved costume of the moment does not make you competent. There is still a need for talent and capability in the world, even though most management doesn’t know it. Having been promoted because they looked nice, they continue, like Skinner’s pigeons, to emphasize the behavior for which they have been rewarded. It is much easier to identify the well dressed than the competent.

What I am leading up to is this: Dressing for Success isn’t what it seems, but it can be a valuable tool. It can, for instance, help you pick the right employer on your next job change. If you can actually deliver the goods and are looking for a chance to show what you can do, look at your future fellow employees on job interviews. If some of them are sort of weird looking, but are none-the-less highly regarded by management, you may have stumbled onto a good place to work, a company that rewards ability. Many small companies, with less margin for error and more need for results than the giants, meet this requirement.

But if everybody is dressing for success, the parking lot is full of American four-door sedans or station wagons less then three years old, and the interviewer frowns at your brown shoes with white athletic sox, beware. Consider very carefully if you dare entrust your career to people who value appearances so highly. Do you really want to work for people who care more about how you look than what you can do? Will they really be able to evaluate your contribution, or will they automatically credit it to somebody with the proper wardrobe?

It works the other way, too. If you just want to get rich, but you’re not sure you can actually deliver, choose a company that values dressing for success, get a suitable wardrobe, and play the part to the hilt. Chances are, management will never even guess that you don’t know what you’re doing and you’ll succeed beyond your wildest dreams. Until the company goes broke. And that may happen long before anybody notices that today’s prosperity is little more than window dressing for success, purchased by doubling the Federal deficit (from $1 trillion to $2 trillion) since 1981. When enough people get wise to that one, even talent won’t save you.

[ Top ] [ Next ] [ Table of Contents ]

Copyright 2005 Lee Goeller. All Rights Reserved.