Professional dress codes fail to improve profitability

Target Corporation continues to force their
employees to dress professionally rather than
business casual.  Note: Target trademarked the
red target symbol thus a standard target symbol
is provided above.

In September 2004, Target Corporation adopted a new professional dress code for its corporate employees. After five years, it's evident that replacing business casual with a professional dress code did more to decrease employee morale than it did increase employee productivity.  In fact, during those five years, shares of Target fell steeply. Yet, companies like Target continue to deny that the professional dress code is ineffective and it places unnecessary pressure on employees to fit into their dress shirt neck size.

The change to professional dress at Target didn't come easy.  Females were forced to shop for Rodham-Clinton pant suits which limited their options to different colored shirts and shoes. Men were forced to replace their comforting polo shirts for itchy pressed collar shirts, the every day chino replaced by pleated black slacks, and a tie soon choked every male in the office.  The young male employees were forced to learn that collared shirts actually have numbers representing the sizes for neck and sleeve length, absolutely flabbergast that they don't just come conveniently packaged in "M", "L", and "XL".

The first year of professional dress code for Target began after Labor Day, making an already difficult transition even tougher.  Employees who were accustomed to the breathable polo were now left with unnecessary sweaty necks due to the hot and humid September weather in Minneapolis.  Employees who mistakenly purchased wool-lined dress slacks produced unbelievable amounts of swass that left Target chairs screaming for Febreeze.  Employee complaints spiked through the end of 2004 but fizzled in 2005.  Numbness to the dress code eventually fell over the workforce. All creativity was stifled by tight necks, short sleeves, and it wasn't long until they all accepted the fact that they looked like waterbed salesman.  In due time, they would unfortunately begin working like waterbed salesman.

Even more interesting are two quotes from this 2005 article written by Matt Krumrie who happens to also be an Examiner though this article is from the Star Tribune. Read the Star Tribune article from Jan 2005 here > Formal Dress is Back.

Just 4 short months after switching to professional dress code, Krumrie's article provided a feature on Target abandoning the business casual dress code and featured two interesting quotes from business fashion experts.

Diana Pemberton-Sikes of FashionForRealWomen.com stated,

"After the dot.com years, when almost every business was jumping on the casual dress code bandwagon, there's been a return to more traditional business dress in the workplace," she says. "Many companies found that with relaxed dress came relaxed attitudes about work, tardiness, and customer interaction, and they've tightened their dress codes back to create a more formal atmosphere."

Aside from the fact that Pemberton-Sikes profits from companies adopting professional dress codes, she and I aren't all that different from one another.  We throw out ridiculous ideas and hope people pay attention to us.  Except I'm kidding on the square and I've come prepared with bulletproof facts. Unfortunately, the numbers over the past five years don't support her claims.  Let's dive into the charts (the dates and share prices below are based on real stock prices and real dates).

Below is a chart showing five years of Target's stock performance leading up to the change for professional attire.

As you can see, there's no arguing against the fact that business casual drove share prices up on a continual basis through 2004.  Unfortunately, post-professional-dress era doesn't fair quite as well.

The chart above proves that the professional dress code originally drove share prices up. However, industry analysts agree that this increase was purely speculation based on the Pemberton-Sikes dress code formula (I tried finding this formula on Wikipedia but had no luck).  After that short spike, stock prices plummeted at an alarming level.  The severe drop proves that professionally dressed employees cannot avoid the economy's grim reaper.  George Zimmer and Men's Warehouse can't guarantee the world -- they can only guarantee your wonderful looks.

The second quote from the 2005 Star Tribune article came from Susan Morem (www.susanmorem.com), a Minneapolis-based career and workplace expert who said some things that didn't make sense and then some other things that were complete BS.

"You can't go wrong dressing a little better than you need to," says Morem. "When vying for a position or promotion, employers must look for reasons to disqualify some of the many (equally) qualified candidates they have. Image plays a big part when determining the best person for a job. If two people have similar credentials, but one appears to be more qualified, he or she will have an advantage. The person who looks more professional and successful ultimately will be viewed more favorably."

In order to dress "a little better" and "appear more qualified" than a colleague, one would have to dress better than that colleague. Unfortunately, a professional dress code would dictate that the colleague vying for the same promotion you are gunning for would also be dressed like you.  You're both wearing ties.  You're both sweating.  You're both uncomfortable.  Unless I come wearing a top hat and tuxedo, we're equals in the "professionally dressed" department. 

However, there is something to be learned through revealing the falsehood in Pemberton-Sikes statements as well as the disgusting comments made by Morem.  The charts above disprove the Pemberton-Sikes theory. They give ample proof to show that professional dress codes do not improve a company's profitability.  That doesn't remove the fact that there are thousands of people dying to look like they work at a movie theater.  Even if the dress code moves back to business casual dress code, normal employees will still be compared to the annoying male or female colleague who continues wearing a suit.  As Morem points out, managers still base performance on looks and not quality of work (and Morem almost takes joy in this fact).  The lesson to learn can be summarized in three bullets:

1. All employees should abide by the same dresscode based on their job duties.
2. All employees should be presentable.
3. All employees should be comfortable.

In essence, dress codes should be more than a minumum requirement.  They should include a floor and ceiling.  The dress code should be business casual as it provides a presentable look for executives but also provides the comfort normal human beings deserve.  In addition, enforcement of the dress code should be in full force.  All human resource activities shall refocus to punishing those that overdress or underdress.  This method would prevent "one uppers", or those who attempt to beat the dress code by out dressing their opponents.  First offense and the employee is released from the company.  No tolerance.   By removing any threat of "one uppers" it ensures that the professional dress code remain a historical artifact and employees are judged on their actual work abilities and not their ability to tie a windsor knot.

It's time to implement the Forced Business Casual Dress Code Act of 2009 and encourage companies like Target to extend their philanthropic efforts to their own employees.  Please sign the comments section below to show your support and email this article to all of the necks in the world who have been dying to breath since 2004.