Excerpt from Molloy's "New Dress for Success":

"Our research showed that when suits, shirts and ties are beautifully coordinated, you can combine brighter colors and stronger patterns without anyone objecting. We surveyed conservative executives and fashion people and they reacted dentil ally. They were far less likely to be bothered by or even notice a clash in line, color or even style if the ensembles were beautifully coordinated." (p. 126)

And:

"In picture 4 [omitted for copyright reasons] we have the same suit and shirt worn with a stubby-textured combination. The gray of the tie picks up the hint of gray in the suit, and the texture of the tie picks up the texture of the shirt. Matching textures and hues is one of the secrets of being a very good dresser. However, when I showed these pictures to forty businessmen, thirty-eight believed that the man with the repp tie was the better dresser. Business women, however, responded differently. Ten of the twelve to whom we showed these pictures thought that a man who chose a textured gray tie for that outfit was more sophisticated and a better dresser. This demonstrates two very interesting points. First, there are many different ways of putting clothing together cleverly, and second, men are impressed by other men who put their clothing together traditionally while women are more impressed by men who put their clothing together beautifully." (p. 123)

There are already around 20 female execs in the Fortune 500 list. That's only 4% but in comparison with Molloy's world of 1988 the difference is huge. In my organization, I have about 50/50 that any manager or exec for that matter that I have to work with will be female.

In Molloy's world, and perhaps to a lot of people who have been around a while, dressing traditionally is key. However, currently, that may not be the case. In fact, dressing traditionally but not beautifully (not matching up colors and materials and styles, looking unfashionable) could potentially put me at a disadvantage towards female managers. Due to casual dressing standards, the guy next to me wearing a tight black jacket, slim jeans and narrow tie, who has dressed fashionably, may have the edge in a business setting if I'm simply wearing something traditional, but that isn't really that nicely matched up or has an noticeably unfashionable cut (long, full, etc).

If I'm also in danger of meeting male managers, I'd do well to incorporate traditional elements but never fail to match them beautifully in line, style, color and material, and not select unfashionable items. Finding traditional items of clothing is hard enough, but its really not enough.

This may be something to think about when discussing trad vs fashionable, matching vs not matching, etc. Since clothes are only important in a social setting, insofar that they influence others positively or negatively, increasing gender equality is a complete game-changer. You have to dress beautifully. If you want to be successful. Thoughts?

How can an ensemble be described as 'beautifully coordinated' if 'lines, colours [and] style' clash? :confused2:

 

Agreed, Shaver. And while overall I liked Molloy's book, I find the dichotomy between beautiful and traditional to be rather unworkable. At most I would say that classic traditional men's dress ranges from the safe to the sophisticated, and perhaps women are (or were) more appreciative of the sophisticated then men.

 

This is very funny.

First, standards of business dress have declined to such an extent that the idea that the nuances of the OP's post have a practical impact in most fields is not very credible.

Secondly, certain fields will continue to favour fashion forward looks ("medja") or conservative looks (the law). One would be well advised to steer one's ship according to that compass. But again, it is incredible in the literal sense that the nuances of the OP's post will affect ones success having established the basic parameters.

Just sayin'.

B.

 

This is very funny.

First, standards of business dress have declined to such an extent that the idea that the nuances of the OP's post have a practical impact in most fields is not very credible.

Secondly, certain fields will continue to favour fashion forward looks ("medja") or conservative looks (the law). One would be well advised to steer one's ship according to that compass. But again, it is incredible in the literal sense that the nuances of the OP's post will affect ones success having established the basic parameters.

Just sayin'.

B.

I disagree. Clothes have impact no matter how much standards have declined.

Or are you saying that beyond basics the payoff is zero?

 

I disagree. Clothes have impact no matter how much standards have declined.

Or are you saying that beyond basics the payoff is zero?

Nah. I think it is context specific, though. There will be an 'accepted norm' that will be sensitive to the business or professional context. Leaving aside very specific contexts, once one dresses within that norm (whether it be fashionable, or conservative, or whatever) without looking like cr@P, I think - in career terms - that the benefits of dressing well diminish very dramatically. That's not a value judgment, simply what I think to be the case.

That's not a reason to not dress well, of course! But I think some people kid themselves that the sorts of refinements we discuss here are career enhancing.

Of course, in certain fields the norm has become the complete absence of standards. Slobwear prevails - why compromise on anything that impedes comfort? There it is conceivable that 'overdressing' may be harmful. This is not my experience in the UK (unless one is very dandified), although some of the American contributors' views would appear to bear this out.

 

Women will appreciate traditionally-dressed men when it's done well. I recently shows a fashion-conscious female friend of mine a photo of a man wearing a fashionably tight, ill-fitted suit. She said it looked great because the guy was in great shape and it looked edgy. Then I showed her a photo of the same man in a well-fitted suit and she immediately changed her view on the tight suit. She was more impressed with the well-fitting suit than the one that was in comparison much too tight.

 

Women will appreciate traditionally-dressed men when it's done well. I recently shows a fashion-conscious female friend of mine a photo of a man wearing a fashionably tight, ill-fitted suit. She said it looked great because the guy was in great shape and it looked edgy. Then I showed her a photo of the same man in a well-fitted suit and she immediately changed her view on the tight suit. She was more impressed with the well-fitting suit than the one that was in comparison much too tight.

This, I suggest, means that women executives need to be educated in what really looks good on a man rather than simply falling in line with whatever their women's magazines think is fashionable for us. For some years, the L.A. Times had periodic magazine showing what the designers thought the 'now' man should wear. I never saw anyone in such garb (Heaven be praised!) nor did I ever see any men writing for that periodical. Never let a woman influence your dress; they just don't get it.

 

This, I suggest, means that women executives need to be educated in what really looks good on a man rather than simply falling in line with whatever their women's magazines think is fashionable for us. For some years, the L.A. Times had periodic magazine showing what the designers thought the 'now' man should wear. I never saw anyone in such garb (Heaven be praised!) nor did I ever see any men writing for that periodical. Never let a woman influence your dress; they just don't get it.

However, aren't we rather left with whatever attitudes and tastes women DO have?

Also, I think the difference between what women appreciate as per Molloy's writings above are rather more spot on (and offers more practical leeway when dressing traditionally and still wanting to look good to women) than the notion that women follow magazines. If you apply his thinking to the current world, and dress beautifully as well as traditionally, its a win. Also, his notion of how women approach men's dress is rather more logical and somewhat less derogatory, since it means they do understand what looks good and look for it. It's men that generally just check the items worn for being bad/ok/good from a social perspective, while women disregard that more in favor of checking how the items work together and if the wearer is in the know about what looks good currently, what is fashionable.

If you look at men's discussions on clothes in the Trad forum, this is demonstrated by all the "Is X Trad?" threads. Women may not get the importance of that fully, but the flip side of that coin is just as important. Especially if your professional peers are women to a larger extent than previously.

I also don't necessarily subscribe to the notion that dressing extremely well will make huge difference professionally, but it can make some difference.

And the notion of never letting women influence ones dress I think are definitely passé. Looking good in terms of how women view us is a current necessity, if there is any value to dressing well. There were hardly any female managers before. Now there are lots.

This, to my mind, also calls in to question the negative connotations of "looking like you are dressed by your wife". That would largely be noticeable by other men if you break out of traditional wear. However, if you dress traditionally but beautifully in coordinating color, style and material (and with style I mean wearing traditional elements that are NOT unfashionable) it will not jar with the male peers and also appeal to women.

To my mind, also, it demonstrates clearly an a priori need not to dress unfashionably to dress successfully.

So the success of an ensemble (all that you are wearing) would be if it is sufficiently traditional to appeal to other men, if it is sufficiently fashionable to appeal to women, and if it is so beautifully coordinated that both groups accept it as a working total.

Short rule to dress successfully...

 

Agreed, Shaver. And while overall I liked Molloy's book, I find the dichotomy between beautiful and traditional to be rather unworkable. At most I would say that classic traditional men's dress ranges from the safe to the sophisticated, and perhaps women are (or were) more appreciative of the sophisticated then men.

I don't see it as a dichotomy in Molloy's book... That would imply there is no overlap.?

 

In fact, dressing traditionally but not beautifully (not matching up colors and materials and styles, looking unfashionable) could potentially put me at a disadvantage towards female managers. Due to casual dressing standards, the guy next to me wearing a tight black jacket, slim jeans and narrow tie, who has dressed fashionably, may have the edge in a business setting if I'm simply wearing something traditional, but that isn't really that nicely matched up or has an noticeably unfashionable cut (long, full, etc).

If I'm also in danger of meeting male managers, I'd do well to incorporate traditional elements but never fail to match them beautifully in line, style, color and material, and not select unfashionable items.

I think you may be exaggerating the importance of how you dress at work.

First, I would be surprised if this alone is sufficient to give you an edge in business. In most businesses, technical competence (or its opposite) will carry more weight.

Secondly, if you happen to have a female manager, is it really necessary to dress in such a way that she is going to sit up and take notice ... of the way you dress? I think that could even be a dangerous approach to take.

A long time ago I had a female manager. I found this involved certain complications that I could have done without, but I don't remember dressing in a particular way for her benefit. For many men, a female manager is just a reality of the modern workplace that they have to live with as best they can.

 

I think you may be exaggerating the importance of how you dress at work.

First, I would be surprised if this alone is sufficient to give you an edge in business. In most businesses, technical competence (or its opposite) will carry more weight.

Secondly, if you happen to have a female manager, is it really necessary to dress in such a way that she is going to sit up and take notice ... of the way you dress? I think that could even be a dangerous approach to take.

A long time ago I had a female manager. I found this involved certain complications that I could have done without, but I don't remember dressing in a particular way for her benefit. For many men, a female manager is just a reality of the modern workplace that they have to live with as best they can.

The point would be, rather, to dress in such a way that it appeals to her as well as the guys, in that she doesn't sit up and take notice.

Also, you can separate the principle from professional wear and apply it fully to other pursuits when we may dress as we please. So no exaggeration intended, rather stating it as a universal. Apply it next time you are wearing a sports coat.

I think we can aim for better cooperation than "liv[ing] with as best [we] can

 

The point would be, rather, to dress in such a way that it appeals to her as well as the guys, in that she doesn't sit up and take notice.

Also, you can separate the principle from professional wear and apply it fully to other pursuits when we may dress as we please. So no exaggeration intended, rather stating it as a universal. Apply it next time you are wearing a sports coat.

I think we can aim for better cooperation than "liv[ing] with as best [we] can

If I had a female boss now, I really don't think I would want to 'appeal to her'. The best you can hope for is a modicum of professional respect on both sides, which obviously has some implications for the way you would dress, but I don't think that should imply a different approach to what would be the case with a male boss.

I should say that I certainly don't consider myself in any way a 'chauvinist', but having worked for a female boss in the distant past I perhaps have a rather heightened sense of some the difficulties that can arise in that situation, and while I'm not saying it is necessarily contrary to the natural order, I do consider it to be a potentially quite problematic arrangement - hence the form of words I used.

 

I have had six female managers directly above me.

This may be besides the point, but if there is no professional leverage with dressing excellently, then, that aside, women still play into determining if one is excellently dressed.

 

I have had six female managers directly above me.

This may be besides the point, but if there is no professional leverage with dressing excellently, then, that aside, women still play into determining if one is excellently dressed.

No - I prefer to think that whether one is well dressed is more an objective fact. The opinions of superiors at work may sometimes have to be accommodated in some small way - they may have irrational objections to certain colours for instance, which one might wisely avoid without being unduly troubled - but they are not in themselves determinative of whether one is well dressed. For better or worse, that is a judgement one should make oneself.

 

I have a female manager and she takes great notice to the way I dress. I don't wear fashionably tight clothes either. She compliments me on my clothes most when I wear things people wouldn't ordinarily think to put together, or when I'm wearing bolder patterns. If everything is too perfect, that's not as much noticed.

 

I think this is a very interesting topic. I suspect that the real dynamic is that women are more tolerant of/supportive of dandyism than men. Women are used to using their clothes as a creative outlet, while many men use their clothes simply as a uniform. I suspect that the particular mode of creativity doesn't matter so much, just that there be some creativity/aesthetic judgment involved. If you consider what Malloy long advocated as standard dress - a dark grey suit, a white shirt, a solid red or muted repp-stripe tie - you will understand that dressing that way, especially day after day, is objectively pretty boring. Women, who value creativity and aesthetics in clothing, might tend to take a man who dresses that way as a somewhat grey person.

No tension between women's taste and tradition is suggested, however. The scope of classic dressing is amply broad to provide plenty of lattitude to men who want to dress with some creativity. Just as adherence to traditional rules of syntax and grammar does not require one to stick with simple sentence structures or monosyllabic words, adherence to the classic rules of dress does not proscribe a double-breasted vest, two-toned shoes, a silk pocket square, a shirt with purple or green stripes, or a thousand other things.

 

Hear, hear!

 

Another hear hear!
Cuff's point is a more elequent and precise expression of what I was trying to get across in #3.

 

That's funny, Mike. After I posted, I re-read the thread and decided yours was a pithier version of what I was trying to say.