When image is everything

Just what is appropriate to wear to the office?
CARROLL du CHATEAU found some conflicting answers.

Steve Maharey's reported comment that Christine Rankin "dressed like a cocktail waitress with earrings longer than her skirt" was loaded with attitude.

In describing the head of Work and Income New Zealand in this way (a comment he disowned in court this week) the Minister of Social Services implied two things.

One: Rankin's clothes were inappropriate for a CEO, especially one heading a department that doles out money to the country's students, downtrodden and unemployed. Two: cocktail waitresses wear sexy clothes. In other words, they are common. While he denied the specific comments, he did defend the view that if Rankin wanted to keep the job, she needed urgent image control. But are government ministers - and companies - within their rights in dictating how employees should dress?

Yes, though it's usually an unwritten rule, says style consultant Susan Axford, who spends her time helping corporate high-flyers to choose clothes that work "as a backdrop" for their professional careers.

"Clothes are so important," she says. "The first impression lasts only seven seconds so it's important that professional people get their image across immediately. Your total business credibility relies on three things: grooming, handshake and eye contact."

Axford, who role-plays people through interviews and even business dinners ("it's amazing how many people don't know which cutlery to use these days") suggests that Rankin's style is "not appropriate" for the head of Winz.

"Her style has overshadowed her ability," she says. And no, this is not a fashion thing: "I don't think she would've been okay in the 80s. Power dressing wasn't about showing cleavage and skirts so short that when women sat down they made others feel uncomfortable."

Headhunter Marisa Fong of Madison Recruitment reluctantly agrees that yes, dress is crucial in an interview.

"Unfortunately people do judge you by your presentation. The higher level of the role, the better presentation is expected from candidates.

"I've seen people who are not correctly dressed but whose personality takes them through - but they have to make that up [the initial visual reaction] in the first couple of minutes. It's all part of credibility."

Fong talks about how "culture fit" matters. "If you have five equal candidates the one with the culture fit will get the job every time." And what exactly is culture fit? "You can plonk them down in an open-plan office and they won't look out of place."

Certainly Christine Rankin made people uncomfortable. High-level public servant Mark Prebble, was, according to Rankin, apparently so unsettled by her dangly earrings and heaving breast that he quoted Darwinian theory and Desmond Morris' The Naked Ape (which links big earlobes to sexual attraction).

Such a reaction, insists clinical psychologist Gwendoline Smith, is disturbing. Men who have a sexual problem with women's dress need to work on themselves, rather than the dress code.

"This is clutching at straws territory from a psychological perspective. Are these highly intelligent people with important jobs really distracted by a piece of jewellery dangling from someone's ear? If your control, distractability and arousal threshold is so unmanageable, what are you doing in that position of power?"

But a dress code is important for men, too. Brown suits and grey zip-up shoes are a recipe for failure. Bad breath and body odour can mean a fast track to the dole queue.

No one could call Rankin badly groomed, whatever their view on her style. "True," says Fong, "But I suspect her culture fit changed. Whereas before Labour got into power it was all smart suits, now she is obviously too ostentatious for the new culture."

At Sovereign, one of the more innovative financial services companies, staff have put together a dress code to echo the company's professional image. The code, which is a list of recommendations rather than rules, came out of a training module called Modern Professionalism Through Image run by Marie Posa.

"It includes all the things you wouldn't wear anyway," says marketing manager Vena Crawley. Don'ts for men include cartoon ties (including teddy bears), long sideburns, grey zipped shoes, nose hair, uncontrollable eyebrows and unnaturally coloured hair (both men and women).

For women the list includes white pantyhose and shoes, black bras under white shirts, sleeveless tops without jackets.

And recommended? Suits for men, "except young graduates who can get away with dress pants, business shirt and tie." For women some makeup is "very important," as is clean hair and subtle jewellery. Short skirts and bare legs are okay "as long as the overall image is professional."

And would Rankin pass the dress code? "Of course," says Crawley "because her overall image is professional."

Some commentators have bemoaned the attention paid to "trivialities like dress" in the Rankin case, but if the affair proves anything it is that dress - and the signal it gives - is incredibly important.

Image-setters around the world agree. Sydney-based image consultant Louise Watts points out that those not dressed seriously found it harder to convince most directors and senior managers of their credentials. "Your dress positions you before you open your mouth. You have a fleeting moment to make a good first impression, why waste it?"

And from Gehan Talwatte of Hoovers Online Into Europe: "One rule should be that the outward appearance shouldn't be different from the culture you operate in. What you wear shouldn't detract from the message you're trying to deliver."

Now, after a decade of dress-down Fridays and "corporate casual," the international trend is back to formal dress. Why? Apparently people work harder when they're dressed for business.

Last month President George W. Bush banned Bill Clinton's casual wear in the White House, announcing that he would require his staff in the Oval Office to be more formally attired. Bush's reasoning is that more formal dress - make that the power of the business suit - produces a greater sense of dignity and sobriety.

Throughout the US men's suit sales increased 4 per cent from 1999 to 2000, indicating a trend towards formality. Across the Atlantic, Savile Row tailors are talking about a 50 per cent surge in sales. Even Marks & Spencer reports "rocking" suit sales. In other words, suits, albeit possibly more casual suits, are making a comeback.

So how did we get led into the jeans and button-down-shirt style in the first place?

Joe Macky, managing director of Cambridge Clothing, who spends much of his time thinking fashion trends, explains that the move to casual was driven by the dotcom phenomenon. "You had a lot of highly skilled people chased by employers and they could dictate their own terms - including the way they dressed. And it was hip to dress down."

One celebrated Silicon Valley employee actually chose to wear nothing. According to Macky, his contract provided for him to work nude, between midnight and 8 am. Much closer to home, Management magazine's IT writer Nobilangelo Ceramulus worked starkers from his North Shore home office.

But, along with the crashing fortunes of dotcom companies, which have put bosses back in control, dress codes are changing. Chinos and sports shirts are out and suits are making a comeback. Even Bill Gates, once famous for "business casual," is often seen wearing a suit.

However, says Macky, the new formality is likely to be slightly more casual, "well groomed but slightly more off-centre" than before. "It's going to be more like women dress - giving men more scope, more choice."

And always, what people wear will carry its own subtle signals. Whereas the trainers and cargo pants of the dotcom era signalled that the geeks were in charge, a blazer means a slightly relaxed attitude while, says Macky, a suit means business.

"Tom Ford of Gucci wears a suit probably twice a week. And when he does, says his secretary, 'Watch out'."

With more formal wear coming back in it is the small things in men's dress (ties, watches, sunglasses) that send the signals of success - or otherwise. According to the image-makers a garish Mickey Mouse tie is as bad taste as the super-short skirt.

But is personal taste any reason to sack someone? Emphatically no, says Jenni Raynish, chief executive of Raynish and Company public relations and one of the coolest-clad CEOs in town. As Raynish points out, if Rankin's image "served her on the way up, there is no reason to suggest she changes it when she got there."

"I believe her clothes are totally appropriate," says Raynish. "They were mainstream fashion a year ago. Look at Michelle Boag who looks like becoming president of the National Party, Annette Presley of I4Free. They wear power suits, bright colours, eye-catching earrings."

Raynish is also adamant that clothes must reflect an executive's values and style. And, in her opinion, Rankin's do.

"Image is important," says Raynish. When asked, she advises clients to wear what they feel expresses who they are. "Because if you start repressing that, you get an image disconnect.

"Christine Rankin looks like someone in good physical shape, who's energetic and likes great clothes. It's a very optimistic and positive way of dressing, She's self-assured, not afraid to be feminine."

Antonia Fisher, a partner at Brookfields law firm, is also convinced that professional women are entitled to wear what they think is appropriate. "There's nothing I've seen Christine Rankin wear that's not professional," she says. "Yes, we do have a dress code. People are expected to wear any kind of suit, in any colour and at any length - as long as it looks professional. And would Christine Rankin fit the code? Absolutely."

The CEO of the New Zealand Institute of Management, David Chapman, says dress is all part of "the brand image thing."

"Management usually reflects the image of the organisation," he says. "It also gives everyone a bit of a lift if someone has taken a bit of care.

"The issue is," he continues, "that I can't believe anyone should comment at all on the way this lady dresses. Most managers are very circumspect about that - they don't comment, even jokingly, about an employee's dress."

Reg Birchfield, publisher of Management magazine, who has covered management issues for the past 18 years, points out that flamboyant, exciting dress is often part of a CEO's strategy.

"Look at Richard Branson and Virgin," he says. "He dresses flamboyantly. His clothes say, 'We take risks, we are showmen.' Does a department like Winz have to be dowdy and down-at-heel?

"I suspect her strategy may relate more to her staff than her masters - to say to her staff, 'Take pride, feel good about yourselves'."

Jane Wrightson of the Screen Producers and Directors Association (Spada), who sometimes dresses up to create a stir, and sometimes dresses down to blend in ("mostly I dress down") points out that Rankin was always an unusual public sector CEO.

"She's one of the new breed hired because she was unusual ... She was hired to make a stir and she clearly did."

On the other hand, the Christine Rankin case is not necessarily about dress alone. Steve Maharey's alleged cocktail waitress comment had the whiff of a social putdown about it, too. Is it possible that the girl from Blackball on the West Coast of the South Island who brought up a family on the Domestic Purposes Benefit is not really acceptable at CEO level?

Certainly, for many New Zealanders this is not about the clothes she wears, but about double standards. On hearing of the Rankin affair, a group of Australia's women federal MPs launched a Women's Charter for Political reform, calling on political parties to be covered by sex and race discrimination legislation - something due to happen to our Parliament in by the end of the year when the Government's exemption from the Human Rights Act and Bill of Rights will become much narrower.

As Jenni Raynish says this whole issue is so ironic. "Nandor Tanczos doesn't get told to go and get a haircut."