Today my employer released a new dress code philosophy. Excellent! It basically gives employees guidance to dress appropriately for local expectations of internal and external customers.
Of course, expectations are highly varied depending upon who you ask; if you walk down most any crowded hallway of adults, at least one will equate professionalism with a suit, perhaps following the logic that higher-maintenance clothes (ones that require tying, ironing, etc.) reflect a greater work ethic.
The concept of "diversity" has filled the offices and public squares of America practically since its inception. Equal opportunity is promoted as an American ideal, regardless of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. The words of Martin Luther King dream of judgment not by the "color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
What good comes of preserving judgment against one's appearance? If a person sits in a meeting in his birthday suit, isn't he equally capable of producing outstanding results as if he were heavily clothed? Does his output on paper vary if he wears a tattoo, or a half-shirt, or shredded jeans? In some cases, yes. There is some connection between looking good and doing good. The question is whether forcing someone to look good will force him to do good.
Dress codes defend those who judge others based upon appearance. What would happen if our philosophy was to reprimand the judge rather than the judged? If we focused on output rather than outerwear?
No comments:
Post a Comment