Dressed for the occasion.
Q. As we anticipate the heatwave in the summer months, I’m already worrying about the fashion statements that my staff will come up with to cope with the high temperatures. How on earth are we supposed to combine some sort of dress code with a recognition that ours is a creative environment, not a City law firm?
A. You have to determine what is acceptable to you and your clients, but establish some kind of guidelines that are applied across the board. Whilst creativity is to be applauded, you may have a problem on your hands if it manifests itself in see-through, spray-on, clothing!
If employees are likely to offend colleagues, clients and other visitors to your practice, you have a responsibility to confront the issue. In doing so, you should act consistently and fairly across the board. For example, it is not acceptable to demand that men wear shirts and ties, when women can wear t-shirts. This will draw you into issues of sexual discrimination and unlimited amounts in terms of potential compensation. Your employees not only represent your company but are a reflection of the company’s values and what is acceptable to you.
It is possible to combine professionalism with creativity. I would suggest setting down some basic rules of what you expect and, perhaps more importantly, what is not acceptable! For example, are you happy with belly buttons or other bare flesh on show? Are you happy with lycra or other skin tight clothing being worn in the office?
You are not dictating your employee’s taste in clothing, but providing a clear direction as to what is considered to be professional within a working environment and what is not. You can list specific items to ensure clarity. For example, no shell suits or pyjamas or bare feet. What people wear in their own time out of the workplace is their own business. During working time and on company business, you are in a position to provide an example and guidance as to what is appropriate.
Are your employees ready to meet a client at all times? Remind them that they were employed for their skills and intelligence, not their ability to turn heads at thirty paces.
July 2005
FX Magazine