What's in the closet: dress and appearance codes and lessons from sexual orientation

Abstract

Purpose -Dress and appearance codes are often seen as trivial, both because they seem to fit within our notions of how people ought to behave, and because they appear to reflect legitimate employer concerns in running a business. But they are not constructed in a vacuum. They reflect and enshrine societal stereotypes and expectations of women and men and how they look -including assumptions about gender and sexuality and majoritarian norms. As such, they punish anyone who is an outlier by reason of gender, sexuality, race, religion, or culture. This paper seeks to identify the assumptions and effects on gender, sexuality, professionalism and class in appearance and behavior codes. Design/methodology/approach -This is a conceptual paper exploring US case law on dress codes and employee appearance standards to examine issues of gender and sexual orientation identity on the job. By combining insights from sexual orientation identity theories and visibility, the paper seeks to uncover some of the interactions and effects of these appearance policies on women and LGBT persons in the workplace. Findings -This paper shows that identity strategies and performances used by LGBT individuals and women in the workplace implicate sexuality and gender, but also professionalism and class. These dress and appearance codes carry with them consequences for both employers and employees. Practical implications -The paper highlights the gender, sexuality and identity performance burdens on women and sexual minorities workplace controls over dress and appearance. Originality/value -The paper discusses topics that are of interest to persons studying sexuality and gender identity issues in employment. It is based on an unpublished talk at the EDI conference in Vienna 2010.

Women Elite Leaders Doing Respectable Business Femininity: How Privilege is Conferred, Contested and Defended through the Body

“…Our experiences of talking about this research suggest that women's bodies and appearance at work are uncomfortable subjects. Women are judged on job performance and appearance, while men are judged on their work (Brower, ). Such judgements create barriers to women's progress and normalizing in elite roles.…”

Feeling the Right Personality. Recruitment Consultants’Affective Decision Making in Interviews With Employee Candidates

“…In client service, Kari believed female workers act as 'bumpers' who do not get as much 'mud' on themselves as male workers. Therefore, he sometimes envisages how the female candidates he has picked for the shortlist go and 'charm' their clients, which we interpret as probable (hetero)sexualization of female employees (e.g., Brower, 2013;Caven et al, 2013).…”

Website gender perceptions: effects and recommendations for gender inclusivity

“…Women who consistently exhibit masculine behaviors such as confidence, aggressiveness, and self-assuredness tend to be negatively evaluated in the workplace (Heilman, Block, Martell, & Simon, 1998) and passed over for promotions (Rudman & Glick, 2001;Brower, 2013;Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 1989). In one such instance, a woman whose professional and business development skills were widely recognized was denied a promotion due to a perceived lack of interpersonal skillswhich her employer viewed as being a result of her masculine presentation (Brower, 2013). The woman worked in a traditionally male field (accounting) where the presence of masculine behaviors such as assertiveness was required for success, however, her employer insisted upon her displaying traditionally feminine behaviors, dress, and mannerisms.…”

“…The woman worked in a traditionally male field (accounting) where the presence of masculine behaviors such as assertiveness was required for success, however, her employer insisted upon her displaying traditionally feminine behaviors, dress, and mannerisms. Comments from her employer suggested that she attend "charm school", "dress more femininely", and "wear make-up" (Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 1989;Brower, 2013). As gender is read through appearance (Deaux & Lewis, 1984), the remarks about her gender mostly focus on her appearance and dress (Brower, 2013).…”

“…Comments from her employer suggested that she attend "charm school", "dress more femininely", and "wear make-up" (Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 1989;Brower, 2013). As gender is read through appearance (Deaux & Lewis, 1984), the remarks about her gender mostly focus on her appearance and dress (Brower, 2013). This case exemplified the double bind that women face wherein job requirements may call for masculine traits, but when displaying them, women are punished for gender atypical behavior.…”