How top executives are questioning conventional workplace dress code norms

The traditional norms surrounding workplace dress codes are being questioned as more people return to their offices, with a particular focus on what attire higher-ups and leaders should wear and the message it conveys about their suitability for their roles.

This issue recently came to the forefront in the U.S. Senate when it reversed its long-standing unofficial business dress code. The catalyst for this change was Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman, known for his casual attire consisting of shorts, a loose-fitting button-up shirt, and sometimes an oversized hoodie. Some senators disapproved of this, and they managed to reinstate the dress code shortly afterward.

Senator Mitt Romney, a leading proponent of reinstating the dress code, argued that the Senate should show a high level of respect for the institution in which they serve, with attire being one of the most basic expressions of that respect. Many individuals, including these senators, believe in the value of formal work attire, seeing it as a tradition that conveys respect, discipline, and a sense of being suited for the job.

However, there is an acknowledgment of a shift towards more casual clothing in workplaces, influenced in part by the pandemic, during which many people adopted a very casual dress code while working from home. As people began returning to offices, there was a noticeable change in their attitude towards clothing choices, with many opting for more relaxed items. It’s important to note that dressing too casually has occasionally led to issues with HR teams, particularly among younger employees.

The appropriateness of work attire also varies by industry. For example, finance professionals tend to adhere to traditional corporate attire, while sectors like advertising have long embraced a smart-casual style among senior leadership. The recent debate among senators has rekindled discussions about whether official work dress codes for senior leaders should be relaxed more broadly.

Dressing in a more comfortable and authentic manner can also help leaders, especially those from younger generations, connect with and relate to their colleagues.

Susan Scafidi, the academic director of the Fashion Law Institute at Fordham University, argues that modern dress codes need to consider employees’ autonomy, changing perceptions of gender, legal developments, and the specific requirements of the job.

Statistics reveal that the percentage of workers, regardless of their level, wearing business professional attire has reached the lowest point since 2002, standing at 3% this year. In 2019, approximately 7% of workers reported wearing suits or formal business wear. This year, roughly 40% of workers opt for business casual attire, while 30% choose street clothes, which can include casual jeans, leggings, and T-shirts. About 20% adhere to uniforms when dressing for work.

Formal dress code policies, when in place, are often geared toward those in client-facing roles and specific industries, according to Corey Andrew Powell, marketing content manager at the National Society of Leadership and Success. Powell notes that most of these policies are primarily for public-facing purposes and convey a certain level of professionalism.

He points out that the newest generation entering the workforce, Gen Z, is inclined to reject long-standing workplace norms, including traditional formal attire, as they aim to express their authentic selves.

Societal perceptions are gradually changing, but the way workers, especially leaders, present themselves will always communicate a certain message. While a traditional dark suit and tie can place a man in the context of historical male leaders, a strategic departure from the norm can also be effective, depending on the message one wishes to convey.

However, when deviating from the norm doesn’t clearly convey a message, it can lead to confusion and controversy. For instance, the question arises whether John Fetterman’s shorts and hoodies indicate he’s down-to-earth or disrespectful of the institution of Congress.