This observation is prompted by a recent item in Entrepreneur magazine, as follows: Virgin Atlantic Makes History with New Change to Employee Dress Code By Emily Rella “entrepreneur.com/author/emily-rella” June 1, 2022
“The airline will become the first U.K.-based airline to relax the antiquated policy. Many industries and companies have made major progress when it comes to what is and isn’t deemed acceptable for employees to wear to work in recent years.
Starbucks, for example, began allowing employees to dye their hair bright colors as of a few years ago, while Walmart recently announced that it would begin testing a policy that allows employees to wear any solid colored shirt or blue jeans to work.
However, one industry has maintained strict dress codes, particularly the widespread ban on visible tattoos while in uniform — the airline industry.
Virgin Atlantic made a major move this week to allow flight attendants to have visible tattoos while on the clock, including body art on the face, neck, and hands.”
It is also true that airlines used to require that male employees wear jackets and ties when flying as passengers on flights, and airlines have traditionally had strict staff appearance restrictions and requirements, as a part of their company branding efforts. There was an IBM look to the company’s employees, especially those having customer contact. The same was the case for law, accounting, and important investment firms. Appearance was intended to convey authority and confidence. Feminine executives were expected and also chose to dress similarly to their male counterparts, and women working in the office also had dress and appearance guidelines.
The way in which company phones are answered and the appearance of staff have been believed by company managers to be an important part of creating a positive impression upon customers and others.
The design of logos, business cards, stationery, and company publications have all been intended to convey an image of something believed to be positive about the company.
Times have changed, and there has been a steady lessening of appearance regimentation. Currently, there is an employee resistance to anything which restricts their ability to present themselves as they wish, irrespective as to any company attempts to use their appearance for the company’s benefit.
This brings into consideration issues of stakeholder and stockholder benefits. Who wins when customers are favorably impressed by the company’s image? Of course, it is best if there is a feeling of mutual benefit, and if employees want the company to succeed. The reverse or possible negative image also mutually impact both staff and employers.
Therefore, the basic question is do customers care about the appearance of the representatives of the company they are either using or considering using? Companies should conduct both focus groups and careful reviews of customer engagements in different employee-appearance periods to reach conclusions.
If the data shows that customers do react better to company representatives appearing in a certain way, will employees be prepared to accommodate customer preferences? If not, what legal and personnel management options do the companies have, and what is best for those having an interest in the company’s success?
Arthur Lipper, Chairman artlipper@gmail.com
British Far East Holdings Ltd.