Dressing to defend your job or your beliefs?

As I end my college career and embark on this new one, known as "the real world" I am faced with difficult decisions. Many jobs have look and dress policies that they expect their employees to follow. Many people follow these policies, even if they don't agree with them, because they feel the need to defend the company that they work for. This is a struggle of ethics and aesthetics in our culture.

Above: Model Jessica Stam breaking the model norms and eating a carb filled meal. Below: Jessica Stam on the runway modeling lingerie... you'd never know she ate all those carbs

While I was growing up, my parents lectured me about appearance and how important it is to get a job. I was not allowed to get a tattoo (at least one that was visible in most clothing and hair styles) because employers may not hire me simply because I have a tattoo and it goes against their look policy. It is not just body art that companies want their employees to comply with. Models in the fashion industry must also follow look policies with body image. Models are given strict diets and their employer has the right to do what they wish with the models appearances. Tanning (which can be deadly), hair cuts, exercising and dieting, are all things that models must follow to keep their job. Abercrombie & Fitch is notorious for their look policy. As a dedicated employee of Abercrombie & Fitch since 2011, I have been faced with this controversy myself.

I walked into my first interview with Abercrombie & Fitch with bottle died bright red hair, orange nail polish, and enough make up to be in a Dove commercial. During the interview I learned of the company's look policy: the natural look, which features undied hair, no make up, and no nail polish excect for neutral colors. Over the past three years as being an employee, I have complied with the look policy. It was not until my junior year of college that I was faced with an ethical problem. While Abercrombie & Fitch (and many other professional corporations) prefer subtle ear piercings, I, on the other hand had a whimsical moment. While abroad in Florence, after class I wandered into a piercing place. Within 5 minutes I had a new hole in my cartilage, which goes against many corporation look policies.

Is it ethically correct for employees to follow look policies that they do not agree with? Technically speaking, is it not against the first amendment, freedom of speech, to deny someone of how they should look and portray company image? If a company tells an employee that they cannot look a certain way, regarding weight, hair style, piercings, tattoos, etc., does the employee have the right to boycott the company (OUTSIDE of work)?

My "work" clothes for Abercrombie Kids' Black Friday 2012

On the other hand, an employee may feel as though they should defend their company in all aspects. It is no secret that Abercrombie & Fitch has been scrutinized for what CEO Mike Jeffries said in an interview with Salon in 2006, however, when I hear people slandering the company and saying that they are against "fat" people and racist, I feel the need to defend myself, my employees, and the company, all of which I have grown to learn about and understand in a deeper context. It is also no secret that models must stick to a standard of weight and size, but they comply with those requests because they have a connection to the company and defend their job and promote it.

While the controversy of whether or not one should follow a company's dress policy, despite their beliefs and the first amendment, falls under ethical struggles, the desire to defend and promote the company and their look policy falls under the aesthetic struggle.

So what are the costs and benefits of each decision?
If one chooses to follow their morals/beliefs and get that tattoo their boss said that they shouldn't, they risk losing their job, and any opportunity of getting another job. On the other hand, that person would feel in control and untamed. They would feel as though they stuck up for what they believed in and did not cave to "big brother"/"the Man." It is a sense of pride, which says that they are not a sell out. Wilson writes that "we constantly search for the crevices in culture that open moments of freedom... fashion is one among many forms of aesthetic creativity which make possible the exploration of alternatives" (Identities Through Fashion, pg. 84).

Me in the clothes that express my identity

If one chooses to follow and defend their company and the look policy, they could lose respect from family and friends, because they sacrificed their morals for money. They are essentially, a sell out. However, following the company's look policy will show the company and any other company that they may want to join later, that they are dedicated to their company and will not leave it in a crisis. 

When it comes to my own opinion on this matter, I suffer from cognitive dissonance, which is when your beliefs and actions are not the same. I don't believe that money is a reason to sell out, I believe that money is the root of all evil. If what you do does not make you happy and limits who you are as a person and who you want to be, then I don't believe that a person should accept that job title because they are not appropriately setting and example of the brand or company. If I did feel a personal connection to my company, however, and did support its morals and reasoning, then I would feel as though I could defend the brand. Slandering the company that I work for though, is not an option. I guess you could say though, that I take the ethical approach and would dress to what would make me feel better about myself and that represents who I am as a person, rather than be "fake."

The idea of dressing for our morals vs. dressing for our company loyalty can be compared to an essay found in Thinking With Style where Jennifer Baumgardner discusses school uniforms vs. the freedom of expression, much like the ethical struggle adults face in the work place. Baumgardner says that "advocates of compulsory school uniforms...cite their correlation with higher test scores and...positive educational outcomes" (pg. 106). This can be related to following dress policies and promoting them out of the work place. Perhaps, like school uniforms have an effect on students, look policies have an effect on employees to promote better work outcomes and solutions. Critics, against school uniforms, argue that "the ability of students to express themselves by means of their outfit choices is a crucial part of their dignity and development as persons" (pg. 107). Compared to a work place, the employees who have to follow a dress policy that goes against their morals and beliefs may suffer from self-confidence and may not reach their full potential. It is possible that dressing the way that you want has a correlation with productivity and success.

So how do we reconcile between the ethics and aesthetics that the work place presents us with? If the dress policy really does cause you to suffer from cognitive dissonance, then I recommend that you leave your job before you sacrifice everything that you believe in and lose your sense of self and sense of worth. If you do not feel the need to reach these levels, then, but would still like to honor your beliefs, then maybe a little hidden tattoo that cannot be seen in work attire is what you need. Overall, I think that people should be able to balance work life and self and feel at peace with one another. There are ways to add your own personality to your dress policy, however, for models who have to stick to a strict diet, there is no advice that I can give you. Models, if you feel that you can eat a cheeseburger or skip a tan to save your skin, then do it. It is your body that you must think about, and for everyone else, your appearance and how you choose to come off to others.