« Would carbon tax revenues be too volatile? | Main | Ed Leamer says "Housing IS the Business Cycle" »
Bargain in your pajamas, or blog in suit and tie
Johan Almenberg, a loyal MR reader, asks about:
A world in which the difference between office clothing and athletic clothing has been eroded because people work better when they are comfortable.
Under one hypothesis, signaling would break down an all-pajamas equilibrium [TC: oddly I don't find athletic clothing all that comfortable]. Jamie Cutthroat could look just a little better than his workplace competitor by putting on his tie.
But if wasteful signaling is the operative force, employers can internalize those externalities in many cases. A workplace with few outside visitors or external appointments should seek to minimize signaling costs by imposing a maximum dress code (e.g, no ties), not a minimum dress code. I have heard that Google enforces casual wear on everyone, but maximum dress codes are rare in the corporate world. Furthermore even minimum dress codes should be subject to "cheating": OK, you can't wear a tie but the market will provide super nice (and uncomfortable) T-shirts and the signal-constrained employees will wear them to send a new and hitherto unregulated signal. How much does this happen?
Alternatively, dressing up actually might make people more productive, but then would not at least a few of us blog in suit and tie?
In short, I don't have a theory of corporate dress that fits the major data points. My best guess is that signaling by dress is often an efficient means of sorting -- Jamie Cutthroat really does want the promotion more than I do -- and thus the employer does not want to ban it.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on September 24, 2007 at 07:28 AM in Education | Permalink
Comments
Your comments are predicated on the supposition that signaling within the workplace is a pure cost. In fact, intra-workplace signaling can be very valuable to a company, especially a large one, as it allows high performers to seek each other out and form cooperative ventures.
Posted by: sammler at Sep 24, 2007 7:48:57 AM
Isn't it possible that some of this is related to simple conservatism? My data point: I'm working on a long-term project being run by a consultant for a medium-sized nonprofit with business casual dress. My project is offsite, I work day-to-day with 4-6 people (all freelancers and temps), the only visitor we have ever had is the guy that fixes the copy machine, but the consultant running the show wants a dress code stricter than business casual.
When he's not in (2 days/week) we wear jeans. I'm sure I'm not the only one with a similar experience - the one person in charge is also the person who used to have a job where signaling was much more important, and hasn't made the mental switchover.
Posted by: nicole at Sep 24, 2007 8:15:23 AM
I do not need to wear a suit for work. But for some occasions I do. I do want to convey the message: "this instance (e.g. a presentation) is very important to me, so I am wearing my best suit". Other times, I come in jeans, which are definitely more uncomfortable than thin Super 130s wool suit trousers. But I need to do that, to keep the efficacy of the message "I care", when necessary.
Is this unusual?
Posted by: londenio at Sep 24, 2007 8:18:13 AM
Off topic perhaps, but I'd be interested to know if Japan, a traditionally formal work society, has integrated any of the casual dress codes that have come with a work environment run in large part via internet--not face-to-face--communication.
Posted by: susan at Sep 24, 2007 8:23:35 AM
This is one of those places where I feel a culture clash from being a teacher (in a prep school with a fairly formal dress code) when most of my friends are computer nerds (who probably only get dressed to avoid being arrested, and in fact in my husband's former workplace one of his colleagues typically worked naked).
But it's hard for me to imagine a world where dressing casually is more productive in *all* jobs. In programming, where you want to be minimally distracted by your body so your mind can groove out, sure, why not. But in my job, where I'm supposed to command the respect of teenagers and maintain a level of decorum? In londenio's presentations? Cargo pants do not, on net, help me do my job better (moreover they are explicitly against dress code).
Enh. Perhaps in a few decades culture will have changed enough that suits no longer connote any kind of respect or authority, and casual wear is fine for ever occasion...but I doubt it. I suspect fashion will always find some sort of bizarre clothing people are expected to wear in jobs facing the public.
Posted by: Andromeda at Sep 24, 2007 9:20:00 AM
My friends who work for Southwest Airlines tell me the company has only a minimal dress code. Vice presidents and accounting clerks alike wear shorts and t-shirts. There is no such thing as "jeans day" - every day is jeans day. Any employee wearing a suit is assumed to be going to a funeral or a wedding.
I have interviewed at Southwest Airlines, and viewed hundreds of employees on two occasions. All employees I saw were smiling and laughing, whether going to work or leaving. All of them.
Has the extremely casual culture at Southwest Airlines hurt the company in any way? I think Southwest Airlines profits in recent years have exceeded those of all other airlines combined.
Posted by: JohnDewey at Sep 24, 2007 9:41:01 AM
There are lots of kinds of signalling: "I can afford to dress this way," "I take good care of myself," "I follow general fashion," and "I am in such-and-such faction," for example. My impression is that the traditional business attire is largely a historical leftover from when the first kind was a very strong signal, and "business casual" is largely an acknowledgement that today so many people can afford that particular "I can afford it" signal that it has become less interesting. Is there anyone out there who thinks business casual has much of an impact on the other kinds of signalling? That wasn't my impression...
Posted by: William Newman at Sep 24, 2007 9:58:53 AM
I believe in "rich enough to be stupid". Not all behavior is efficient--it's just that there's pressure towards efficiency. (Peacock's tail displays are efficiency of a sort.) Since there can be a lag between pressure towards efficiency and achievement of efficiency, this means that people and organizations with more reserves are more capable of not getting around to doing the efficient thing.
Posted by: Nancy Lebovitz at Sep 24, 2007 10:17:41 AM
Working in pajamas or other comfy clothes doesn't eliminate the possibility of signaling. The pjs could be made of more expensive fabrics or made by well-known designers.
Posted by: Nancy Lebovitz at Sep 24, 2007 10:20:29 AM
The invention of super expensive and hard to find casual clothing has already occurred. One can easily find elaborate $100 t-shirts and $300 jeans with rips, buttons, and slashes in places where people would consider them annoying or even defects in more normal, less expensive clothing.
Posted by: OneEyedMan at Sep 24, 2007 10:23:56 AM
would not at least a few of us blog in suit and tie?
A suit and tie is a little far, but I really do ditch my t-shirt and jeans and slip into business casual when I have an important project that requires peak productivity - even when I will complete the project (say, writing a final paper) alone in my room.
Posted by: Trevor at Sep 24, 2007 10:29:02 AM
If a signalling culture emerges in a casual environment, it's even more costly than in a business suit environment. While in a business suit environment, simply buying a more expensive suit can get you ahead; in a casual environment it's normally harder to keep track of all the cues and takes more of your time.
Posted by: luispedro at Sep 24, 2007 10:33:48 AM
Men's suits are evil. The worst type of clothing ever invented.
Posted by: Peter at Sep 24, 2007 10:35:27 AM
The last couple of comments are more in line with what I had in mind. Eroding the barrier between office clothing and athletic clothing doesn't have to mean the end of "formal" attire. I picture the two styles converging, but maybe not quite meeting. A parallel would be the "no ripped jeans, no sneakers" dress code at some clubs, which has eroded in recent years due to the boom in high fashion denim and designer sneakers.
If workers are more productive when they are comfortable, and firms with comfortable workers do better, maintaining antiquated dress codes is costly. On the other hand, the need for signalling (to others, and to yourself) will prevent full convergence.
Haven't we already moved quite far in this direction? My impression is that dress codes were mar more rigid in almost every context one or two generations back.
Posted by: Johan Almenberg at Sep 24, 2007 10:46:39 AM
My personal rule is that when you are trying to convince someone to give you $1M or more, put on a tie.
Posted by: Patinator at Sep 24, 2007 11:03:58 AM
Sun Microsystems enforces a maximum dress code for employees who do not meet with external clients. Jeans and tennis shoes only, including for the CEO when he is in office.
They also have free beer and the CEO has a long ponytail.
Posted by: Carl Marks at Sep 24, 2007 11:14:08 AM
I often find that I'm more productive when I dress up a little--it helps me to emotionally frame my activities. Speaking for myself, I would find work depressing if I was wearing sweatpants and a t-shirt and would probably get less done.
That said, I'm a graduate student and the dress code certainly doesn't require a tie (almost) ever.
Posted by: Rice at Sep 24, 2007 11:24:26 AM
Methinks that Peter needs to wear more women's clothing.
Just saying.
Posted by: mobile at Sep 24, 2007 11:40:57 AM
When Red Auerbach was leading the Celtics he required suit and tie for his players to and from games. They were the most successful team in basketball, perhaps in all of sports.
They have since relaxed the dress code, and are no longer so successful.
Coincidence or cause?
Posted by: Shakespeare's Fool at Sep 24, 2007 11:45:06 AM
I dislike suit and tie. I loathe jeans and t-shirt. Shorts in summer, kilt in winter - that's what I'd like.
Posted by: dearieme at Sep 24, 2007 12:14:31 PM
Google's policy makes perfect sense because clothing signals in the IT industry run (mostly) in the opposite direction: suit = incompetence. I'm always dismayed when someone comes to an interview wearing a suit because despite my best efforts to shed this bias, it creates an assumption right off the bat that they suck.
Posted by: Noah Yetter at Sep 24, 2007 12:20:17 PM
The signaling for wearing suits has a negative aspect as well as a positive. It may signal that the person cares more, but it also can send a signal that the person is a brown noser, or someone who is not a creative person.
Posted by: sourcreamus at Sep 24, 2007 12:37:29 PM
I'm afraid I still don't know what is being signaled by a suit? On one hand you have the distinction between professional and non-professional; I want to hire the one who actually went to college and worked in an office, not a beach bum. But further up the spectrum, a suit seems a pretty lousy signal, since a bad worker can acquire a nice suit fairly easily.
I would argue that a dress code reveals far more information; a manager who imposes a dress code without a clear and rational reason is unlikely to have superb judgment in hiring.
Posted by: tsoodonym at Sep 24, 2007 1:01:28 PM
I wear shirt and tie every day. I don't have to, but I like to.
So we're out here. We really are. And if you happen to come across me in your day to day life, you know it. I suspect the casual, athletic clothes, and pajamas folk primarily associate with other folk like them... and retain the not-always-accurate notion that those who wear ties, MUST wear ties.
I'd wear a suit if I could get away with it, but I'd be completely unable to deal with developers in a suit.
Posted by: Caliban Darklock at Sep 24, 2007 1:03:50 PM
I want to second what Noah Yetter said. During the dot-com boom I went to all my interviews in jeans and a t-shirt, and it was common knowledge that any programmer in a suit was obviously incompetent. It signaled "I'm not confident enough to wear jeans" and "I don't know that you can wear jeans-- i.e. I'm a newbie". In reality, some of them had simply been working for IBM or something, where they had a dress-code. But those of us from the dot.com didn't see it that way, so when they came around looking for job we all pointed and laughed.
Posted by: liberty at Sep 24, 2007 1:18:22 PM
