Clothes

So I was catching up on my Tivo'ed Project Runway episodes the other night when I couldn't sleep. (I won't call it a guilty pleasure -- I will defend Project Runway 'til the end!)  Thought I could escape Gen Y issues for a brief spell? No sir. In this particular episode, the lovely Frau Klum challenged the designers to "design a look for recent college graduates who are starting their lives as independent professional women."

Independent? Really? Then why did all these young women BRING THEIR MOTHERS ALONG? Naturally, the moms started dominating the working relationship with the designers, and the designers started pitching to the moms rather than to the daughters/clients. In defending their designs to the judges, the designers would say things like, "Holly and her mother seemed really happy with it" -- a reminder that with Gen Y, parents are (almost) always part of the package. How old does Gen Y have to get before their parents back off? I'm intensely curious.

In any event, with the exception of the winning design by Jerell, these were some of the worst clothes you could ever see in the workplace. Or anywhere. Yikes. (Read the blow-by-blow here.)

There has been much wailing and gnashing of teeth after the LSAT this past weekend, so I wanted to share this story abut Sara Blakely, who founded a $150 million company after she choked on the LSAT. The company is called Spanx (cheeky, right?), and they make the insanely popular footless hosiery sold in fancy-pants stores like Neiman Marcus and featured on Oprah's "Favorite Things." Not a bad outcome for someone who "failed," although I'm sure she felt pretty crummy in the days after the LSAT. It's a great reminder not to let one test define who you are or what you're capable of in life.

From the BusinessWeek article: Q: You've said that failure was a huge part of your success—how so?

A: Because I failed the LSAT. Basically, if I had not failed, I'd have been a lawyer and there would be no Spanx. I think failure is nothing more than life's way of nudging you that you are off course. My attitude to failure is not attached to outcome, but in not trying. It is liberating. Most people attach failure to something not working out or how people perceive you. This way, it is about answering to yourself.

Today's WSJ reports on efforts by tony, stuffy Neiman Marcus to appeal to twenty and thirty-somethings with a new retail store called Cusp, currently located in the tried-and-true retail meccas of Century City, Tysons Corner, and Georgetown.

The mother ship Neiman Marcus brand tries to appeal to fifty-somethings who dress head to toe in matchy-matchy outfits by the same designers and aspire to look like Nancy Reagan. Cusp, with its Ed Hardy t-shirts and Level 99 jeans, is definitely a journey into the unknown for Neimans.

Here's a tip-off that Neiman Marcus knows next to nothing about twenty-somethings. According to the article, it apparently came as a surprise to the CEO of the Neiman Marcus Stores unit that "[m]any Cusp shoppers drop in on a Thursday, Friday or Saturday to pick up outfits to wear that night, unlike Neiman's average 50-year-old shopper, who tends to buy in advance for each season." Have they talked to even 15 twenty-somethings? Five? Two? Of course they pop in at the last second -- that's how Gen Y likes to approach most things. Buying ahead for a whole season? Inconceivable for this age group.

I'm wondering why a retail operation the size of Neiman Marcus didn't know something this basic about its target demographic ahead of time. Doesn't bode well for them. I also wonder if they're trying a little too hard when they quote Lil Mama on their homepage: "Every CUSP girl can relate to Lil Mama when she rhymes: My lip gloss be cool/My lip gloss is poppin'/I'm standing by my locker/And all the boys be stoppin'." How ham-fisted is that? Sounds like a sixty-something retail executive trying to figure out what the Kool Kidz like these days.

Another interesting bit from the article: It quotes a 23-year-old photo editor for the Atlantic Monthly who recently bought a $115 pair of flats at the Cusp store in Georgetown. I'm not privy to what kind of money she makes as a photo editor at a high-brow magazine that caters mostly to people with graduate degrees, but I'm guessing it's not much. How is she able to afford $100+ pairs of shoes? I'm guessing she (1) is living off of mommy and daddy, who should be nudging her to spend their money more wisely or (2) has her head in the sand about her cash flow and is racking up a bunch of credit card debt. I love expensive shoes as much as the next girl, but I'm just saying...

In any event, I hope Cusp gets it right. And moves to my neighborhood.

I’ve been thinking about an article in the Wall Street Journal this past week about tacit dress codes for women in finance (“Wall Street Women: Dress Code of Silence”). Relevant bits:In an age where the rules of professional dressing are constantly shifting, and women have much more freedom than in decades past, there is still one area where there are more unspoken rules than ever: finance. While their male counterparts may sport "business casual" khakis, many women on Wall Street feel they must toe a careful and conservative line. They often feel obliged to dress up in order to command authority. These women still struggle not to be defined by traditionally feminine pastimes, like dressing well. The result: They don't talk about fashion openly, for fear of appearing frivolous.

. . .

Casual events often call for chinos and an Izod for men. But women who arrive in golf clothes are likely to strike the wrong note. This came home for Lisa Tames, a banker at Citigroup in New York who favors practical looks from Ellen Tracy and Ann Taylor, when she recently attended a conference. The dress code was casual, but a female colleague raised a few eyebrows by wearing slim green capri pants. "It wasn't projecting her ability in her field," recalls Ms. Tames, who says she rarely dresses down.I don’ t know a professional woman who doesn’t struggle with this issue to some degree. I wondered, though, if this article made things sound too black and white, so I talked to a vice president of a highly regarded Manhattan hedge fund. Her response:“Wall Street Women” is a very broad -- too broad -- term.  There are bankers and traders and money managers, all of whom have different dressing needs.  It largely depends on whom you’re dealing with as your clientele.

The traders / salespeople in general can dress more fashionably.  Hedge fund folks dress pretty casually as a rule, and don’t mind if their salespeople are trendier.  We have one saleswoman who is always dressed in Diane von Furstenberg dresses, for example, and it doesn’t bother anyone.

I think bankers tend to be more conservative in dress, because of whom they’re dealing with -- if you’re dealing with a Midwestern CFO or a Japanese company or whatever, you want to look more formal.

In general, my own view has always been that one need not look stuffy and formal, but it’s better to stay in the muted color palette.Interesting that she notes the color palette. In the story above about the capri pants at the conference, I suspect the issue was more the color than the style. My rule of thumb for women in a professional setting: you want people to notice what you think and say, not what you wear. Green capri pants are going to be eye-catching even in a casual work setting, whereas tan capris might not have raised eyebrows.

My other rule of thumb for women: When in doubt, overdress. That’s true across the pond as well. A London-based woman with experience in investment banking, venture capital, and asset management tells me: “I do think men take women more seriously when they are 'dressed up' as opposed to casual. Jeans for example -- a lot of men wear them but women don't get the same respect when wearing jeans.”

Also keep in mind that there are tacit rules you just have to deduce by looking around and figuring things out through trial and error, and those rules vary from office to office. I remember showing up at my law firm as a first-year associate -- this was in Los Angeles, where dress codes were already pretty casual compared to the East Coast or Midwest. Our dress code was business casual Monday through Thursday, and casual on Fridays. So on my first Friday I showed up in well-cut jeans, a blouse, a tailored jacket, nice shoes, and an Hermes scarf. I was quickly pulled aside by a more senior associate and sent back home to change -- “No jeans!” I thought that was pretty silly, when I looked a lot more put together than the guys with their polos and chinos, but at the same time I was grateful that someone had told me what the office norms were.

A different but related story: I was at the Boston Symphony Orchestra last night -- world-class musicians, conducted by James Levine. Doesn’t get any better than that. Dress codes were on my mind because of that article, and I noticed that while the male musicians were all in white tie tuxedos, a lot of the female musicians were dressed in what could have been Chico's separates from the mall, as if they'd been on their way to brunch or a faculty meeting.  Women have fought hard to make it into world-class symphonies -- I wish they’d dress appropriately. If James Levine can bother to wear a tux with his sweating and sciatica, you'd think the women could bother with formal wear too. I'm not talking about an Anne-Sophie Mutter strapless look (talk about clothes threatening to overshadow talent), which is easier to pull off as a soloist than an orchestra musician, but even a suit would be a step up (see Hilary Hahn).

Lior Strahilevitz, a much-loved young professor at my alma mater is, I'm told, generally a natty dresser. Alas, he has just been sued in the University of Chicago Law School Supreme Fashion Court for crimes against sartorial sensibilities. Read the claims, defenses, and counter-claims here.

Anyone have a photo of the offending outfit?

I was recently interviewed by WCBS in New York City (by Cindy Hsu for her "Family First" series) about the college admissions process, and they posted some of my interviewing tips on their website. Because the tips apply to graduate school admissions interviews and professional job interviews as well, I'll repost the tips here (with some slight modifications so that they're not tailored just to the college applicant crowd).

Later this week, I'm off to Notre Dame Law School to conduct mock interviews with their 1Ls and give them feedback on their interviewing skills. South Bend, here I come!

1. Show up on time.

This is not a casual chat, so treat your admissions and job interviews with the seriousness they deserve. Leave yourself plenty of time to get lost, ask for directions, find parking, etc. If something totally unforeseen happens (horrible accident on the freeway, exits closed with no detour signs, etc.), make sure you know how to get in touch with the interviewer so he or she doesn't feel stood up. As an admissions officer and also as an employer, I've been stood up on a number of occasions, and in all but one case I did hold it against the candidate.

2. Dress appropriately.

Even though students around you will be dressed very casually when you go to an on-campus admissions interview, you'll need to dress more formally. The same is true if you're meeting with a local alum for an interview at Starbucks. That means no flip-flops, jeans, shorts, camisoles, chunky jewelry, gum, or sunglasses perched on your head. You don't need to wear a suit, a tie, or double-stranded pearls, but you don't want to look like you're headed to the mall either. Khakis or a nice skirt, a polo shirt, button down shirts, or sweaters are always safe. For professional job interviews, however, business casual is not appropriate; a suit is a must.

3. Don't bring mom.

Mom and dad are welcome to drop you off, but they should not come into the interview with you, or ask to join in. I saw this again and again as an admissions officer, and I hear about this phenomenon from HR directors as well. Bringing your parents makes a terrible impression.

4. Why School X or Company Y?

The most important question to nail is why you're interested in that school or that company. Do your homework, and sound passionate about what the school/company has to offer. Do your research and understand how it's different from its peers.

5. Be Yourself. (Unless You're a Total Weirdo, in Which Case Listen to Your Friends.)

That's easier said than done, I know, but let your personality shine through. There's nothing worse for the interviewer than someone who sits there like a bump on a log and gives robotic responses. Also make sure to be able to talk in some detail if asked about any experience, achievement, activity, or hobby you list on your resume (or, for college applicants, your "brag sheet") -- you should never sound caught off guard about something you yourself offered up for discussion. And finally, never answer with a mere "yes" or "no" -- expand on any answer you give.

Of course, as the infamous Aleksey Vayner video resume demonstrates, there is such a thing as showing too much personality. It has to be the case that someone, somewhere, along the way told him
his clip was a bad idea, but I'm guessing he dismissed them as
"losers." Given the hoo-hah and laughter that erupted as that clip spread around the country, it looks as if most people intuitively grasp that his personal touch was way over the top, so blessedly I don't need to beat that horse here.

Congressman Mark Foley has just resigned as a result of improper emails and instant messages directed at a former intern, and no doubt the Capitol Hill "skintern" controversy will heat up again. In July, the Washinton Post published "Showing Off a Bit of Skin" on the subject, and Good Morning America had a whole segment about skimpily-clad interns flaunting their goods to get ahead ("Skinterns: Shedding Clothes in Hopes of Landing a Job"), while DC blogger Wonkette has a whole blog category called "skinterns." Even the London Times took notice. I doubt that the poor (underage) page being hit on by Congressman Foley was showing a whole lot of skin, but even if he had been a "skintern," so what? Employers should know better than to lech after their interns, whether on the Hill or anywhere else. That being said, someone needs to tell the Capitol Hill Hotties to PUT ON SOME DAMN CLOTHES.

An article in today's Wall Street Journal asks, "Now that the oldest members of Generation Y are in their 20s and completing college or starting their first jobs, who is going to dress them?" That means you.

Retailers like Metropark, Jimmy'Z, and Ruehl No. 925 think they have the answer. They are giving a lot of thought to "where all these folks are going to go when they get tired of shopping in teenage land" and "how to get them to pay higher prices than they are used to," according to the CEO of Metropark. Because yours is such a large demographic, they risk losing market share if they don't follow you as you get older. Their conclusion? Allow you to dress like your influences -- Hollywood and reality TV celebrities, according to them -- by offering you looks like embellished demin and blazers with graphics on the back. (Although that Gothic-font, concert-style t-shirt on the current Metropark homepage is already looking a bit passé, if I do say so myself...)

My advice is to save those outfits for your social and play time, not your work life (unless your work life requires hip, trendy, non-desk-job clothing). One way to tell whether you can get away with your hip casual clothes? Look at what your boss is wearing. If she's coming to work in embellished denim or he's running a meeting in a blazer with graphics on the back, then you have a green light to dress in kind. If not, your boss will think twice about whether you're worth grooming for advancement.

Is Miranda Priestly really such a she-devil? Most articles I’ve seen reviewing the movie The Devil Wears Prada dwell on the satanic awfulness of the editor-in-chief of the Vogue magazine stand-in Runway, but is she really that bad?

Yes, it would be nice if she said “please” and “thank you” once in a while. And sure, some of her demands come awfully close to hazing rituals. A pre-publication copy of the new Harry Potter manuscript for her twins? Please. I’ve suffered enough bosses from hell to know them when I see them, and Miranda Priestley is indeed a piece of work. (Pause for a minute and consider the irony of Hollywood studio executives casting that particular stone.)

But… she’s also insanely good at her job, in an industry that is ruthlessly difficult to succeed in, with bottom-line responsibility for the success of the magazine month after month after month. People generally aren’t entrusted with big, competitive business operations if they’re not fiendishly demanding and great at what they do.

And, refreshingly, she makes good on her promise that she’ll open any doors for those among her assistants who knock her socks off. Andy Sachs -- the protagonist and recent Northwestern graduate with aspirations to a writing career -- doesn’t even last a full year with Miranda and still lands at her dream writing job, no questions asked, because Miranda gave her the thumbs up to her publishing colleagues. We should all pray for bosses like that.

One fashion insider did come to the character’s defense. Woody Hochswender, former features editor at Harper’s Bazaar and style reporter for the New York Times, confirmed recently that the “intense awe and groveling” by the assistants and the “imperial fashion presence” and “tyranny” of the editor-in-chief are quite true to life. He points out that the top job requires the Miranda Priestleys to be “ruthless, peremptory and supremely organized in order to meet deadlines,” and that the real-life assistants largely behave like “private-school girls itching to cause some mayhem.” He describes, from his own experience, “fashionable, leggy, well-bred, socially adept young women who might not otherwise be gainfully employed,” who are chronically late, lose tens of thousands of dollars worth of furs and jewelry, and use the corporate FedEx account to mail drugs to their boyfriends. Sometimes people get the bosses they deserve.

So most of Miranda’s antics didn’t make me want to call Amnesty International, and perhaps I am in the minority. The scene that really sent me into apoplexy? When Andy’s father -- a nice, tweedy, caring man -- flies in form the Midwest to give her a pep talk at a nice restaurant. He sees how hard she’s working, how she’s at Miranda’s beck and call even during dinner, so he leans over the restaurant table and asks Andy, rhetorically, “You turned down Stanford Law School for this?”

It appears that the entire country is still gripped by the delusion that our best and brightest young people need to be lawyers, that getting into -- and graduating from -- a fancypants law school is the end-all-be-all of existence. I guess Andy’s parents get an A+ in parenting if Andy goes marching off to law school instead of pursuing the career she really loves and wants to give a chance. And here she is making an actual living in the publishing industry, having landed a job with one of the industry’s titans and positioned herself to work her way up. Is her dad really so ignorant that he thought she would start out anywhere but the bottom of the totem pole? In any job? Does he have any idea what abuse and abject degradation young associates suffer at prestigious law firms? (Miranda Priestley wouldn’t even register as interesting as a law firm partner.)

At least the movie’s ending confirms that Andy made the right choice. She landed her dream job, in no small part thanks to the much-maligned Miranda.

There’s a hilarious, nearly full-page photograph on the front page of the “Pursuits” section of the Wall Street Journal today. It shows a forty-something boss in a pin-striped suit gazing with consternation at her millennial, twenty-something employee who showed up for work in a skimpy camisole, chunky jewelry, cropped pants, and flip-flops. Would that it were satire; sadly not. The article profiles managers and recruiters going nuts over exposed midriffs and other office fashion faux pas.

I discussed this problem as one of the top five mistakes recent college grads make in their job searches during an interview I gave a few months ago on Fox News Channel’s morning show. The outfits you get away with in class will not fly in the professional world, even in a “business casual” environment. There’s “business casual” and then there’s “just woke up and dragged myself to class” or “raiding my roommate's closet hoping to hook up with some guy at the Pike party.” When you get out of college, you’ll need to give your wardrobe a complete overhaul. (If you think I’m picking mostly on women here, I am. Most guys don’t show up at work with peekaboo bellybuttons.)