The Culture of Negotiation Between Systems and Their Members: A Case Study on Work Attire

In a contemporary workplace scenario, a manager finds herself in a dilemma. She notices that one of her team members has dressed too casually for a professional conference. While she acknowledges the need for feedback, she hesitates to confront the employee directly. The manager is unsure how the feedback will be received and is concerned about its potential misinterpretation. Instead of addressing the issue head-on, she reports the matter to HR. In response, HR decides to initiate a company-wide survey on dress codes to gauge employees’ perspectives and find common ground on appropriate workplace attire.

This simple example offers a lens into the broader and more complex culture of negotiation between an organisation and its members. It reflects how personal autonomy, individualism, and evolving norms shape the dynamics within systems, often complicating direct feedback and norm enforcement. This is particularly true in an era where traditional workplace expectations have rapidly shifted, and the lines between personal expression and professional standards have blurred.

1. The Evolution of Work Attire Culture

The culture surrounding work attire has undergone rapid changes in recent decades. Not long ago, workplaces adhered to strict dress codes, with formal attire being the unspoken rule across industries. Employees wore suits, ties, and skirts as symbols of professionalism, and there was little room for personal expression. However, as workplace cultures became more casual and younger generations, such as millennials and Gen Z, entered the workforce, the rigidity around attire started to relax.

This shift isn't confined to workplaces. Schools, particularly elite institutions, have also seen similar transitions. The older generation, particularly Gen Xers, grew up in environments where uniforms symbolised equality. Uniforms, as they believed, helped neutralise differences in social and economic backgrounds, creating a level playing field where students were judged on their merit rather than their attire. But now, with increasing emphasis on individuality and autonomy, the uniform has been challenged. Many schools allow students greater freedom in their dress, reflecting broader societal shifts towards personal expression.

In workplaces, this shift raises an important question: How can an organisation balance individual autonomy with collective norms like dress codes, which are meant to present a unified, professional image?

2. Autonomy and Individualism: Linked but Not the Same

The growing emphasis on autonomy in modern workplaces is often conflated with individualism. However, the two concepts, while linked, are not identical. Autonomy refers to the ability to make decisions for oneself, to have control over one's actions within the boundaries of a system. It is a sense of personal freedom and ownership of one's role and contributions.

On the other hand, individualism is about expressing one's unique identity and differentiating oneself from the collective. While autonomy allows individuals to operate freely within a system, individualism can sometimes challenge the cohesion of that system when personal expression conflicts with established norms.

In the example of the workplace attire issue, the employee likely values individualism—choosing an outfit that reflects their personal style. At the same time, the organisation values autonomy in its members to make independent decisions, but it also has expectations that these decisions align with the professional image it seeks to project. The tension arises when these two forces clash, highlighting the delicate balance between personal freedom and organisational expectations.

3. Norm Building as a Tool for Belonging

Norms are essential for creating a sense of belonging within any system, be it a workplace, school, or community. They provide a framework for behaviour, creating predictability and trust within the group. In many ways, norms help individuals feel that they are part of a shared identity or mission, contributing to a collective goal.

However, in modern workplaces, norm building has become increasingly challenging. What was once seen as essential to creating cohesion is now often viewed as authoritarianism. Dress codes, for instance, are seen not merely as guidelines for professionalism but as impositions on personal expression. Employees may feel that they are being forced to conform to outdated or unnecessary standards, limiting their individuality.

This perception is exacerbated by the declining trust towards authority in many modern organisations. Authority figures, such as managers or HR, are often viewed with suspicion, seen as tools of oppression rather than facilitators of progress. As a result, employees may feel the need to guard their autonomy fiercely, resisting any effort to standardise behaviour or appearance.

4. Low Trust in Authority and the Fear of Oppression

The erosion of trust in authority is a significant cultural shift. Historically, authority in the workplace was largely accepted and respected. Employees trusted their managers to act in their best interest, and there was a clear power dynamic that shaped the relationship between leaders and workers.

Today, however, this trust has diminished. Many employees are quick to assume that authority figures act out of self-interest or in the service of corporate goals that may not align with individual or collective welfare. In this context, norms like dress codes are viewed as ways to control or oppress rather than to unify.

This suspicion towards authority creates a challenging environment for organisations attempting to establish or enforce norms. The fear of being oppressive or overly restrictive can lead managers and HR departments to avoid direct confrontations, as in the case of the manager who hesitated to give feedback on attire. Instead of clear, honest communication, organisations resort to indirect methods, like surveys, to sense the mood of the workforce and avoid backlash.

5. The Issue of Attire and Gender in Patriarchal Cultures

The issue of attire has historically affected women more than men, particularly in patriarchal cultures where women's clothing is scrutinised more heavily. Even in well-known colleges in urban India, dress codes disproportionately target women. Rules about modesty and appropriateness are often enforced with the assumption that women’s attire is a reflection of their morality or respectability, while men's attire tends to face far less scrutiny.

This disparity extends to professional settings, where women are frequently judged based on their appearance, with higher expectations of adherence to dress codes. In patriarchal systems, women’s clothing has long been seen as a symbol of control, and attempts to dictate or restrict how women dress are often part of broader efforts to police their behaviour.

Therefore, the resistance and backlash against authority diktats on attire has been a significant part of the feminist movement. Women's fight for autonomy over their bodies and choices, including how they dress, is a well-justified battle against patriarchal control. This should not be conflated with the broader issue of demands for individualism in workplaces, where personal expression must be balanced with collective norms.

While the feminist movement rightly challenges the oppression behind dress codes that target women disproportionately, it is important to distinguish this fight from the general resistance to standardisation in workplaces, which sometimes stems more from a desire for individualism rather than addressing an unjust power dynamic.

6. The Price Modern Organisations Pay

So, what is the cost of this culture of negotiation? On one hand, organisations that fail to establish clear norms can suffer from a lack of cohesion and professionalism. Without guidelines, employees may act based on personal preferences that conflict with the organisation's goals or image, leading to disorganisation and inefficiency. In cases like the dress code scenario, the company risks projecting an unprofessional image, particularly in client-facing or public roles, because it cannot enforce basic standards of presentation.

On the other hand, individuals within these systems also pay a price. In a culture where individualism and autonomy are fiercely protected, employees may feel disconnected from the larger mission of the organisation. They may struggle to find common ground with their colleagues, leading to a fragmented work environment where personal agendas outweigh collective goals.

Moreover, the lack of clear, honest communication—such as the manager's fear of giving feedback—can lead to misunderstandings and resentment. When feedback is indirect or filtered through surveys and anonymous processes, individuals may feel alienated or unvalued.

The culture of negotiation between systems and their members is fraught with complexities. As personal autonomy and individualism become more prominent in the workplace, the task of building norms that create belonging becomes increasingly challenging. Trust in authority is low, and organisations are often caught between the need to enforce standards and the fear of being perceived as authoritarian.

The issue of dress codes, particularly for women in patriarchal contexts, adds another layer of complexity. The feminist resistance against attire policing is justified, but it should be seen as distinct from the broader issue of balancing individualism with collective norms in workplaces.

The price paid by modern organisations is a lack of cohesion, while individuals within these systems may experience a loss of connection and belonging. Ultimately, the challenge for leaders lies in finding a balance between respecting individual autonomy and maintaining the integrity of the organisation’s collective mission. The key may lie in fostering open, honest communication and creating norms through collaboration rather than imposition.