The Flair Argument

My favorite part of the 1999 film Office Space is when Joanna, played by Jennifer Aniston, dramatically and gloriously quits her job. Joanna works as a server at a restaurant called Chotchkies, where employees are required to wear at least fifteen pieces of "flair" (buttons) as part of their uniform. Joanna dutifully follows the policy by wearing fifteen pieces of flair.

Despite this, Joanna's boss repeatedly speaks to her about her flair. While he acknowledges that she wears the required fifteen pieces, he pushes her to wear more via indirect and manipulative questions such as "You want to express yourself, don't you?" and "What do you think of a person who only does the bare minimum?" He condescendingly compares her to another server who wears 37 pieces of flair. Yet when Joanna directly asks him if he wants her to wear more, and asks why he doesn't increase the minimum if he wants people to wear more, he refuses to answer her directly. Joanna finally "expresses" herself via an obscene gesture and quits on the spot.

Office Space is satirical comedy, but like most comedic things it's funny because it's true. The flair argument is alive and well, and the first time I noticed it being used in real life was in college when one of my math professors gave the class a list of "challenge problems" and asked us to submit solutions for at least three of them by the end of the semester. I submitted three solutions early in the semester, then around midterms my professor asked me why I hadn't submitted more. "Because you only asked for three," I answered, to which they replied "Yes but you're capable of doing more." I believe it was meant to be a compliment, but I left the conversation feeling like I was in trouble for not doing something that was never asked of me, and it felt unfair. In my frustration I had a sudden realization that my professor had just pulled "the flair argument."

Since then I've seen it used many times either on myself or a co-worker. In my fields the flair argument could look like being punished for:

• not completing a task more than the minimum number of times
• not completing a task before the deadline
• declining to work optional overtime
• declining to work outside of working hours

Punishment could take a variety of forms including public shaming, a "nastygram," not receiving one's full raise or bonus, or being dinged on a performance evaluation.

There's a "reverse flair argument" where you are punished for doing the maximum, such as receiving a negative consequence for taking the maximum amount of PTO.

The flair argument is deeply unfair, and it can make people feel as though they've had the rug pulled out from under them. It can make them feel as though they're being punished for violating an invisible rule, and they might rightly wonder what other invisible rules they're unknowingly violating that might show up in a performance review or might be used as justification for not giving them their full bonus. For these reasons, the flair argument is a one-way ticket to eroding trust and sinking morale.

The best way to avoid it is for organizations and managers to be extremely clear about policies and expectations. Ask for what you want (if you want people to wear 37 pieces of flair, require them to wear 37 pieces of flair) and don't punish people for not doing what you didn't ask them to do (if you require fifteen pieces of flair, don't punish people for not wearing more than that). Translated into real life scenarios: if you set a deadline for a task on Friday, don't punish people who complete it on Friday. If you wanted it done by Thursday, set the deadline for Thursday. Likewise if you don't want people to take x weeks of PTO, then don't offer x weeks of PTO. Etc.

It doesn't feel good to be on the receiving end of the flair argument, but it also doesn't feel good to be the one making the argument, if you haven't bought into it. As a manager, I regretfully found myself in that position when I made a flair argument to a high performing and highly engaged direct report at the directive of my manager and HR, despite my repeated protests that it was both unfair and unnecessary. The outcome was exactly what I predicted it would be: the direct report was understandably upset. I still think about it, and I've vowed that I'll advocate harder for my direct report should I ever find myself in that position again. My advice to other managers would be that if you find yourself being asked (or ordered) to have these kinds of conversations, there's a chance that it could be an honest misunderstanding, but there's also a chance that it's a sign of a toxic work culture. Observe carefully to see which one it is.

I'm curious in what other ways the flair argument plays out, especially in other industries! If you're comfortable please leave a comment.