Question response framework and methodology

Cohen had a right to be offended, not that her superiors accused her of dressing inappropriately, but at the time that they chose to bring it up. Cohen was young and worked in a creative environment. These are the prerequisites for a casual dress in many circumstances. Some creative firms think that letting employees dress in a creative manner will help them be effective. Obviously, this was not the case in this firm, but the fact that Cohen expected that type of environment was not surprising. In fact, the case study states that Cohen thought she had a good grip on the company's dress code and that she had been dressing inappropriately for quite some time. If this were the case, it was the responsibility of the senior officers to approach Cohen much earlier than right before an important meeting for which she was dressed inappropriately. Then, they could have gently reminded Cohen about the policy and given constructive criticism as to how she might dress to better fit the company image. I would have to agree with Cohen's reaction given the situation. The method in which she was rebuked most certainly calls for offense.

Although I agree this statement is generally true, and one wouldn't want to criticize someone's fashion as they walked down a city street, there are limits to the freedom of expression. For example, one has the freedom to express themselves in any way possible by speech. Thus, one could legally scream curse words in a business environment, but this does not mean that the manager of that business has to continue that particular person's employment. The business environment deems it inappropriate to scream curse words in an office, unless, of course, one works in some sort of commentary position. In the same way, some business environments are casual ones. A person must amend his or her freedom to take part in those environments. It is easy to see the practicality of this when it comes to sports players. A football player would not be allowed on the field without his helmet and most major sports teams would bar their players from the stadium if they refused to wear the uniform. The players' uniforms are necessary for protection and identification. These uniforms are required by the environment in which they work. The environment in which Cohen works also had a dress code that required a certain amendment of freedom. If Cohen wanted to express her freedom of expression, she is free to seek work elsewhere.

The issue of the dress code is a personal one, and it is more private and more likely to step on toes than almost any other aspect of a company's code. The purpose of the dress code is generally to give others, who are looking in on the company, an idea of what type of company it is. Also, like the IBM researcher noted, it also impacts company performance. Some suggest that companies perform better with a formal atmosphere and others, like IBM workers, think they can think and work more clearly if they are comfortable. In the end, whatever type of image the company want to portray, that is the kind of dress code that they will adopt. But who makes those decisions? Some may argue that it is up to an employer to set the dress code. In many ways, this is true. Boards of directors should get together and discuss the major issues in dress. Are many of the company's employees going out from day-to-day visiting other firms and potential clients. Do those clients come from high-powered business environments that relish the suit and tie? Are there internal issues like sexual harassment or ethnic or religious considerations to discuss before adopting a dress code? Finally, how will work performance chance with the adoption of a particular dress code, and what information backs up that answer? Once them come up with the answer, it is the responsibility for the employer and the leadership board to bring their findings to the employees and ask for input. After this input has been received, it is time for a final decision of the dress code to be made by the employer. This decision, though, should reflect its fluid nature. Dress codes must be able to be changed with the times. Employees should feel free to approach the management about dress codes at any time. Because dress is such an important part of business image, personal expression, and even religious or spiritual practice, it is important that while the employer makes the decisions as to the image of her company, her employees get a chance to raise their opinions.