Hillary Clinton’s New Hair – Sexist Comments or Psychological Signals?

In an article titled "Let’s face it, the ‘beauty premium’ exists at work" published on January 10, 2014, in the Toronto Globe and Mail, Leah Eichler flirts with the idea that attention to Mrs. Clinton’s bangs – and to any women’s appearance – might be unfair and, perhaps, even sexist. Lamenting the fact that, “The hairstyles of prominent female leaders never fail to make the news,” she mentions "The Beauty Premium" as one explanation.

Interpreting our fixation with Mrs. Clinton's hair as an aspect of the "beauty premium" misses the

Janet Mayer - Splash

point. We look at the hair of any person of influence and power to discern whether they can function in their role in an effective and expected way. We do judge books by their covers and before we say, "oh, that isn’t right; that shouldn't happen," think about how we label a person in tattered clothes pushing a shopping cart along the street. Do we think "corporate executive?" Or "homeless?" Undercover Boss tells us we probably judge “homeless.” That’s just the way we do it. It's in our DNA.

And before we lament the fact that attention is paid to Mrs. Clinton's hair - again - let's look at the hair of some men. Malcolm Gladwell's deliciously unruly locks work for him because he’s a writer who thinks thoughts the rest of us only dream of. That hair would work against him if he aspired to be, say, a bank president and any of his male mentors would be quick to tell him so. The same with Einstein and his wild locks. The Reverend Al Sharpton is another case in point. As he has moved more into the mainstream, he has tamed his signature James-Brown-tribute hair. And on January 21, 2014, ABC Evening News’ Senior National Correspondent Jim Avila, in reporting on Chris Christie’s inauguration said Christie was "sporting a more presidential haircut." So … "they" just say these things to and about women? Obviously not. Perhaps men follow the rules so much that they don’t need the comments. My money is on the latter.

Rich Schultz - AP Photos

Though we can always find the few exceptions that prove the rule, more conventional positions almost always necessitate conventional hair. We, the people, require  it. We make judgments on competence (and 16 other qualities) within 3.5 seconds of meeting someone and those conclusions, once made, are visceral, deep and long-lasting - a point tangentially made in Malcolm Gladwell's blink!

So Mrs. Clinton's hair is not a beauty issue. It is a can-we-trust-her-to-be-the-chief-executive issue. It is a question of what her clothes and hair project, an issue, finally, answered by looking through the prism of The Silent Language of Clothes©. And here are some points she could think about in choosing her hair style and her wardrobe: 

• Get the hair right quickly. Frequent hair changes signal a flip-flopping mind and your opposition will use that to their advantage. "She just seems unstable" they can say and many people will resonate with that deep in their core without quite knowing why.

• Choose a style that projects the elements you need for the job and for the campaign trail. Among the qualities we look for in our president are: authority (you will be the commander-in-chief, of course), effectiveness, authenticity, trustworthiness and friendliness (when relating with the public).

• Project these qualities in your clothes every day, taking into consideration the venue and your audience. Though you have more than amply demonstrated these qualities in your stellar public service career, every appearance is a mini first impression and you must visually reinforce these qualities each day. Your opponents will be doing so. Don’t let them get the edge.

Ladies in Red at the State of the Union - Not a Fashion Issue

Last year a distracting handful of women wore red at the State of the Union address; this year it has spread. And the women know not what they do.

Women wear red thinking it is a power color. They often say, “I’ve got a big meeting – or a big speech or a big negotiation. I need some power. I’ll wear red.”

Unfortunately, they do not realize that red is not a power color. It is a powerful color, but not a power color. There's a difference.

Red, especially pure, bright red, is high-energy. It accelerates the pulse, raises blood pressure and increases respiration rate. In other words, it has a strong impact.

So, what's not to like? Strong impact, high energy? Bring it on.

Alas, it is a two-edged sword. Red's high energy is also polarizing and, as such, is hard to control. It engages half of one's audience positively causing them to see you as energetic, confident and assertive. The other half sees you as overbearing, intimidating and not particularly approachable which, combined with the raised blood pressure, often makes them angry, even furious.

Unfortunately you are never sure which person will see menacing and which will see vibrant. As such it puts you in the position of needing to mollify part of your audience – without knowing which part – instead of setting forth your program or points. What a burden. What a roadblock. A roadblock I don’t need.

There are other problems with red. First, while red makes you more noticeable, it can also make you look heavier. Red increases the perceived size of whatever it encompasses. It also demands perfection. Since it draws attention, the red dress or suit you wear needs to be flawless. It will be given extra scrutiny.

Red also suggests "sale." Retailers know this which is why Target's target, Kmart’s K, Macy’s star and the H&M logo are all red. “Cheap” might not be the appropriate subliminal message to leave in an opponent’s mind.

Finally, red has unmistakable sexual overtones, for women a dangerous proposition. In Games Mother Never Taught You Betty Lehan Harrigan warned that sex used in business will trivialize and marginalize a woman. So, while this can be useful for doing business with certain people (girls, you know what I mean), it also could backfire. Watchword: beware.

Am I saying never wear red? Absolutely not. Jill Biden’s red was not a problem. She’s not an elected official. Accomplished as she is, she claimed her seat at the proceedings not as a politician - which would be a professional role - but as the wife of a politician – a social role. Red is appropriate to her social role in which she is not seeking power.

Similarly an artist in red (think Paloma Picasso) or a red polo shirt at a barbecue can be totally appropriate to the respective role and situation.

But lawmakers in red? That’s another matter. Congress is a high stakes, high profile environment where you need all the power you can lay your hands on. Otherwise you risk being seen as a lightweight and eaten alive. Ladies in red, take note.

But let's look at how men wear red in business. No red suits. Not even red shirts. (And if red were a power color, believe me, they would!) They do, however, tap into the dynamism and vibrancy of the color by using it in their ties. Just a small accent.

Besides wearing red in small amounts, there are other ways to control the color. Darker shades have more power; when red is darkened it becomes more subdued, more suitable for business. Maroon, port and burgundy - blue-based reds - are classic, refined, elegant and formal. Rust, a deep yellow-based deep red, is earthy, friendly and approachable.

The judicious use of red can be a powerful weapon in a woman’s arsenal. Just know what you’re doing. Do your research: know your message, know the environment and culture you’re navigating, know the effect you want to have, understand the strengths and the drawbacks of red. And for some of us, on some occasions, that red dress – or suit – might be absolute perfection.

Shirt Sleeves in the Oval Office … It’s About Appropriate

It won’t be appropriate every day. And, with Obama’s impeccable grasp of symbolism, I’m sure it won’t be done every day. But the pictures of Obama in shirtsleeves and of him with key aides – some with jackets, some jacket-free – on day one and day two in the Oval Office is incredibly reassuring.

It’s not about a relaxed style. It’s not about a more casual tone. It’s not about comfort. And it’s not, as some have said, about defiling the White House.

It’s about message. It’s about appropriate. And it’s a symbol of common sense and hard work in the Oval Office.

The message the shirtsleeves sends is: we are getting down to work. We’re not afraid of work. We have class and we know the rules (we’re in shirtsleeves, after all, not T-shirts), but we’re willing to do the heavy lifting when it’s called for. And to do the heavy lifting, you need to take off the jacket.

That said, I liked the fact that George Bush required jackets and professional attire in his meetings. It was heartening in a compulsively casual business climate where people no longer know the symbolic messages that dress sends … whether we know it or not.

But there was something compulsively formal about George Bush’s dictum. A White House Oval Office where people, even with shirts and ties – are not allowed to take off their jackets smacks of a group of the elite not willing to get their hands dirty.

Obama is a refreshing change.

Also refreshing is that there’s nothing rigid about it. In some pictures he wears a jacket; in some he doesn’t. In other words, when the occasion calls for it, we’re formal. When we’re tackling tough issues, we might remove our jackets. And sometimes – apparently at Camp David – we’re even business casual.