“Neckwear Characterisation and Management Theory in Practice”

 

What Business Schools Should Be Teaching About People Management in 2010

By Dr Malcolm Braithwaite, Principal Consultant
                                                    Resonato – Reputation Matters
                                                    www.resonato.co.uk

 

By observing the behaviour characteristics of business managers over a period of some 35 years of a career in the Chemicals Industry and by associating their ‘management style’ with their choice of neck attire, I have developed a technique to be applied to the management of people across the workforce, which I fully expect to see taken up by the Business Schools for their MBA students. We will call it “Neckwear Characterisation and Management Theory in Practice” or “NCMTP” for short. The term ‘neckwear’ is chosen because the technique applies to both male and female neck attire.

 

Two seminal experiences triggered my interest in the power of neckwear. The first was when I attended an interview with a representative from Kodak in the 1968 University “Milk Round” programme. I became totally distracted by the guy’s plain red tie and luminous green socks. The clash appalled me, gave me a totally false impression of Kodak as a company, materially altered the direction of my career and made me vow at the tender age of 20 years old that I would always take particular care in my choice of neckwear and matching socks!  Kodak’s reputation was ruined forever in my mind!

 

The second was on the night that I first met my wife in September 1970.  We are still married today.  I heard a radio programme, earlier on that day, suggesting that women were attracted by neckties with flowers depicted on them (it was the ‘Hippy’ era after all) and that they wanted to ’mother’ men whose neckties were partially undone and ‘look after’ them. So I chose my tie carefully for that night’s student dance – a floral number, hand made for me by a former girlfriend, and wore it loose!  Sure enough, she saw me as I prowled around the edges of the dance floor, accepted my invitation to dance, and promptly tightened my tie when only a few moments into our first encounter. It worked well, again persuading me of the power of neck attire!

 

A more recent experience recited by a male business contact illustrates that the neck tie can transmit impressions, not always as intended, to those who read or attempt to read the messages.  At a conference that he was attending wearing his ‘colours-of-the-rainbow’ striped neck tie, he was approached by an attractive young female asking whether she could join with him when it came time to sit down.  Wondering why this much younger lady had selected him as a companion, he politely agreed but was still puzzled.  At the end of the session, the young lady thanked him and said that she felt much more comfortable sitting with someone of similar sexual orientation proudly wearing the rainbow colours of the Gay Pride movement.  He replied that he would mention this to his wife before she next bought him another tie for his birthday present!

 

This brings up an interesting fact that most men have ties bought for them by their wives, girlfriends or daughters

These ladies buy the tie thinking that it will suit, probably not overtly considering that it is more the personality of the man they are matching than the colour combination with the type of clothes he wears.  Female intuition at work!  It is usually the choice of the man himself as he comes to select the tie from his collection that he is going to wear for any particular occasion.  Hence there are two factors which make the tie a useful indicator of character – female intuition and the mood of the man as he selects his tie for the day.  These factors alone make the neck tie a pretty useful tool in defining the personality and psychometric profile of the wearer.  But surely, you say, this doesn’t seem to be a very scientific approach to personality assessment when there are many, much more sophisticated and expensive methodologies developed over many years being offered by expensive consultants.  Oh, yes indeed!

 

During my career, as I scaled the levels of responsibility, I was exposed to various psychometric testing methods, team building exercises, management consultant scrutiny, and training courses on man management and negotiating skills, amongst others.  As a result of my Kodak experience, I always noted the necktie/socks combinations of my mentors, adversaries, inquisitors, bosses, and, at Senior Management level, my Board colleagues, particularly the Chairman. Back in 2006, I joined the Board of a company as a non-executive Director and quickly became a confidant and mentor to the Managing Director.  I am now, as I write, Non-Executive Chairman of that same Board.  The MD confessed to a perceived problem that he had at Board meetings in ‘reading’ the state of mind of the Directors and the angle from which they would question him during the meetings.  This affected the way in which he responded, not always with confidence and not recognising when he had real support or genuine opposition.  He asked me to mentor him on this particular problem.  I observed the behaviour of the Board members throughout a couple of meetings and during one-to-one discussions, and attempted to assess their psychometric profiles without doing the tests.

 

Remembering my semi-obsession with neck attire, I also applied an analytical approach to their neck attire and the personality profile that I had deduced.  The correlation was amazingly accurate, in my view. 

 

I discussed this, in mentoring style, with the MD and we came up with an empirical approach to neckwear assessment and behavioural prediction.  It also made the MD question his choice and be more careful in the selection of his own neck tie.  Probably more effective was the fact that, in taking a few moments to assess the neckwear of others around the Boardroom, table, the MD gave himself that little extra thinking time and stopped him opening his mouth too soon and putting his foot in it!

 

Psycometric Profiles/Personality Types and their neckwear

 

So what are we saying about people and their choice of neck attire? It is vital to understand the motivations and natural inclinations of people you work with and deal with in all aspects of life. Companies spend great amounts of money in ‘testing’ their employees in attempts to classify them, understand them, and ultimately control them. Specialised consultants make a fortune from providing such services to corporations. Wouldn’t it be so much simpler and more cost effective to appreciate what drives an individual to choose what he or she puts around the neck in the morning before setting off for work, or in the evening before social encounters?

 

There are some very interesting and complex (and expensive) methodologies for assessing personality types.  My particular favourite is:

Life Orientaions – Lifo®. This methodology identifies four orientations or characteristics in individuals:

·        The supporting/giving-in orientation

·        The controlling/taking-over orientation,

·        The conserving/holding-on orientation, and

·        The adapting/dealing-away orientation.

Most people are a mixture of all of these orientations but with one being dominant.  The typical behaviour associated with each orientation is well summarised by its name and this is all that has to be remembered when assigning neckwear types.  Remembering the approach that each orientation gives easily enables one to read where that particular individual is coming from and how to relate and respond.  Going into too much detail on these orientations is superfluous when matching neckwear with orientation because the simple descriptor is enough to give the average manager the impression that he or she needs to be able to deal with the person on a routine basis.  It is beyond the scope of this paper to go into the behaviour characteristics of each orientation but most useful to the conscientious manager to read the background.

 

 [See: http://www.lifo.co.uk/personal_style.htm]

 

Another, and probably the most widely used tool to assess personality characteristics is the DISC methodology, developed by John Geier and others and based on the 1928 work of psychologist William Moulton Marston and the original behaviouralist Walter. V. Clarke.  DISC also identifies four particular behavioural characteristics – Dominance, Influence, Steadiness, and Conscientiousness.  Dominance ’D’ relates to control, power and assertiveness and is analogous with controlling/taking-over in Lifo®.  Similarly, Influence ‘I’ which relates to social situations and communication is analogous with supporting/giving-in;  Steadiness ‘S’ relates to patience, persistence, and thoughtfulness and is analogous to adapting/dealing-away; and finally Conscientiousness ‘C’ (or caution and compliance) relates to adhering to rules, regulations, and structure. ‘C’ types of people are, in fact, conserving/holding-on types.

 

Another very popular psychometric test method used is the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) assessment that is designed to measure psychological preferences in how people perceive the world and make decisions.  Again the outcome essentially distils down to four basic characteristics further evaluated as opposite pairs, or “dichotomies,” with a resulting 16 possible psychological types.  These “dichotomies” are dealt with under three headings: Attitudes-extraversion or introversion; Functions –sensing intuition, thinking, feeling; and Lifestyle – judgment and perception.  Fuller analysis would overcomplicate this discussion but suffice it to say parallels can be drawn between the characteristics determined by the other methodologies described.

 

My own experiences in observing behaviour in the corporate business environment lead to a much simpler but very useful classification of types.  I have observed personally that there are actually only three meaningful classifications for people in company make-ups. These were also identified and named by Patricia Pitcher as “Artists, Craftsmen, and Technocrats”. In her book: “Artists, Craftsmen and Technocrats: The Dreams, Realities and Illusions of Leadership”

 

The “Artists” are the entrepreneurs, the off-the-wall thinkers, the visionaries, etc.  They are ’ideas’ people who generally are not good at attention to detail and repetitive tasks that require patience. They want to move on to the next idea before the current one has been thought through and a decision made. They are not necessarily good at making decisions themselves and not good at working to plan, but they do tend to be inspirational leaders. (Maybe Lifo’s controlling/taking-on types and DISC ‘D’s?)

 

The “Craftsmen” are the “doers” in the organisation – the hewers of stone and carriers of water who enable the dreams of the artists through application of their skills. They take pride in their work, have less sense of time and urgency, follow directions willingly and are generally less imaginative in their approach than the “Artists”. (Maybe Lifo’s supporting/giving-in AND adapting/dealing-away types and DISC’s ‘I’ and ‘S’s?)

 

The “Technocrats” are the organisers and analysers.  They apply ‘techniques’ to organising their fellow workers, plan to the ‘n’ th degree, analyse to the last detail, write reports and absolve themselves of blame in a crisis. They tend generally to be ‘bean counting’ accountants or have some sort of Business Administration qualification. They think they should be the leaders but usually make a mess of it all when they take the lead because of their inflexibility. (Maybe Lifo’s conserving/holding-on types and DISC’s ‘C’s?)

 

What is very clear, and a tenet of Pitcher’s book, is that technocrats and artists find it extremely difficult to understand each other and work together in harmony.  It is vital that each recognises the other and understands where each is coming from and wanting to go to when facing each other, particularly across the Boardroom table.

 

Ties for Types

 

This brings the discussion nicely back to the point!  How do you recognise the characteristics which influence the behaviour of your colleagues in the workplace and the Boardroom?  What should we look for?

 

It is my general observation, and the tenet of this discussion, that differing types wear characteristic neck attire.  Male ‘Artists’ wear ‘loud’ ties in bright colours, with abstract patterns, usually with large knots. Female ‘Artists’ wear BIG beads that rattle as the wearer moves, or colourful neck scarves held tight by a gold or jewelled ring, rarely knotted, or indeed wear ‘loud’ ties in bright colours, with abstract patterns, usually with large knots.  Both genders tend to wear coloured shirts, often patterned but rarely plain white.

 

“Craftsmen” don’t wear ties generally but do like to sport one at important meetings.  It’s their need to appear to be part of the team.  They tend to wear ‘quiet’ ties in pale, mono colours or with tiny animal motifs, modest necklaces (women and men), and wear plain coloured, check, or pale striped shirts.  They don’t really want to be in a meeting where decisions are taken and hope therefore to merge into the background and let others lead.  At meetings they will tend not to ’risk’ polo or t-shirts that they prefer to wear at their own work stations because that would make them feel ‘different’.

 

“Technocrats”, on the other hand, must use their neckwear to demonstrate their authority over all around them.  Men wear the ‘company tie’ if one exists, or bright but contrasting, diagonally stripped ties, and occasionally a thick gold chain from which an expensive gold medallion hangs.  They ‘boast’ with their ‘old school tie’. Female “Technocrats” prefer strong gold necklaces or narrow-folded neck scarves, usually with stripes, held tight in place with a small, tight knot. Both genders tend to wear a crisp white shirt which makes the neckwear even more emphasised.  They ooze confidence because they “dress to kill” with overpowering intent.

 

At the height of the recent financial turmoil a.k.a “the credit crunch”, both the UK Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer wore plain purple ties.  The leader of the Liberal Democrats also sported a plain purple tie in the same period.  Apparently ‘purple’ was the colour of Imperial Rome. It’s also a mixture of red and blue. Red = male = fire. Blue = female = water.  Most Labour Party politicians tend to wear a plain, red tie.  The leader of the Conservative Party used always to wear a light blue tie, but is increasingly seen with an open neck formal shirt in TV appearances!  Interestingly, very recently he has also taken to wearing a plain purple tie in more formal surroundings!  So who do we trust?

 

The Daily Telegraph has its views, in reporting:

 

“David Cameron should hold fast to his neckwear

News that the most iconic item of male dress, the necktie, is in danger of falling out of fashion in America is a grim intimation of the decline of yet another civilisation. The tie is a weathervane of the health of a society; if you doubt that – look at Iran. The tie is the emblem of western civilisation, said to be descended from the focalia worn by Roman orators to protect their vocal chords.

“A well-tied tie is the first serious step in life,” declared Oscar Wilde. He was right and the rules of neckwear are rigid. Vulgar innovators may have experimented with a variety of expanding and contracting versions, from kipper to boot-lace, but the classic width remains three and a quarter inches at base, the patterns restricted to small white polka dots on a blue or wine background, Paisley whorls, lozenge shapes, or self-coloured. Silk is the only approved fabric.”

This article gave rise to a regular series of letters to The Telegraph since its publication in mid 2008. 

 

A series of letters to The Times in February 2009 further added to the debate after a report that the Garrick Club in London had reversed its policy on gentlemen being allowed not to wear ties at lunch.  One letter argued “Ties DO serve a useful purpose.  They indicate the wearer’s personality or the image of himself he wishes to project but the astute observer can easily spot his inconsistencies. The matching of coloured/patterned shirts and ties is also intriguing.”

 

And I think that the penultimate sentence encapsulates the essence of this discussion and an important point to which I have yet only alluded.  Indeed, ties do indicate “the wearer’s personality” and this fact can be used to judge the style and mood of the wearer in most situations.  The new element is how the wearer can influence how others perceive him (and it applies to a woman’s neckwear too) depending on the choice of tie – the image he (she) wishes to project.  Be aware of the warning also that “the astute observer can easily spot (his) inconsistencies”.

 

In Conclusion – NCMPT

 

So we have a people management system based around neckwear!  There is an intuitive element in assessing the reaction you yourself have towards the neck wear exhibited by the people around you.  Decide how you feel about it.  Correlate that feeling against the personality characteristics identified by psychometric testing, or your own emotional assessment of personality; categorise the wearer in your mind; and deal with him/her accordingly.

Remember also to choose your own neckwear to be consistent with purpose.  What sort of person do you want to appear to be? Eliminate any item of wear that might give away inconsistencies in your own image. In other words, make sure your shirt AND socks match your tie!

 

Most importantly, remember that by looking at the neckwear of your inquisitor or opponent, and thinking for a moment what this tells you about them, you will have that little bit of extra space to think about the issue before you open your mouth and commit yourself beyond recall, and will also frame your response to be more aligned with the angle of the other person.  NCMPT has proved to be a very useful tool for my MD and he performs much better in Board meetings as a direct result.  It makes my job as Chairman of the Board much easier!