Attire: Between Professionalism and Identity (1)
Episode One: Mao and the Measuring Tape... Where is the Decision?!
The writer, Ahmed Al-Sarraf, began his commentary with a reference to the Ministry of Finance’s circular invoking Mao Zedong, and concluded with a pertinent question regarding employee ethics and productivity. In between, he imagined a department head carrying a measuring tape, inspecting the length of skirts, makeup, and tattoos. These are images that arrest the reader’s attention, but are they sufficient to judge the decision? When discussing an administrative circular, the correct measure is not the length of a skirt, but rather the clarity of the text, the legitimacy of the objective, the fairness of its application, and the proportionality of the penalties.
First: What is the similarity to Mao? The attire evoked by Al-Sarraf is linked to a political and social context that encompassed millions of people in China. In contrast, the “Finance” circular regulates the appearance of employees in a specific entity and, according to what the writer himself cited, provides multiple images of acceptable attire. So, what makes it a uniform as the title of his article implies? Sharing the word “attire” is not enough to draw a comparison; the scope, purpose, and available options are different. The writer can criticize any clause in the circular, or even demand its cancellation if it is ambiguous or unfair; however, invoking Mao does not prove anything about that specific clause. The analogy gave the article its appeal, but it did not provide the objection with a valid argument. A measurement that omits significant differences between the two situations creates an impression before offering evidence; therefore, we should read the circular’s provisions as they are, and then ask what is suitable and what requires amendment.
Second: Has attire become a substitute for achievement? Al-Sarraf asks: Do we prioritize productivity, integrity, and honesty, or do we make attire the measure of the employee? The answer is clear: An employee is not measured by their clothes alone; neatness does not save one who obstructs the public’s interests. But where in the circular does it say that appearance replaces achievement? An institution can demand good performance, proper conduct, and an appearance suitable for the nature of the work from its employees, and hold accountable those who fall short in all these areas. If the Ministry had neglected service quality and focused solely on clothing, it should be held accountable for this imbalance, rather than assuming that any regulation of appearance comes at the expense of productivity. The binding question for the Ministry is: What performance indicators are you monitoring with the same seriousness with which you demand adherence to appearance? This places priorities in their proper place, instead of creating a contradiction that does not necessarily follow from the decision. What we want from administration is not an employee who looks good but is of little use, nor a skilled employee exempt from all professional obligations, but rather service delivered with respect and rules applied without selectivity.
Third: What did Al-Sarraf get right? He was right when he asked: Who determines moderate makeup and calm colors? This is not a joke, but a point requiring an answer. A description that triggers a warning or penalty for violating it should not remain subject to a manager’s taste or departmental differences. The Ministry must clarify its criteria in language employees can understand, consider the nature of jobs, ensure equality among similar cases, and provide a clear avenue for appealing the decision. If the details regarding female employees’ attire are more extensive than those for male employees, the reason must be explained, and it must be ensured that application does not turn into embarrassment or a violation of privacy. Professional dignity is a right for both male and female employees, just as discipline is an obligation for both. The broader the wording is compared to its practical meaning, the wider the scope for personal interpretation; what should have been discussed during the drafting of the circular should not be left ambiguous until the moment of holding the employee accountable.
Fourth: Where does the measuring tape belong? The image of a department head circling an employee to inspect her attire draws attention to the possibility of arbitrariness that should be prevented. However, it raises the question of application, not the question of the regulation’s origin. The work environment should not turn into a search of employees’ bodies, nor should the worst imagined scene serve as proof that every regulation of appearance is void. Stronger criticism demands instructions that prohibit embarrassment and personal searches, and specify who is responsible for monitoring, along with the procedures and limits thereof. Here, the possibility raised by satire becomes a practical guarantee, not just a passing shot in the article. There is a big difference between telling administration: “Your manager will carry a tape,” and asking it: “What prevents him from abusing his authority?” The second question calls for written procedures that can be held accountable.
Fifth: Why is the circular issued? Al-Sarraf also asks: Has the morality of workers deteriorated to the point that this decision was issued? Not every regulation is an announcement of employee misconduct; attendance rules do not accuse everyone of absenteeism, and conduct guidelines do not accuse everyone of mistreating clients. Nevertheless, it is not enough for administration to raise the banner of professionalism to avoid explaining the need for the controls it has put in place. It must explain the purpose of each restriction, its connection to work, and avoid intervening in matters that do not affect performance or the institution’s image. The power of regulation is measured by its limits, as well as by its objectives. Anything unrelated to work should be amended or deleted.
Summary:
1. Comparing the “Finance” circular to Mao-era attire does not hold up due to differences in context, scope, and options.
2. Prioritizing productivity and integrity does not prevent the institution from regulating appearance related to work.
3. Phrases like “moderate makeup” require clear criteria not subject to managers’ tastes.
4. Preserving privacy, equality, and the right to appeal are conditions for fair application.
5. The possibility of arbitrariness requires guarantees to prevent it, not just relying on a satirical image.
6. The Ministry should be asked about the need for the circular, its clarity, the proportionality of its penalties, and also about service quality.
Dr. Abdulhamid Khalifa Al-Shaiji
