# John T. Molloy: Wrong about what he got right.



## dpihl (Oct 2, 2005)

First impressions are unduly important in our culture, and we all hold biases about various kinds of people. Some might argue that itâ€™s foolish to fight against these biases, and that you are better off conforming to societal norms. One man has taken this sort of argument to its most logical extreme, by devoting his life to the study and enforcement of these norms. Simply put, if your company has a dress code, this guy either wrote it, or influenced it in some way.

In 1976, John T. Molloy published "Dress for Success." In that book, Mr. Molloy tried to delineate the subconscious opinions people hold about you, based on the way you dress. He insists that his chosen field of study isn't a hard science, but implies that there is something scientific about his approach to fashion. This premise, you'll find, is completely indefensible.

The truth is, there is nothing a priori about fashion; not even men's fashion! Alien invaders might correctly guess that three legged trousers will never be a hit on planet earth. But that's about the only thing they would ever guess right. Molloy's revised edition of Dress for Success even acknowledges a few mistakes he has made along the way, some of them costing his clients a fortune in potential revenue.

A friend of mine served somewhere in South America as a missionary for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. You probably already know how my friend dressed, because the missionary dress code is fairly standard worldwide: white shirts, dark suits, and hopefully, conservative ties. In South America, people thought my friend looked like a CIA operative, and were unwilling to talk to him as a result. It didn't help that the churchâ€™s steeple looked like some sort of complex antenna!

My friend's observation sparks an important question: What should I wear if I want to save ALL of God's children? Molloy's methodology might prove fruitful in identifying garb that tests favorably with a MAJORITY of the people in a given part of the world. But what if the test results suggest dressing like a Jesuit, or a Benedictine Monk?

The problem is that SOME people would be put-off by this kind of garb, and would therefore be less than receptive to the missionaries and their message. Is it okay to alienate ANYBODY when you claim to be in the business of â€œsalvationâ€?

I chose this extreme example for a reason. Weâ€™re only talking about clothes here, itâ€™s really not that big a deal. But when you don a scientistâ€™s lab coat, and tell people that their wardrobe is a key element of their successes or failures, they start to take you a little too seriously. Lucky for us, the US government never gave Molloy a position as the Minister of Fashion!

As I see it, there are a few important reasons that Molloyâ€™s work shouldnâ€™t be mistaken for genuine science. In the revised edition of Dress for Success, he mentions the other people who have gone into the business of wardrobe engineering. He calls them copycats, Molloy Disciples, and so forth. The first criticism he makes, is that they base too much of their advise on the published part of his first book, and that they never saw all of his research.

Hasnâ€™t this man ever heard of *peer review?* Besides, any scientist will tell you that a study isnâ€™t even valid until similar studies come back with the same results. If these so-called copycats come up with results that mirror his findings, this is nothing to get angry about!

The second problem is that without access to the actual research data, nobody can say what â€œsampling biasesâ€ might invalidate parts of his work. Even reading the findings of his study, one can quickly see that several sampling biases existed. In his first book, Molloy chose mostly sample populations in the Manhattan area. He also used a lot of phrases like â€œnever, everâ€ and â€œalways your best choiceâ€.

In parts of the revised edition, his language is softened a bit. He still states that white dress shirts test more favorably than any other color. In another section of the book, however, you read that blue shirts test more favorably in Colorado and Wyoming, and that New York style breeds deep mistrust among cowboys. [Note: I know a few rancehrs, and I know why this mistrust exists. Absentee landlords from the East have ruined much of the land out here that they claim to want to preserve and protect.]

If you read the whole book, you find out that Wall Street style tests negatively with all sorts of people in the Western US, and especially with your subordinate employees if you work in factory settings. Obviously there was a problem with the earlier book, which tried to extrapolate Manhattan/ Wall Street tastes to a worldwide population.

Thereâ€™s another sampling bias in Molloyâ€™s work which deserves special mention. In the past several years Iâ€™ve done a fair amount of photo duplication and restoration work. Lots of pictures can be dated by observing the costume of the man in the picture. Although most of Molloyâ€™s recommended attire dates back to the 1890â€™s, I have yet to find the 1890â€™s gentleman who shared Molloyâ€™s taste in clothing. You may find a Brooks Brothers sack suit in one photo; pointed, fold-over collars in another photo; and four-in-hand ties in yet another. You even find brogued leather wingtip oxfords in catalogs of the era. But you never find photos of a man wearing the business uniform Prescribed in Dress for Success. Besides, many of these items were considered sporting attire in those days! If you wore a sack suit to work, you might have been sacked.

A favorite prank of mine is to show people the photo plates in the first edition of Dress for Success. As far as I can tell, showing photos was Mr. Molloyâ€™s favorite method for getting peopleâ€™s response to an outfit. Reaction to these photos is usually either a hearty laugh, or a serious case of the willys-â€" seizure-like convulsions and all!

To the last photo, the outfits are always correctly identified as 1970â€™s attire. Needless to say, Molloyâ€™s recommended wardrobe does not test favorably with my sample population of the late 1990's and early 2000's. His findings are probably invalid based on this experience alone.

The point is, there is no such thing as â€œtimelessâ€ style for men. We can talk all we want about â€œclassic styleâ€, but there is no such thing as a â€œplatonic formâ€ for correct business attire. Youâ€™d better know your stuff if youâ€™re going somewhere in a time machine!

No doubt Molloy will be glad to note that his companyâ€™s services will be needed for generations to come, but I hope his followers understand the implications. Clearly, fashion is a moving target. The more popular a style is, the more likely it is that there will eventually be a backlash against it. Most people already understand this, but many assume that this rule only applies to outlandish haute couture.

Iâ€™m sad to report that you will never be impervious to the ravages of the fashion machine. This so-called â€œfashion machineâ€ has ruined a lot of good stuff over the years, and Iâ€™m not just talking about clothes.

Suppose that a songwriter were to come along with something that really touched your soul. If enough people agree with you about this song, record executives will go out looking for the imitators that inevitably crop up.

Before long, the folks at the music store have a whole category for this new style of music. Radio stations begin to play only music from the genre in question. Twenty -four hours a day, seven days a week, you are bombarded with this same style of music. Eventually, you start to agree with the older generations who say that your music all sounds the same. You get so burned-out on it; you decide never to listen to anything by this songwriter ever again.

The way that these fads gain momentum has a lot to do with guys like John T. Molloy. Molloyâ€™s techniques have little to do with real science, but thereâ€™s a strong precedent for the kind of work he does. Itâ€™s called marketing, or more precisely â€œmarket analysisâ€. A local radio station used to call me often, and ask me to listen to a series of sound clips. Theyâ€™d ask me to rate each abbreviated song from love it, to never heard it, to tired of it, to always hated it. All along, Molloy has been gauging the same sort of reactions to clothing.

His approach tells us a lot about peopleâ€™s opinions in a specific context. But mostly what his popular books did was homogenize peopleâ€™s dress. I once heard about a group of artists who set out to make the great American oil painting. Through the use of focus groups, they were able to create a painting that nobody was offended by. Of course, it was so inoffensive, that nobody got very excited about it either. The resulting artwork contained a bald eagle, Alaskan wilderness, and a grizzly bear. In other words, it was every life insurance brochure youâ€™ve ever seen.

In fashion, as in art, you have to take the lows with the highs. You have to make allowances for Brown Suede Shoes, even if black leather with a high polish is a "safer choice". You have to make allowances for silk pocket squares, or for anything in the breast pockets of younger men. Seriously Mr. Molly, only white cotton, and only for men over the age of fifty??? And what could be more hurtful than Mr. Molloy's insistance that only clowns and waiters should wear bow ties? Molloyâ€™s harsh bias against bow ties notwithstanding, I own about two dozen of them.

Occasionally I'm made fun of for wearing bow ties. The criticism comes mainly from lower middle class people, who associate bow ties with the dress of a child. However, most people express admiration for my bow ties. Many ask me where to buy them, or how to tie them. Iâ€™m always glad to untie and retie, so people can see that itâ€™s exactly like tying your shoe. I guess the wide and narrow parts look confusing at first, but they really just facilitate a slightly neater looking knot.

Occasionally, I bump into a former pupil looking much more stylish in a bow tie then I ever will. This, to me, is a very gratifying experience. One that easily outweighs the discomfort of being criticized from time to time by people who've never seen a grown man in a bow tie.

Which brings me to real question that Molloyâ€™s work raises. Should we always dress in the most inoffensive manner possible, or should we always live on the cutting edge of fashion? The answer, of course, is neither.

If you want to wear bow ties to work, then try wearing one with a white shirt, and an ultraconservative suit. If you want to wear loud jackets, then try wearing them with dark trousers, a white shirt, and a black silk, four-in-hand tie. Point is, you can break all the rules if you want to. Just make sure you know what the rules are, and donâ€™t break them all at the same time. Too easy to look freakish.

"Style" has a lot more to do with art than science. The raft of books that came out in the wake of Dress for Success made allowances for personal style. Authors like Flusser, Boyer, Karpinski, and Keers did a great job of explaining the ropes, without giving the fashion police a formula for rigid enforcement of the so-called "rules".

.................
David G. Pihl
.................


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

You scared me at first, but your article is interesting.


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

His book is brilliant! And also the follow-on book for women. I think much of the advice in there is timeless.

I was particularly grateful on his advice for those of varied ethnic backgrounds, such as Blacks, Latinos, dark-skinned Italians, and other dark-skinned ethnics. He was right on, on all counts. I am Latino.

As a US Army officer in 1985 getting ready to exit the system for the civilian world, his help I would say has definitely been a component of my successes then, and to this day.

Not to threadjack, but I would also suggest that those jumping into the business world not only read about proper _Dress for Success_, but also pick up titles like _The Articulate Executive_.

Great topic!

M8

_I've seen so much in so many places
So many heartaches, so many faces
So many dirty things
You couldn't even believe_


----------



## tom22 (Feb 19, 2004)

I got half way through the first post. I remember Malloy in the 80s published a column in the local paper for a number of years. The only thing I took away is what a lot of people may know instinctlvely. Most people make judgments about you based on first impressions. This probably isn't fair, but what other basis do people have? they will never know you at a first meeting. they may never know you. But a lot of the impression they take away will be based upon how you dress. maybe you care maybe you don't.


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

> quote:Obviously there was a problem with the earlier book, which tried to extrapolate Manhattan tastes to a worldwide population.


I'm shocked--shocked!--that someone would do such a thing...


----------



## Brownshoe (Mar 1, 2005)

?

What's that with the fascism, now?


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by tom22_
> 
> I got half way through the first post. I remember Malloy in the 80s published a column in the local paper for a number of years. The only thing I took away is what a lot of people may know instinctlvely. Most people make judgments about you based on first impressions. This probably isn't fair, but what other basis do people have? they will never know you at a first meeting. they may never know you. But a lot of the impression they take away will be based upon how you dress. maybe you care maybe you don't.


 Malcom Gladwell has a book on the best seller list entitled "Blink". Many of you may have read it. It essentially makes Tom's point that people make up their mind about you in a very short period of time.

Maybe shallow, and not a judge of the real person, but that seems to be the way things work.

Carpe Diem


----------



## dpihl (Oct 2, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Brownshoe_
> 
> ?What's that with the fascism, now?


Sorry, that attempt at metaphor was poorly thought out, and poorly implemented. I have edited it out.

"It doesn't matter which color of ball you choose, if you're just gonna roll it into the gutter every time." -D.G. Pihl-


----------



## Harris (Jan 30, 2006)

Little known fact: Gladwell's a Trad.



...at least some of the time.


----------



## Topsider (Jul 9, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Intrepid_
> 
> Malcom Gladwell has a book on the best seller list entitled "Blink". Many of you may have read it. It essentially makes Tom's point that people make up their mind about you in a very short period of time.


I bought a copy of that book just the other day. Sounds like a useful read.


----------



## Brownshoe (Mar 1, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by dpihl_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No problem, I just thought I was missing something.

Interesting stuff!


----------



## Big Hoops (Nov 24, 2009)

*Molloy right when it counted*

Dear Mr. Pihl,

I read your negative review of John T. Molloy's bestselling book, "Dress for Success". This book was live-changing for me and is one of the main reasons why I now work for one of the largest investment management firms in the world, have a beautiful wife, great kids and an overall great life. I was raised in a heavily union-employed family. My father never graduated from high school, but I attended college at the urging of my mother. During my junior year in college year in 1980, I attended a presentation given by John Molloy. While the school instructors downplayed Mr. Molloy's research on dressing for success, (much like you have), the auditorium was packed with students eager to find an edge in the work world. In six months, I would be interviewing with firms from the Big 8 Public Accounting firms. I had no mentor, advisor, or family member that could assist me with my clothing for these important interviews. I picked up Mr. Molloy's book and read it cover-to-cover three times. Since I only had money for one suit for my initial interviews, I selected the most conservative and effective suit that the John Molloy recommended when dealing with older Caucasian hiring personnel, (i.e., a dark blue suit, white shirt, and blue tie with small white polka dots). This was the look of IBM salesmen back then, and there was no sales group more successful. This look portrayed trust, confidence, but most importantly, it made me appear look like my future employers. I received two offers that year and joined one of the Big 8 firms. Five years later, I was working for a large bank. Unbeknownst to me, I was informed that there was a vote on my floor for best dressed individual, and that I had won. I didn't win because I was the flashiest. I won because I wore the most conservative and best tailored choice of suits and ties. Thanks to Mr. Molloy, my wardrobe opened doors that would have immediately been closed due to natural biases of human beings. I have used his suggestions throughout my life to modify my dress to create trust in initial meetings with all races, socioeconomic status, and areas of the world. I now work for one of the world's largest investment managers in a senior capacity. To discount this book as you did is disservice to the thousands of us who have used Mr. Molloy's research to advance their careers and improve their quality of life. My suggestion for you is to remove your bow tie (which Mr. Molloy strongly recommends against wearing), and dress according to his suggestions for one year. Then write back and let us know how your wealth, status and happiness have improved. Finally, you write in your article how the missionary received very negative response in South America while wearing a dark blue suit, white shirt, and red tie. Mr. Molloy never directly advised on dressing when visiting a South American church. However, anyone who has studied John Molloy's book would have been able to extrapolate his research for this situation. The church is essentially anti-establishment, so you can't dress like someone from the establishment. One option would be to wear a blue blazer, a blue button down shirt, and beige slacks. Another option would be to wear a medium gray suit, a blue shirt, and non-traditional tie. Although these combinations would still provide a classic, elegant look, they would have taken the edge off the formality and rigidness, and allowed the visitor to establish a good initial first impression.


----------



## Mazama (May 21, 2009)

Big Hoops said:


> Dear Mr. Pihl, I read your negative review of John T. Molloy's bestselling book, "Dress for Success". This book was live-changing for me... Thanks to Mr. Molloy, my wardrobe opened doors that would have immediately been closed due to natural biases of human beings...


I think you're totally correct Big Hoops.

A recent WSJ artcle described how job seekers in this difficult environment are returning to "Dress for Success" type styles to get a leg up.

Many people only remember "Dress for Success" for the conservative suit/shirt/tie motif that works so effectively in your profession and other white collar occupations. But Malloy's larger point, in my recollection, was the importance of dressing appropriately, consistently and neatly for one's occupation. This supports your point that the Anglo-American "power look" would not be the correct formula for an evangelist in Latin America.

For instance, auto mechanics/technicians have more credibility if they wear a clean, sharp uniform of some sort (e.g., coveralls with a logo). Teachers - at all levels - will get better results from students if they dress like adults rather than like high school or college students. Etc., etc.

I sometimes work as a volunteer in information services in a major National Park. We are issued standard polo shirts but otherwise wear whatever we like. Many volunteers wear jeans or shorts with running type shoes. I mostly wear green or khaki chinos and dark boots. On busy days I've noticed that park visitors sometimes ignore other volunteers and approach me - and even line up to ask me questions - presumably because I appear more authoritative or knowledgeable (which I am )


----------



## randomdude (Jun 4, 2007)

I work in politics, and this summer I was at an event just to visit and I was constantly being asked by various people where they should sit, what order the speaking program would be, and the like. After telling several people that I didn't know what was going on, one older gentlemen said to me, "Well you should know, you're in charge, you're wearing a bow tie."


----------



## beherethen (Jun 6, 2009)

*Concepts like food have a shelf life*

and when that shelf life is expired they should be tossed. Tom Ainslie was one of the first writers on horse race handicapping and what he wrote was billiant for the time he wrote about (50 years ago). The problem is the world is not static and people still read his works and take it as gospel. In 50 years a lot of stuff has changed and if Ainslie was still alive, even he wouldn't advocate his early positions. If you were to go on a horse racing site, you'd still hear debates on matters like daily track variant, that should have ended a long time ago.
I think the same is true with Molloy. Brilliant , important work for his time, but shouldn't be treated as eternal.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

*John T. Molloy = Waste of Space*

IMHO, Dress for Success belongs right up there with Winning Through Intimidation. Biases and opinion concocted into pseudo-science. Its general crassness and inanity profoundly offend true style and the art of dressing well.


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

Flanderian said:


> IMHO, Dress for Success belongs right up there with Winning Through Intimidation. Biases and opinion concocted into pseudo-science. Its general crassness and inanity profoundly offend true style and the art of dressing well.


Okay, go to your next job interview dressed like an emo dude. Good luck! :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Martinis at 8 said:


> Okay, go to your next job interview dressed like an emo dude. Good luck! :icon_smile_big:


While I'm uncertain what an "emo dude" might be, I assure you I was dressing for interviews well before Molloy's screed saw the light of day.


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

Flanderian said:


> While I'm uncertain what an "emo dude" might be, I assure you I was dressing for interviews well before Molloy's screed saw the light of day.


Lol! I just found out about the _emo dude_ stuff the other day myself. It's hilarious. Search the net.

As for the you dressing properly ante-Molly, that's fine. Unfortunately, a lot of lost souls out there were not. Molloy put the concept of the standards of dress back where it needed to be after that cultural abortion we call "The 60's"(which by the way we have still not recovered from).


----------

