In American English slang, hairstyles are called "dos", short for "hairdos". Not DOS, the computer operating system of old. "Do" plural. Ethnic styles, in particular, are called "dos". (Example: "Girlfriend, your do is looking fine!") With my short hair, my "do" is something to which I devote little concern. Hair styles are a big deal, though, to many people´s identities. Whether identities are tied to race, religion, sexual orientation, culture, or individualism-and any other way in which we declare our identities-hairstyles frequently play a major role in defining such identification.

   Enter the fray of defining "professionalism" in terms of hair styles and cuts. This issue pops up in the news occasionally when we hear of a company being challenged because of its grooming code. We read of employees suing a company, or bringing perceived injustices to the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) for mediation, with the reasoning that tight restrictions on grooming and dress are affronts to cultural diversity and respect. Since my primary programs and keynote speeches focus on professionalism, work ethics, and leadership, such newsworthy issues light my fire. I love these discussions!

   I find myself seeing-and empathizing with-both sides of the discussion personally. Yet the message I convey in my articles, books, and programs is heavily one-sided towards organizational conformity. Here´s why.

• Personally, as a person of color, I encourage diversity and inclusiveness in organizations. Diversity and inclusiveness means (to me) that organizations recognize, celebrate, and use the variety of skills, approaches, ideas, perspectives, and experiences that a diverse workforce brings to the organization. I see the demographics of diversity as encompassing not only race, culture, religion, gender, age, and other "typical" characteristics but also physical abilities, educational levels, sexual preferences, socio-economic norms, learning and leadership styles, organizational skills, and any other characteristic that distinguishes people among each other. So on a personal level, I want to see the concept of "professionalism" embrace a range of cultural external expressions with "neatness" parameters.
• Professionally, I am a product of American Fortune 500 businesses. I "grew up" within IBM´s white shirt-conservative suit world. I learned early in my career that expressions of individualism and cultural differences are outside the business definition of "professionalism". I learned to either conform to the business environment in which I chose to pursue my career, or leave. Sometimes those lessons were put to me directly by my managers. Sometimes they were communicated by peers. Sometimes my clients expressed concerns to my managers and those concerns were passed on to me. In all cases, I had to choose whether I would stay and conform, or leave and remain "true to myself". Considering I spent 20 years in that company, my decisions are obvious. I also realized early in life that being "true to myself" was an internal way of being rather than an external physical presentation.

   Yes, times have changed...somewhat. Interestingly, how "professionalism" is defined by most businesses has changed little. Even free-spirited technology companies "dress up" when their clients who pay for their products or services arrive on the scene. Standards of professionalism, in terms of personal grooming, dress codes, and behavior are best documented with as much detail as possible to alleviate a variety of interpretations and mis-interpretations. To identify norms that represent a "professional image" seemingly violates the diversity and inclusiveness so espoused by progressive organizations.

   As long as organizations define characteristics of professionalism so that they apply to, and are enforced across, all employee demographics, there is little grounds for claiming unfairness. When organizations identify characteristics heavily weighted towards a specific demographic, then the situation gets shaky. One thing I learned early in my career that I present today is that the organization has the right to declare what is appropriate to its environment and what is not-however unfair this statement may seem to individuals. Am I "selling out" to the organization when I say this? Perhaps, in some people´s eyes. Reality has proven to me a cold truth with few exceptions: either conform to the organization´s norms, or find an organization that better meets your sensibilities. Another not-so-personable axiom presented to me is "The one who pulls the strings, directs the performance."

   Do employees have the right to try to change the corporate culture? You bet. (Again, some of you will disagree with my answer, but it´s my article!) In some organizations, change occurs. In others, I doubt it. As long as characteristics of professionalism are the norm in the "mainstream" business environment-which now encompasses international standards-we as individuals have the right to choose whether we learn and conform to those standards or set off on other pursuits that may, one day, effect change in those standards.

   The right to choose. This is the overriding theme throughout the debate and discussion. It is the "right" of business owners to define the environment that represents the image they want to project for their businesses. It is the "right" of employees and independent contractors to choose whether or not-and to what lengths-they will concede to meet their organizations´ norms. I tell my audiences and workshop participants that when they are in positions to influence and implement their own standards and norms, then they can change their environments accordingly. Until then, it´s your choice as to how you deal with the don´ts of dos.

Read the full article at:

-         Washington Post.com. June 17, 2006.
"At Six Flags, the Don'ts of Dos; Employees Say Their Ethnic Hairstyles Are Challenged as 'Extreme,' and They've Complained to ACLU."

Sylvia´s programs and tools on professionalism and work ethics:

-         Book: "Why You Talk So White? Eliminate the Behaviors that Sabotage Your Success.
V-Twin Press. ISBN #1-932197-00-1. Available from www.WhyYouTalkSoWhite.com

-         Card Deck: "Success Language: Card Deck. Complete deck of 24 reference cards for
table-top or pocket reference. Mem-Cards. ISBN #1-932197-04-4.
Available from www.SuccessLanguage.com.

-         Program (Workshop and Keynote Presentation): "Success Language-Professionalism
and Work-Life Skills." www.SuccessLanguage.com.

-         Plus: Teleseminar and presentation recordings available on CD.