Dress for Success by John T. Molloy

Dear Mr. Molloy:
I bought a charcoal gray suit three years ago. It was not my first charcoal gray suit, I have had about a dozen over the years. This one however is different. About six months after I purchased that suit, I noticed when I wore it people tended to be antagonistic. I thought I was imagining things until I watched my secretary. She has worked for me for 10 years and I know her very well. Most of the time she’s hard working and amiable, a real asset. And believe it or not what I like most about her is when she’s in a bad mood which isn’t very often, I can tell 5 min. after she arrives at her desk. It is the only time she taps her fingers. Every time I wore that suit, she tapped like a machine gun.

When I noticed her reaction I tried not to wear it to work. When I did, I kept notes of how people treated me. After wearing it six or seven times, I never wore it again. It was an expensive suit and I hate to leave it hanging in my closet. By the way I don’t even wear it to social events because I’ve had the same negative reaction that I received at work. I usually get along with everyone. In fact I’m popular when I’m not wearing that charcoal gray suit. Have you have heard of a Jinx suit? If it is a bad luck suit, is there anything I can do to change its luck and mine? I paid over $500 for it.

J. N.
Dayton Ohio

Dear J. N.:
Your experience with your suit is very unusual but there are garments that elicit a negative reaction from most of those the wearer meets. When I was writing a syndicated column about half a dozen people a year wrote me with a similar complaint about a garment they purchased. In most cases, when we asked them to look carefully at the garment, we found their initial description was inaccurate. Especially, when they were talking about navy blue and charcoal gray suits which are the backbone of many executive wardrobes and similar garments that are seen everywhere. Often the suits that created problems were unusual shades of color.I remember one was a charcoal gray but it had just a touch of green in it. The reaction to that suit was identical to yours. Since some garments illicit a negative reaction, suit buyers should very carefully check their next suit to see it is a standard shade of color and a traditional cut. Any variation from the norm can create problems.

The bad news is if you have one of those suits, you are better off throwing it out. It can effect the relationships you have at work and no suit is worth that. The good news is that it may not be the suit. Many men wear the same shirt and tie with the same suit all the time. If you tend to do that, there is a real possibility it may not be the suit turning off people but the shirt, the tie or the combination of the two. Test the suit with several shirts and ties before you relegate it to the garbage heap.

Dear Mr Molloy:
I am 42 and the only woman manager in my office. There are several other women managers throughout the company but I only met them at company meetings. Since one of the primary purposes of company meetings is to reward top salespeople, they take place at resorts. That is why, I have no idea how my fellow women managers dress when at work. Since this is a fairly conservative company I suspect most dress rather conservatively. I think one of the reasons I became a manager is I followed your advice and started wearing suits. If you speak to some women they will tell you it is not necessary to wear suits because many of the women who run large corporations don’t wear suits all the time. Do they have a valid point?

Through trial and error I discovered that suits worked for me and I intend to continue to wear them. The reason I’m writing is I accessorize my suits with very expensive silk handkerchiefs and scarves. I have over two dozen very expensive silk scarves and handkerchiefs. They add a bit of color, to what is normally a very conservative look without taking away from the message that I am a serious businesswoman. One of my coworkers, a man who is a friend of mine, says that you recommend only white and maroon handkerchiefs. Is that true?
Name and address withheld

Dear Manager:
Today you don’t see many men wearing pocket handkerchiefs so I haven’t researched handkerchief colors for over a decade. However since executive ties have become lighter and brighter you can assume that men’s pocket handkerchiefs, if they come into vogue again will be more colorful. Which means that brightly colored scarves and handkerchiefs will work for women as well. I never recommend women limit the colors of their scarves and handkerchiefs. In fact, I advised women to do just the opposite, to accessorize their suits with very expensive eye-catching designer scarves. Because, particularly at critical times, those scarves give them presence and as a result increase the chances of succeeding. It is a significant fact that men in top management are 3 to 4 inches taller than those in middle management. This confirms a study done at Harvard Business School some years ago which showed there was a higher correlation between success in business and a man’s height than his grades. The reason is obvious at meetings tall men tend to dominate. When we looked at the significance of height we found that short men and women are often literally over looked at corporate meetings because they are smaller. There are a number of ways to overcome the disadvantage of being relatively short and one is to wear eye-catching garments or accessories. This is much easier for business women to do without breaking the unofficial executive dress code than it is for men.

Research shows that the rules are not the same for women as they are for men. The general rule for women is accessories that look very expensive will work most of time. Since I understand giving this advice opens a Pandora’s box out of which tons of tasteless garbage may escape, I feel obliged to put in a word of warning. No matter how expensive a garment is or who designed it, if you even think it might be seen by some as tacky, slutty or tasteless, don’t buy it.

As for the argument that many women CEO’s of major corporations do not wear suits and therefore you do not have to wear suits has several built in flaws. First, most of these women are in 40s and 50s and by that time they put on a bit of weight and they have a greater sense of presence. In addition, when many of these women started working for the company they now run it was not a large corporation and some played a significant role in it’s growth. Several of the better-known CEO’s run casual high tech or high-fashion companies. The high-fashion companies are those where being fashionable is important. Obvious examples are television, publishing, entertainment and of course the fashion industry. Finally, how they dress today is not that important what is important is how they dressed in order to get to the top.

When your letter arrived since I had not researched suits for over a year I sent letters to corporate clients and asked them to survey their women executives. The suit remains the uniform for women executives but today it is as likely to be a pantsuit as a traditional skirted model. The pantsuit was made a legitimate executive uniform by Hillary Clinton and today pants are being worn by women because the skirts that are being shown are not appropriate for business.

Dear Mr. Molloy:
I bought a charcoal gray suit three years ago. It was not my first charcoal gray suit, I have had about a dozen over the years. This one however is different. About six months after I purchased that suit, I noticed when I wore it people tended to be antagonistic. I thought I was imagining things until I watched my secretary. She has worked for me for 10 years and I know her very well. Most of the time she’s hard working and amiable, a real asset. And believe it or not what I like most about her is when she’s in a bad mood which isn’t very often, I can tell 5 min. after she arrives at her desk. It is the only time she taps her fingers. Every time I wore that suit, she tapped like a machine gun.

When I noticed her reaction I tried not to wear it to work. When I did, I kept notes of how people treated me. After wearing it six or seven times, I never wore it again. It was an expensive suit and I hate to leave it hanging in my closet. By the way I don’t even wear it to social events because I’ve had the same negative reaction that I received at work. I usually get along with everyone. In fact I’m popular when I’m not wearing that charcoal gray suit. Have you have heard of a Jinx suit? If it is a bad luck suit, is there anything I can do to change its luck and mine? I paid over $500 for it.

J. N.
Dayton Ohio

Dear J. N.:
Your experience with your suit is very unusual but there are garments that elicit a negative reaction from most of those the wearer meets. When I was writing a syndicated column about half a dozen people a year wrote me with a similar complaint about a garment they purchased. In most cases, when we asked them to look carefully at the garment, we found their initial description was inaccurate. Especially, when they were talking about navy blue and charcoal gray suits which are the backbone of many executive wardrobes and similar garments that are seen everywhere. Often the suits that created problems were unusual shades of color.I remember one was a charcoal gray but it had just a touch of green in it. The reaction to that suit was identical to yours. Since some garments illicit a negative reaction, suit buyers should very carefully check their next suit to see it is a standard shade of color and a traditional cut. Any variation from the norm can create problems.

The bad news is if you have one of those suits, you are better off throwing it out. It can effect the relationships you have at work and no suit is worth that. The good news is that it may not be the suit. Many men wear the same shirt and tie with the same suit all the time. If you tend to do that, there is a real possibility it may not be the suit turning off people but the shirt, the tie or the combination of the two. Test the suit with several shirts and ties before you relegate it to the garbage heap.

Dear Mr Molloy:
I am 42 and the only woman manager in my office. There are several other women managers throughout the company but I only met them at company meetings. Since one of the primary purposes of company meetings is to reward top salespeople, they take place at resorts. That is why, I have no idea how my fellow women managers dress when at work. Since this is a fairly conservative company I suspect most dress rather conservatively. I think one of the reasons I became a manager is I followed your advice and started wearing suits. If you speak to some women they will tell you it is not necessary to wear suits because many of the women who run large corporations don’t wear suits all the time. Do they have a valid point?

Through trial and error I discovered that suits worked for me and I intend to continue to wear them. The reason I’m writing is I accessorize my suits with very expensive silk handkerchiefs and scarves. I have over two dozen very expensive silk scarves and handkerchiefs. They add a bit of color, to what is normally a very conservative look without taking away from the message that I am a serious businesswoman. One of my coworkers, a man who is a friend of mine, says that you recommend only white and maroon handkerchiefs. Is that true?
Name and address withheld

Dear Manager:
Today you don’t see many men wearing pocket handkerchiefs so I haven’t researched handkerchief colors for over a decade. However since executive ties have become lighter and brighter you can assume that men’s pocket handkerchiefs, if they come into vogue again will be more colorful. Which means that brightly colored scarves and handkerchiefs will work for women as well. I never recommend women limit the colors of their scarves and handkerchiefs. In fact, I advised women to do just the opposite, to accessorize their suits with very expensive eye-catching designer scarves. Because, particularly at critical times, those scarves give them presence and as a result increase the chances of succeeding. It is a significant fact that men in top management are 3 to 4 inches taller than those in middle management. This confirms a study done at Harvard Business School some years ago which showed there was a higher correlation between success in business and a man’s height than his grades. The reason is obvious at meetings tall men tend to dominate. When we looked at the significance of height we found that short men and women are often literally over looked at corporate meetings because they are smaller. There are a number of ways to overcome the disadvantage of being relatively short and one is to wear eye-catching garments or accessories. This is much easier for business women to do without breaking the unofficial executive dress code than it is for men.

Research shows that the rules are not the same for women as they are for men. The general rule for women is accessories that look very expensive will work most of time. Since I understand giving this advice opens a Pandora’s box out of which tons of tasteless garbage may escape, I feel obliged to put in a word of warning. No matter how expensive a garment is or who designed it, if you even think it might be seen by some as tacky, slutty or tasteless, don’t buy it.

As for the argument that many women CEO’s of major corporations do not wear suits and therefore you do not have to wear suits has several built in flaws. First, most of these women are in 40s and 50s and by that time they put on a bit of weight and they have a greater sense of presence. In addition, when many of these women started working for the company they now run it was not a large corporation and some played a significant role in it’s growth. Several of the better-known CEO’s run casual high tech or high-fashion companies. The high-fashion companies are those where being fashionable is important. Obvious examples are television, publishing, entertainment and of course the fashion industry. Finally, how they dress today is not that important what is important is how they dressed in order to get to the top.

When your letter arrived since I had not researched suits for over a year I sent letters to corporate clients and asked them to survey their women executives. The suit remains the uniform for women executives but today it is as likely to be a pantsuit as a traditional skirted model. The pantsuit was made a legitimate executive uniform by Hillary Clinton and today pants are being worn by women because the skirts that are being shown are not appropriate for business.

Dear Mr. Molloy:
My company has been sending me around the country talking about surety bonds to groups of insurance agents and large insurance agencies. I’ve been underwriting surety and fidelity bonds for 15 years and I know the area very well, but that’s not what got me the job. Last year the company’s annual meeting took place at a very nice resort hotel outside Dallas. The VP in charge of training had to leave early so they went looking for someone who underwrote fidelity and surety bonds to speak to a group of agents. These agents and their spouses were flown first-class to Dallas and were being treated royally because they sold more insurance than their competitors.

The only reason I was chosen to speak was my boss wanted to play golf. I joked about being rewarded for having a good year by being forced to listen to me and spoke for about a half-hour. I kept it light and entertaining but I got my points across. I explained why surety bonds were closer to banking than insurance and they were never to be used as an incentive to get companies to buy fire or medical policies. Then I opened the floor to questions, and I thought I did okay. Apparently the executives of the company thought I did better than okay and sent me around the country speaking to groups of agents. On my own. I expanded my speech into a three-hour lecture on how to judge surety and fidelity bonds. I became so good at explaining surety to agents that other companies are now using me.

My problem is I’m going to be on the road for two weeks in September in Texas and Arizona. In case you haven’t been there, Texas and Arizona in September are very, very hot. My company is having its annual meeting in Flagstaff, Arizona on the third week of September . I am being flown in on the afternoon of the black tie affair and out the next morning. I can’t rent a tuxedo at home in Chicago because I’ll be coming from St. Louis. I will be speaking along with several of the top executives from the dais. Although I’ve been speaking for almost a year, I have never spoken at a black tie affair and I don’t think I’ll be speaking at another one . I do not want to buy a tuxedo but this is my shot at impressing the bosses. I’m really a very good speaker and I’m sure I can impress them but can I wear a summer suit.
Edward Jones
Chicago, Ill.

Dear Mr. Jones:
It depends on your summer suits. You can wear a very good light weight wool navy blue suit, if you own one You might even get away with a tropical weight dark gray charcoal. You’re not limited to tropical weight suits, if you are staying at the same hotel where you will be speaking. Don’t wear a moderate weight model if you have to travel to the hotel where you’re speaking. By the time you show up, they may be able to ring you out like a washcloth. Keep in mind, although it is very hot outside, the hotel will be air conditioned. Wear the suit you choose with a 100% cotton white shirt with French cuffs and very nice cufflinks. Accompany that with the darkest, most conservative, most expensive, elegant, navy blue tie that you can purchase. Wear your conservative navy suit with highly shined, plain black shoes and if you need one when you’re speaking a very conservative watch with a plain black strap. Whatever you do don’t wear wingtip shoes or a sporty watch.

However, if I were you trying to make an impression on the people who control my future and they were wearing tuxedos, I would wear a tuxedo. I suggest that before you make any decision you call your bosses and ask them what they’re wearing, and if they have a solution to your problem. There is a real possibility in a hot climate they may be wearing white dinner jackets and if you’re the only one who shows up in a traditional tuxedo you would stand out like a sore thumb.( Please do not write and tell me that white dinner jackets are worn only on certain dates,I know. I also know that some groups pay more attention to the temperature than the calendar.)

They will probably make one or two suggestions but anything they suggest is right so you’re off the hook. I suspect they will tell you to rent a tuxedo in Chicago several days before you leave and have them overnight it to you at your hotel. Make sure they give you a lightweight model if they don’t have one I suggest you go to another rental outfit. There are two drawbacks to renting one in Chicago. If you rent far enough in advance they’ll charge so much for the rental it would be cheaper to buy one. And if you asked them to have it ready the day before you are going to wear it and overnight it to you, there is a possibility you will have a problem with the fit or delivery.

Remember there is only one color for a tuxedo, black. Tuxedo shirts should be as plain as possible. If you rent a tuxedo, they will give you the studs and cufflinks . If you purchase a tuxedo, you will have to purchase appropriate studs and cufflinks. I purchased my first tuxedo when I was in my early 20s to go to two different black-tie affairs. When making the purchase, the clerk sold me expensive studs and cuff links on the premise they would last forever. He was right.

Good luck and have a good time. I certainly did with my first tuxedo. I was single, living in New York and had a friend who loved to crash weddings and parties before they made that movie. On more than one evening, I went along and had a wonderful time.

Dear Mr. Molloy:
I have a bone to pick with you. My company insists that I wear suits every day. I don’t object as much as I did in the beginning because as much as I hate dressing in the suit, I find that I’m more effective wearing one. I have worked for my present company for two and half years and in that time I’ve received two promotions. In this company that is an indication that you are being considered for bigger and better things . Those promotions were given to me because several client corporations requested that I handle their accounting and tax problems. The reason they asked for me was not because of how well I dressed but because I’m good at what I do and I worked 12 hours a day every day solving their problems. Do you think I could occasionally show up without a suit.

I will admit that suits have been a staple of men’s business dress if you will admit men’s clothing is drab and boring and that women are not as dull and boring as men. Men have always worn suits but women didn’t start wearing suits until your book came along. You are responsible for making women look more masculine and dull.

If you can’t get me out of suits, at least find a way to let me accessorize my suits with costume jewelry. These days, real gold is out of my price range. I have a few pieces of gold jewelry that fits your recommended style, tasteful and expensive but am I limited to wearing them. I don’t see any reason why I can’t wear costume jewelry. Today it’s all the rage, particularly big flashy pieces. I’m an accountant and when I become a partner I’ll go back to buying gold jewelry but during these tough times can you cut your followers, even those who are not willing followers, a little slack.

Tired of being Drab

Dear Drab:
I never said wear only tasteful and expensive jewelry. I said wear only jewelry that looks tasteful and expensive and some costume jewelry fits that description perfectly. In fact, some costume jewelry is quite expensive. I know because my wife had of collection of very expensive costume jewelry from the 30s which went missing when we moved to Florida.

I was not surprised by your letter because half the letters I received from women misrepresent my position on a variety of issues. Instead of reading what I write, they read things written by people in the fashion industry who regularly misrepresent what I have said. At first I thought they were being dishonest until I was invited to a dinner in New York. They put me at a table with four fashion writers assuming that we would have something in common . When we got talking, it was obvious that these people, who had written about me, had never read my work. I sent them copies of my book.

Obviously, you know my position on women wearing suits and you admit that it has some validity because you’ve done well while wearing suits. You are right about my making the suit the uniform for women in executive or professional positions. You’re wrong when you asked me to change my position. I have no position, I base my advice on research and my research still shows that wearing suits gives professional women an advantage over women who do not wear suits. What is more wearing suits is more important for women than it is for men. As a general rule, women are smaller, have smaller faces and higher voices than men which makes them less authoritative and suits give the wearer gravitas and added authority.

My objective when I recommend suits is not to make women more masculine but to put them on an equal footing with men. Which is very difficult because a majority of successful men dress for power, success and money. I assure you if men made more money wearing pink tutu’s, Wall Street would be filled with pink tutu’s. If you are competing with men or aggressive women, you need to use every tool available and in America today, the suit is the ultimate success tool.

THE OLD JANITOR AND THE NEW ACCOUNTANT

This question is one of the reasons I enjoy writing a blog instead of a column in newspapers. Newspapers have to control the content and the length of columns. They require their columnists to write about one subject e.g., politics, sports , or fashion because readers come to expect that. They control the length because they have to plan for a place to put the article. Both understandable and legitimate steps.

I often received letters like this one , but was forced to ignore them. I regretted doing so because with my contacts in industry , I could have easily researched and given answers that might help the reader. In this blog, I will usually write about image and its impact on careers but occasionally I will comment on other areas.

Dear Mr. Molloy:

For the last 18 years I have been working for a small accounting firm as a janitor. I will become vested in the company’s pension plan after 20 years. When I started, I was 19 and a high school dropout. The first two years were fine, in fact, I enjoyed my job. I worked from six pm. until two in the morning. Then a young accountant started giving me a hard time. He and only he complained about my cleaning, it didn’t meet his high standards. At first I was going to quit but I decided to see if I could work around him. No luck, about six months after he arrived, I was let go. Almost a year later I got a call from the fellow who ran the firm and he offered me my job back. When I asked him why, he would not say. I had no intention of going back to the firm, I was doing janitorial work just down the street. When I turned him down he offered to pay me 20% more than I was making and to give me access to the educational fund. He said if I went to school I have to study accounting because the fund specified that. It was not the education fund that attracted me, I failed every math course in high school. I took the job for the money.

Six years later, I married and I got my GED. Once I had it, I started looking for a better job. I looked for almost 4 months unsuccessfully. A GED is not a high school diploma and, companies don’t look upon it as a high school diploma. My wife said I should take advantage of the educational fund at work and get a year or two in college. I couldn’t get into a four-year college I had never taken the college boards so I bought a college board prep book. Once I looked at it, I decided it was a waste of time . My wife insisted I try, so I studied for almost two years and took a course that prepared me to take the college boards. I scored 580 and was admitted to a local school. I went during the day and worked at night for six years and earned a degree in accounting. My grades gave me a 3.5 index. When I applied for an accounting job at my firm the man who had me fired the first time was a partner and laughed in my face.

I went back to cleaning at night, at least temporarily, because I remember what you said in a speech. You said that if you get angry at work, you’re working at a disadvantage. Never make a decision until you are calm, cool and collected. Even though I am going to hate working as a janitor, I’m going to do it for the next two years. I’m never going to let that guy cheat me.

Am I making the right decision?

No name or address

Dear Accountant:

I could not answer your question without help. My solution was to ask one of the best accountants, I knew. He gave me his advice only after I promised that I would never reveal his name, his friends names or his company’s name to anyone under any circumstances. The reason he included his friends is he brought three of them with him to lunch.

The first thing he and the other accountants said was a firm might wonder why after getting an accounting degree it took you over two years to look for an accounting position. The second thing they agreed on is that you someday will probably make a wonderful accountant because you had good grades and you would not allow anyone to take advantage of you.

My friend and his associates made two suggestions. First, look at your local University for a Masters degree in accounting or at least accounting courses that give you some specialty skill. Courses in accounting that will make you a tax, estate or any similar type specialist will serve the purpose. Before you pick your new area of study, do some research. Make sure you have at least a half a dozen articles pointing out the benefits of an accountant having expertise in those areas. There are dozens of accounting journals that regularly include articles doing just that. The reason you have to backup your choice with documentation is the unfriendly partner may cut off your educational funds, fire you or start finding fault with your work, so he can justify firing you.. If he does any of those things find a lawyer. After 18 years with only two years to get a vested interest in your pension, he will find it almost impossible to explain why you were fired. Unless of course you give him a reason. If you’re offered, never take a drink at or before work, make sure you show up on time everyday and do your work conscientiously. If you take more than one day off. see a doctor and get a note from him.

Once you inform them you are taking more advanced courses, you probably will be called in without notice and asked to justify your choice of courses. If you immediately produce documentation, they may back off. They may assume that you are acting on the advice of an attorney and you are, one of my friends associates is a tax lawyer. Make sure you keep copies of the documents you give them. They will be needed if you have to go to court. If they allow to take these courses and if they’re smart, they will, that gives you a legitimate reason for your staying at the firm longer.

Finally be on your guard. Don’t answer any questions you don’t have to, no matter how informal or how innocent they may seem. That nasty accountant might ask if you ever saw papers on anyone’s desk and glanced at them. He knows, I know and you know that is human nature. We are all curious and I am sure if you did take a peek, I’m certain there was no sinister intent. It doesn’t make any difference, NEVER ADMIT YOU READ ANYTHING. They may ask you the same question over and over. Followed up by, are you sure, are you positive. Come on now admit it, you were curious and you peeked. YOU MUST NOT ADMIT THAT YOU EVEN GLANCED. That would give them a legitimate reason for firing you. In a court, you would be represented by a lawyer who would object to those repeated questions. If they keep coming after you, since you do not have the right to an attorney at a company meeting, put them on the defensive. Tell them that as an accounting student you were taught that clients have the right to privacy. so you avoided looking at all those papers. Tell them with no uncertainty that you think it’s a disgrace that the accountants at the firm leave material laying all over the place. Suggest, if they hire a replacement for you that they lock up their papers as they should.

If you are let go. I will give you the name of a firm where two of the partners went to school at night to get advanced training and are sympathetic to your situation.

I can not start this week without saying, the cops in Boston were terrific. Thank you!

TECHIES CAN BE TAUGHT TO SELL.

Dear Mr Mr. Molloy;

I graduated from Cal-tech with a degree in electrical engineering in 1996 and earned a Masters degree in 2001. I worked for my present company since then and have risen to manage major engineering projects. In 2006 I graduated in the top 10% of my class with an MBA from the University of Chicago. I went after my MBA because I realized that without it I would be limited strictly to technical projects. Last year I was chosen as one of three assistants to the president. I thought I was doing well until I was called into his office.

The president said although I was bright and hard-working, I was not going to make it as an executive until I learned to sell my ideas. He conceded that I was a brilliant and innovative engineer however I found it difficult to communicate, particularly with those outside my field. I realized he had a point. He suggested I take a sales training course and I jumped at the opportunity. I have been a straight A student all my life no matter what courses I took and therefore I was surprised when the instructor told me that I would never sell unless I loosened up. Since I paid for the course I never reported the instructors remarks to anyone in my company. In fact, when the president approached me two weeks after I finished that course and asked if I had taken a sales course I said I had not. He said he was convinced I could learn to sell and arranged for me to get some time off so I could attend one of the better courses given by my company. I’m afraid my experience in the second course, which I couldn’t hide, was just as bad as the first. This instructor was far more insightful than the first gentleman. He said I had two problems first I didn’t get buyers to like me and second I didn’t ask for the sale. He suggested that I take your popularity and sales course. I would appreciate it if you could send me information on that course.

A Confused Engineer

I wrote and let him know that I would be discussing the material from my popularity and sales course in some detail in this blog over the next year. In a series of e-mails he told me that he had been unpopular as long as he could remember. However, he had been married 11 years and his wife and kids like him. He said that the lady he married was gregarious, outgoing and very popular and that due to her he had a large circle of friends. Nevertheless he agreed that a few pointers on selling himself would be very useful and asked if I would help. I told him that I would make room for him in the first class I gave in his area.

About a month ago he sent an e-mail explaining that he moved to Europe, switched companies, changed jobs and no lomger needed sales training. I E-mailed him and asked permission to discuss his problem in this blog. He said as long as I did not mention his name, it was okay with him. I thanked him and suggested that he read this blog for the next year or two because his next job might require he sell his ideas. He agreed.

MY ADVICE

The latest research shows that when a salesperson walks into a buyers office 58% of the time the buyer decides not to buy the decision is made before the salesperson says a word. The reason you haven’t heard this is traditional sales research spends 90% of the time questioning and or observing top sales people. They work on the assumption that if they teach poor salespeople to act the same way good salespeople do, they will increase their sales. Studying good salespeople led them to several erroneous conclusions, one being that the reason poor salespeople don’t sell is they do not ask for the sale. That of course is nonsense. When a salesperson walks into a buyers office they are asking for the sale and the reason they never verbalize their request is they know what the answer will be ahead of time.

Salesman through their clothing, body language or facial expressions announce to the buyer that they are sure of themselves and confident about their product or service or they are not. Naturally, buyers react to these messages. Buyers like sellers send nonverbal signals that can be easily read by most people. In fact it is easier to read buyers than sellers because they are very open about what they are non-verbally saying. When a poor salesperson enters a buyers office and the buyer doesn’t like him most of the time it shows in his face or in his actions. They non-verbally and sometimes verbally say such things as, what do you want, do not waste my time , you got to be kidding , I’m not interested , I don’t believe you , I’m not going to buy from you so why waste both our time, hurry up and so forth. That is why poor salespeople are hesitant to ask for the sale

Another erroneous conclusion they drew was that motivation was the key to sales. There is no doubt that motivation plays a role but it is not the be all and end all of sales. Top salesman can sell and do sell when they are down, frustrated and not in any mood to sell. They sell better and more often when there up and motivated but they have skills which they fall back on when needed. Like most competent people salespeople do their job no matter what’s happening in their lives. If you question top salespeople they will tell you motivation is everything. The reason they say that is they send upbeat positive and friendly signals most of the time, and as a result they are usually liked by buyers. They do not have to learn how to use their body, change their approach, close a sale or charm people, they know. The only thing that affects their ability to sell is whether they are motivated at the moment.

That is why when you go to some sales meetings you see people running up and down the aisles clapping, cheering and chanting. If you have never been involved in selling you would think that these people are not too bright and whoever is running the meeting is an idiot. Not so, motivation works. If management runs motivational meetings for their sales force their production will increase for 3 to 6 weeks. After that there’ll be a slight decline and then they will return to normal sales. Overall, sales forces that are motivated out produce those that are not. The problem is motivation should not be part of a sales training course. If there were two salespeople, one is selling 100 widgets a day and the other is selling 20, motivating them will get the salesperson who is selling 100 widgets a day to sell 150 and the 20 widgets salesman to sell 30. It will not teach the 20 widget salesman to become a 100 widget salesperson. A good sales training course will do just that. A professional sales training course will teach the 20 widget salesperson how to enter a room, when he should smile, how much he should smile, and when he should quit smiling. It will teach him to non-verbally make a connection with the buyer among other things.

The reason techies cannot sell is their presentations are usually based on Joe Friday’s line from the old Dragnet series “just the facts ma’am.” Nine out of ten are so interested in giving a concise and accurate image of what they’re selling that they fail to realize that selling has an emotional element. I have been successfully teaching high-tech people to sell for years and I always start by giving the following advice: Sell yourself before you sell your product or service. The simplest way to do this is to try to make eye contact with the buyer and acknowledge his presence with a slight nodding of your head or a slight smile. When you walk in you must be erect and self-assured. You must not walk too slow but you can’t rush, move at a reasonable rate. The best way to master these skills is to walk up to a mirror at least a dozen times every night for a week. Pretend that mirror is a buyer and greet him with warmth and enthusiasm. Sit down calmly unhurriedly and give your presentation. You should not use technical jargon unless you’re talking to another engineer. Do not sell what your product can do, sell what your product can do for the buyer and his company. If at any time during the presentation you are convinced that the buyer does not like you or your product, pretend to be his best friend and sell all the harder. Whatever you do don’t stop or hesitate, just keep going as if you know he’s going to say yes. Even if at the end of your presentation you are absolutely positive the buyer is going to say no, ask for the sale. Sometimes you’ll be surprised.

I just reduced a three-hour training session to a few dozen lines. That is the most techies do when selling. It doesn’t work with ordinary people but sometimes it works with engineers. That is why I tried it here.
Good luck!

PS Teaching techies to explain their expertise to non-techies has become a critical skill for American business and I will be dealing with the subject in future blogs.

NEXT WEEK I WILL RESUME THIS BLOG. In the mean time I am looking for uniform, shirt and tie manufactures to supply my corporate clients. Contact me at “success.molloy@gmail.com”

TO MY READERS:
I stopped writing this blog several months back when I found out that it would take me longer to write my next book than I thought. The primary purpose of this blog is to attract attention to my upcoming books so I thought I would wait until the first was almost out there. However, I enjoy writings these short essays, especially when I run across an interesting topic like today’s. So although I won’t write every week I will when something interests me.

John T. Molloy

MITT ROMNEY AND THE POOR LITTLE RICH BOY MISTAKE

I doubt if Mitt Romney will ever be president. The reason, believe it or not, is he is a poor little rich boy and he holds the beliefs that all little rich boys hold. The central and most destructive of these is they are members of a superior group with far better taste and style than the rest of us. All poor little rich boy politicians will deny this, nevertheless rich Republicans, Democrats, Socialists, Capitalists and Communists in their heart of hearts believe it. There are also convinced by surrounding themselves with other poor little rich boys or girls, things will work out. Haven’t things always worked out for them and their rich friends. Whenever one of them got into trouble daddy and his money arranged for him not to suffer the consequences of his acts. Poor little rich boys expect to have an easy and problem free life because that is the only life they know. They think, it’s one of the privileges that comes with money.

We all know there is a degree of truth in their thinking but on careful examination it doesn’t make sense. If you make a mistake things don’t always work out, that is not the way the world works. To hold such a belief is just silly. Nevertheless, every time I went to package the poor rich boy candidate I faced the problem of his advisers, the people with whom he felt most comfortable, even if they were incompetent amateurs they believed that they knew best. Because I packaged them, their wives, their companies and their candidate’s I associated with people who came from money. Most were bright, articulate and rather pleasant to be around but some at the same time quoted meaningless stupid clichés to win an argument. When I finished explaining to one poor rich boy advisor to a governor how difficult it is to change someone’s body language he actually said to me if you think that’s difficult why don’t you try sailing. Sailing is a sport that is almost exclusively engaged in by those with money. Even to buy a small boat costs more than most people can afford and to store it when it is not in use and maintain it costs more. I’m ashamed to say I answered by telling them my son was sailing at a yacht club close to his home and he found sailing easy and fun. I should have said you’re an idiot but I did not. A classic example of how some of the rich think is another cliché, “ The best revenge is living well.” I heard one woman say that to her friend whose husband had just lost an election. She advised her to go on a very expensive vacation to the Greek islands and two of her rich friends agreed When she came back from that cruise on her yacht, she would be better than before the election. Both of those arguments are based on the premise that having money solves all problems. No one including the very rich believe that but it has been true so often in their lives it affects their thinking.

You may wonder what all this has to do with Mitt Romney. Before I get to that I must discuss another Democratic candidate for president, Al Gore. He should have won hands down, he was Bill Clinton’s vice president who left office with an 80% approval rating. He had one drawback, he was dull. His campaign staff decided they had to solve that dullness problem. A gentleman approached me and identified himself as a member of the Gore team. He said they would hire me if they thought I could help. I said that was easy. He then asked if I was a big Al Gore fan and I said not particularly but I was not a big fan of George Bush’s either. I added the job intrigued me because I was sure I could make him president and I thought that would be a real kick. I knew I could do it because I had taken other candidates and executives who were very dull for the same reason and changed their message rather easily. Al Gore’s problem wasn’t that he was a dull speaker, it wasn’t that his clothing made him look dull, it was he did not move his body properly when he spoke. Even when he waved his arms and shouted the middle of his body did not move. This was a relatively easy fix. I suggested a two-pronged approach. First deny that being dull was a problem for a president. Leave the people with a comparison of a hard-working dull Gore to Bush the frat boy. Make Gore appear enthusiastic instead of dull by teaching him to move his body as he spoke. I was told he hired a friend of his daughter at Harvard to advise him on image. His image advisor had him wear lively sweaters. They were supposed to say I’m not dull but since he was, they said he was non verbally lying. One of the things that turns off independents is being lied to. One of my great regrets, with that close election, is he did not hire me or even someone from Hollywood to prove the power of image.

Next came George Bush another little rich boy who lived by the rich boy code. When every comedian on TV was getting people to laugh at his supposed stupidity, he never challenged them. That was beneath him. In fact, not challenging such an attack weakened his presidency and as a result of these attacks he lost credibility with the public. Political hardball may not be a rich man’s game but if you go into politics, you must play. His second poor rich boy mistake was appointing some fellow well known in the world of rich boys for running an organization for thoroughbred horses and their owners, to run the rescue program after hurricane Katrina. When he appointed this fellow I’m sure he thought he’s one of us and things will turn out okay. When Katrina was approaching New Orleans he should have replaced him with a military man who is an expert at moving and feeding large numbers of people. He would have been a hero but at least he didn’t look like a poor rich boy. George Bush was an easy-going, likable fellow who often had a grin on his face and who looked and sounded like the rest of us.

Mitt Romney on the other hand is the ultimate poor little rich boy. He has two public relations problems, he is a Mormon and he is rich. If I ask you to picture an old-fashioned Mormon a majority of you will see a bearded man wearing a black coat with a stern look on his face. That is not what Mormons look like or dress like today however since that is a common misconception, it should have been taken into consideration when dressing Romney. He should have never worn very dark suits. He would have been far more effective wearing medium-range blue and medium-range gray on the stump but not the medium-range blue gray suit that he is wearing today. That one screams money. There is one time when he can’t wear a medium-range suit. During the debates he must present himself as an authority figure. Since Obama will be wearing a very dark suit Romney must come pretty close to matching it, one or two shades lighter would be ideal.

Romney’s image people are doing the same thing for him that Al Gore’s image people did for him. In their crowd when someone took off his jacket and put on a sweater he was relaxing. Romney’s amateur image makers think if he takes off his jacket and rolls up the sleeves of his custom-made white shirt he becomes one of the people. They believe that is an every guy image which shows how far out of touch they really are.. I am not suggesting that he buy cheap shirts or suits Presidential candidates can’t dress like that. The public expects candidates for the presidency to look like presidents. Nevertheless he must find his image and that will not be easy at this point. Any obvious change in appearance will tell the public he’s lying and will become joke material for the late-night shows. He must make a series of subtle changes. His image in the public mind is well-established at this point, making dramatic change difficult. However, it would be easy to soften his look making him more likable. There is no room for error, so they should hire a political pro not a fashion or clothing expert.
.
Romney should also have the consultant talk to his wife and his staff. She wore a very expensive blouse a couple of weeks ago and it was all over the papers. When I interviewed women about their opinion of Mrs. Romney overnight it went from positive to neutral and somewhat negative. I hate to tell her this but the term “rich bitch” came up several times. The Romney people answered her critics by saying that Mrs. Obama wore even more expensive outfits. It didn’t work because no one thinks that Mrs Obama is too rich. And when she explained how she relaxed by riding her beautiful horse the Obama people should send her a thank you note. She’s a real asset to them . If you don’t believe that, think about Ronald Reagan sending a thank you note to the Washington Post for a front-page article. The editors at the Post were astounded the article was anything but flattering. Reagan a master of image explained to the people at the Post that the picture showing him in a positive light more than offset the article. As for his staff, I watched a spokesman for Romney the other day defending Romney while looking like a poor little rich boy. Enough said.

I’m sure you have gotten the impression that I do not like the rich, not so. I have only one wish, if as some believe we come around several times, the next time. I hope I come back as a poor little rich boy.

Dear Mr. Molloy:

Six years ago I inherited a software company from my uncle. He was an electrical engineer who became a computer expert and designed computers to carry out specific tasks. About 25 years ago he decided that the real money was in software, picked up a masters in software engineering and started the company. Under his direction they went from designing software for high-tech firms to writing programs for business.

We now have 367 employees about a third of whom are technical experts, most with masters degrees and some with doctorates. I have an MBA and have been in management for more than 25 years. I was the CEO of the last two companies I worked for and both did well. Today all companies have high tech departments and I believed that I could run my uncle’s high-tech company easily even though I had no formal technical background . That was a mistake. Two years ago I became a software engineer which made running this company easier . However, I freely admit that most the people who work for me are far better at making technical decisions than I. The business is running smoothly, making money and expanding at least in part because I brought to this company business a perspective that they did not have.

My strength being a traditional businessman with a background in finance and marketing is also my weakness. I believe many of the tried and tested rules in business work. The one you are most familiar with is business dress. You should know that I am running this company with the help of two very able assistants one has a Masters in software engineering and an MBA while the second is an electrical engineer who has been with my uncle for 35 years. The other day while visiting a client I saw one of our PhDs wearing a T-shirt and jeans. With his beard he looked like a member of the occupy Wall Street crowd. This chance meeting led me to suggest to my two assistants that we should clean up our act and insist on some sort of dress code. You would have thought that I was insisting they take a cut in pay. Both went ballistic. They started by talking to me as if I were a not too bright outsider. They explained that not being an expert technical person I couldn’t possibly understand the reality of their world. Then they went on to state, as if it were a given, that technical people cannot be pushed into dressing like business people. If a dress code were introduced they assured me I would lose some of my best and most creative people. In addition they maintained that since creativity was essential to what we do, a traditional dress code would make it far more difficult for our people to be creative. One actually said that IBM lost dominance in the computer area because it took too long to relax their rigid dress code.

Since I made the comment about dress without preparation, I sat and listened to what I think is largely nonsense without saying a word. Before they finished which took an excruciatingly long 15 min. I decided to do some research on the subject before giving my answer. That is why I am writing to the author of the dress book that set the standard for business dress. I would appreciate it if you would comment.

John B.
Dear John:
You’re absolutely right much of what they said is nonsense. In the Renaissance most of the successful creative people were underwritten by the rich and powerful. Although they dressed in work clothing it was not because they thought they had to to be creative, it was because sculptures and painters work with their hands. The association of avant-garde bohemian dress with art started on the left bank of the Seine. That was the section of Paris where artists who were no longer supported by an aristocracy lived along with other poor people. The artists adopted the dress of their poor neighbors who worked with their hands which of course is not the way polite society dressed. People who purchased their art wore the traditional dress of the affluent and saw the artists as people who broke the rules of dress. It didn’t take long for dressing like an outsider to become a sign of creativity.

There has been all sorts of research on dress and its effect on creativity. I ran a survey of creative people in the 80s and found that around 60% didn’t really care about dress. The most creative scientists in large corporations often dressed in traditional business wear while most of the others dressed in lab coats. When I interviewed them they said that they wore whatever they had to wear. In fact a substantial percentage of them liked traditional business dress because it saved them the bother of worrying about what to wear. Of course today the people at Google would disagree but there are two unanswered questions that lead me to believe they just might be mistaken. First with their search engine they caught lightening in a jar and that produced so much money that for the time being they can do anything they want. They are not under real competitive pressure, Second, when someone comes up with a superior product and sooner or later that is inevitable, will they under pressure be able to create a solution to that problem? I don’t know and in spite of their pronouncements I don’t think the people who run Google know. However, I like their style and I hope they do.

Their boast about being so creative may be true but I remember when IBM made the same boast. I suggested president of Google hang a sign somewhere that reads; REMEMBER IBM

The most interesting group however were those who wore lab coats. Many of them talked about being avast-garde and railed against the conformity of the business suit. They said some of the same things as your people. A number of them maintained that forcing a creative scientist to wear a suit would, as one very talented computer programer said, “strangle their creativity.” I didn’t have the heart to tell this creative genius that the lab coat was every bit as much a uniform as the business suit.

However, I do agree that conformity kill’s creativity but not conformity in dress. Conformity of thought apparently makes one less creative. People raised in societies where all their decisions are made for them find it difficult if not impossible to be creative. In societies where there are absolute rules that are never going to change and you do not have the right to question those rules, creativity is rare. In societies where questioning the rules is allowed or even encouraged, creativity flourishes. That is why Americans are so creative.

I’ve been researching creativity since the 70s. I always intended to write a book about the subject but I never got around to it. Instead creativity has been my hobby. If the readers are interested in becoming more creative, I will write about it.

Dear readers:
If you decide to run for president this year, before you dash out and buy campaign buttons or have your teeth capped, I suggest you purchase a small pattern maroon tie for those inevitable TV appearances. If you believe you’ve heard this before you are at least 45 years of age and have a terrific memory. This was the first sentence in a column I wrote 30 years ago. I had just finished researching which outfit made a candidate both credible and likable and had come to the conclusion if a candidate wore a solid dark navy suit with a white shirt and a dark red or maroon tie, it increased his chances of being elected. I am sure many were convinced of the effectiveness of that ensemble because that outfit was often seen in and around Washington D.C.. One reporter told me, when a politician denied he was even thinking of running for office wearing a blue suit, a white shirt and a maroon tie that meant he was definitely running.

That is why when I looked at the Republican candidates and president Obama on the same news show I noticed not one of them was wearing a red or maroon tie. That could mean one of two things, the public had changed and they no longer responded positively to those wearing dark suits, white shirts and maroon ties. Or politicians are being poorly packaged by their image consultants. Since I didn’t know which was true, I thought I would look into it.

I took 60 pictures of men in business suits, 12 of which showed men wearing small pattern maroon ties and white shirts. I then divided the pictures into groups of five, with each group having one man wearing a maroon tie. I mailed three stacks of five pictures to each of four researchers in four cities. They were instructed to show them to a cross-section of the public. These researchers told their respondents that these were pictures of candidates and asked them to pick their favorite and their least favorite. The results showed the more things changed, the more they remained the same. The outfits with the maroon ties won by such a small margin that it cannot be considered significant but nevertheless they won. I admit with such a small number of people surveyed, averaging 28 in each city, that the results are not reliable. I decided, since the numbers did not definitely answer the question, the results were not worth reporting.

When the pictures came back I put them in my briefcase with the intention of returning them to the files. I was having lunch with a friend when I reached into my briefcase and accidentally pulled out the pictures. He asked me what they were for and I told him. He then proceeded to go through several stacks of pictures. When he finished he said he was not impressed by the candidate wearing the maroon tie and would be no more likely to vote for him than anyone else. However, he added; “Like Clinton, I’m sure I would enjoy having a drink with him.” When he said that, a light went on in my head. I talked my buddy into standing on a street corner and asking any passerby who would stop to look at five pictures of candidates and pick the one they liked most. I stopped people two blocks away and asked the same questions.

Their responses showed that wearing a small pattern maroon tie made the wearer seem friendlier than those wearing equally conservative and tasteful neck-wear. I wish I could tell candidates that wearing a maroon tie would make them more trustworthy, as it did 30 years ago but I can not. In 2011 most of those we questioned did not trust any of the make believe candidates. We put out theoretical candidates in a variety of outfits but once they were identified as candidates for Congress or the state Senate no matter what they wore, few trusted them. These results were so surprising that we decided to research a number of areas

If your campaign chest was not totally depleted with the purchase of a small pattern maroon tie, I suggest you purchase a second tie, a solid maroon. It is a little less authoritative but you can still appear important without being pretentious. A solid maroon tie will give you credibility with blue-collar workers without making you look like a Wall Street executive. Another version that tested well was a navy and maroon rep(Striped). This one has a high seriousness but low snob rating. You can be effective with the bankers Association or your local union reps. It will announce to the bankers you are one of them while it tells the blue-collar union reps that you might be a nice guy.

Finally, if you started your own green company and the only green it has produced has been for you and your buddy’s and you have a subpoena to testify before Congress in your hand, I have a look for you. If you do not own any these items run out and buy them immediately; a solid dark blue tie, a white shirt and a navy suit. That look will announce to the world that you are innocent,in spite of the evidence.

Good luck!
P.S. If you are a politician today, you are going to need it.