It’s possible to take comfort and casualness a bit too far.
It was, to borrow a Sports Illustrated phrase, a sign that the apocalypse is near.
Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries were all photographed wearing the so-called hybrid “sneaker shoes” in a recent Oval Office meeting with President Biden.
In a week in which the Ukrainian war intensified, the country careened towards a debt default and Aaron Judge was accused of sign stealing, this bipartisan sartorial gaffe became one of the country’s most contentious issues.
We’re not talking about Keds, Air Jordans, Nikes or even Jack Purcells. We’re talking about the more stylish, formal version that the manufacturer Porto describes as “Looks like work, wears like leisure to take you from boardroom to bar, city to street, and season to season.”
How can anyone argue with that? Shoes designed to accommodate the expectations of “the boardroom” and the imperatives of comfort. Sounds like “the perfect fit” for today’s millennial workforce culture. Cole Haan makes them, for goodness sakes. And it obviously works for Congressional leadership.
After all, most people arguably work better and accomplish more when their feet aren’t in constant pain because of uncomfortable footwear. And most people move easier when they’re wearing something light, rather than those hard leather oxfords that resemble Frankenstein’s boots.
It’s one thing if you want to criticize McCarthy and Jeffries’ choice of flashy striped socks. You wear something that bold to a public meeting and you know to expect some pushback (and you might think twice before you pull them on in the morning). But it’s hard to criticize hard working politicians for their choice of footwear. And if it bothered Biden, he didn’t seem to show it. They’re on their feet a lot. In many respects, it’s one of those bastions of personal expression.
Except when it isn’t; when it doesn’t work; when it sends the wrong, if unintended, message.
In the avalanche of criticism that followed the photographs of the Oval Office shoe show-off, two themes arose.
The first was the expected reaction: that it is inappropriate, if not disrespectful, to attend a meeting with the President “dressed in shoes designed for power-walking at the mall.” That’s understandable. The dignity of the Presidency has taken enough hits, to have to put up with hosting legislators dressed like Ted Lasso.
But the second was deeper, more serious, more contemplative. That the “sneaker shoe in the Oval Office” is a metaphor for the loss of a certain grace and elegance in leadership style. That perhaps “business casual” has replaced “formality” not only in terms of accepted attire, but also perhaps in terms of leadership engagement. That things are getting a bit too loose, a bit too relaxed in terms of how we engage with institutions and those who lead them. The tie-less CEO; the NFL coach wearing a hoodie on the sideline; the priest who doesn’t wear his collar outside of the sanctuary. That doesn’t work for some folks, who expect just a little more from people holding those positions. You’re our boss, you’re our coach, you’re our priest. Do you mind dressing like it?
The country is in the midst of extraordinary and rapid social, economic and political change. Many are comfortable with the scope and pace of that change. Others are not. In their concern, they look to institutions of government and industry as bulwarks against change they perceive as harmful. And they look to the leaders of those institutions to uphold the dignity and tradition of those institutions. But when those institutions are treated disrespectfully (and are allowed to be so treated) by those leaders or others engaging with them, their concern increases.
Institutional leaders driven by mission and purpose will be sensitive and responsive to these concerns. Leaders driven by self-aggrandizement will not.
No one’s intentions or designs should be defined by their clothes-or their footwear. Workforce culture has been changed forever by remote work from home. Antiquated perceptions of how employees must look and dress are, fortunately, gone forever. They are being replaced by thoughtful policies that seek to effect gender neutrality.
But there remains a “respect thing” in play – respect for people, for positions, for institutions. Leaders will recognize that in certain circumstances, how they choose to dress and how they choose to present themselves may well affect the respect they hope to receive and the message they choose to project. Peggy Noonan once referred to it as “dressing like adults.”
Yes, there will always be a place for something as attractive, happy and comfortable as the sneaker shoe. And also the ultra-bright, striped socks. But it just might not be in the Oval Office or the board room.
Oh, and while we’re at it, get off my lawn, will you?
