An Authentic Response from Glamour Magazine

This past summer, a story about a Glamour magazine staffer who was giving a talk about ‘what to wear to work’ was making the rounds among feminists and fashionistas. During the staffer’s lunchtime talk at a law firm, she allegedly remarked that wearing an Afro at work was “a Glamour Don’t “. Those who heard the story, first reported in the August issue of American Lawyer, were shocked that Glamour magazine would give professional women fashion advice that was both racist and sexist.

The question of whether or not people in corporate America find natural African-American hair to be unprofessional or inappropriate merits further, serious discussion . However, what’s more important to organizational authenticity is the question of whose racist and sexist attitudes were expressed. This question is what set up an authenticity dilemma for Glamour as an organization: Was it the staffer or the organization itself who put down natural Black hair?

Among the magazine’s readers and public the Glamour Don’t story created an authenticity dilemma. Readers and others aware of the story saw a disconnect between the way the magazine presented itself (e.g., its image) and the real-world advice it offered to young career women (e.g., its choices of action). What went wrong here?

First, since the staffer was presenting herself as a spokesperson for Glamour, she was deriving her authority from Glamour itself. Thus, her remark was received as an expression of the magazine’s actual beliefs about what was and wasn’t appropriate, professional hair.

Second, the staffer’s remark invoked Glamour magazine’s iconic catch phrase — “a Glamour Don’t “. By linking the magazine’s well-known catchphrase to her statement the staffer made her statement all the more memorable. Any reader knows that a “Glamour Don’t ” is an outfit, accessory or style statement that shows its wearer to be a clueless fashion victim. As a catchphrase, “a Glamour Don’t ” carries all of the magazine’s authority as a fashion arbiter. It is a definitive statement about what look is “in” and what look is out”, and it separates women into two groups: fashion insiders in the know, and fashion outsiders who are Don’ts. Labeling natural Black hair as a fashion Don’t suggests that Black professional women themselves can be fashion Don’ts .

hird, the remark was contradictory to the way that Glamour magazine presents itself.  Relative to other fashion magazines targeted at young career women, Glamour magazine stands out with its second-wave feminist orientation, its support for a woman’s right to choose, and its emphasis on young women taking control over their personal lives, career lives and communities. For Glamour magazine to dictate that natural African-American hair (hair that is unprocessed, unstraightened, free, braided or dread-locked) is a ‘Glamour Don’t says that Black women who want to appear professional need to submit to appearance standards designed for white women. [That's a racist attitude, most would agree.] And worse, it also indicates that, when it comes to giving specific, real-world advice about what to wear, Glamour magazine abandons the positions it presents in its pages and is as racist and sexist as any other organization.

So here’s the dilemma, for the reader, the audience, and the organization itself: Which Glamour is the “real” Glamour? The Glamour that supports women’s rights or the Glamour that puts Black women down?

You can imagine the indignation of Glamour’s fans (and others) when they encountered the story. But it wasn’t long before Glamour’s editor, Cindi Leive, grabbed the issue and promised to set everyone straight (pun intended). In September Leive was interviewed on NPR and in October published this terrific Letter from the Editor , describing the issue and explaining the magazine’s response.

To be clear: Glamour did not, does not, and would never endorse the comments made; we are a magazine that believes in the beauty of all women.

As a Glamour subscriber, I was reassured and heartened by the way Leive’s letter addressed each facet of the situation. As an organizational and management scholar, I was *initially* impressed by what was presented in the letter.

In particular, I was impressed that Leive:

• Responded directly, in more than one medium
• Recounted the facts of the situation
• Expressed concern commensurate to the situation
• Clarified the organization’s position
• Accepted responsibility (even though it was not the organization’s fault)
• Apologized to the organization’s stakeholders
• Listened to the concerns of offended stakeholders
• Validated their concerns
• Addressed the issue with the errant employee
• Pledged to follow up with an additional article in a forthcoming issue, to demonstrate further the organization’s non-racist, pro-women attitude
• Thanked the stakeholders for caring
• Invited the stakeholders to continue to air their concerns
• Invited additional communication from anyone interested
• Made it easy to reply with a web-link directly below the letter

You’ve got to admit it; this is a comprehensive set of actions.

Each of these actions seems appropriate, and I was prepared to celebrate this story as an Authentic Organization’s response to an authenticity dilemma. Here, an authenticity dilemma triggered by a disconnect between the way the organization acted (e.g., advice given at the luncheon) and the way the organization presents itself (e.g., as a magazine that is pro-women and not racist), was resolved by a reinforcing the organization’s self-presentation, disconnecting the organization from the incongruent actions, and demonstrating actions that reinforced the organization’s desired self-presentation.

I found, though, that I couldn’t pronounce this dilemma solved, because a more thorough search suggested there’s even more to the story. Additional info includes, but is not limited, to the following:

According to the New York Post’s Page 6, the staffer was actually the fashion editor (not a lowly post), she didn’t have permission to speak at the luncheon, the staffer allegedly covered up the incident, so that the Editor was blindsided by the problem. Also, according to bloggers, the staffer and some colleagues claimed that she had been prohibited by Conde Nast, Glamour’s parent organization, from issuing a public explanation and apology herself. And, the Editor was criticized for taking “too long” to address the issue herself.

You’d never know any of this from the diplomatic Letter from the Editor .

So what do we believe? Whom do we believe? What is really “true” about how Glamour as an organization feels about Black women’s hair, about the “appropriate look” for minority and white professional women, about the place for young career women in our society, about racism and sexism within their organization and their industry? How will we know?

I, for one, will be a little more skeptical as I read the magazine. Until I know more, I’ll withhold my judgments about the staffer, the Editor, their actions, and the Glamour organization itself.?I will be on the lookout for the promised article about the roundtable conversation on race, gender, careers and fashion. As both a Glamour subscriber and as a management scholar, I’ll specifically be looking for actions, choices, and behaviors by the magazine and by its Editor that will demonstrate that Glamour is resolving its authenticity dilemma by adjusting the organization’s explicit choices to its self-presentation.

Will this incident be a useful model for Authentic Organizations? Or will we forever think of it as a glamorous “Don’t”.  Tell me what you think.

Tagged as: Authentic Leadership, Diversity & Feminism, Glamour Don't, Glamour magazine, leadership, Lieve, racism, sexism