Adam Scott (Mark. S), Zach Cherry (Dylan. G), John Turturro (Irving. B), and Britt Lower (Helly. R) in Severance season 1, episode 7. Image courtesy of Apple TV+.
Fashioning Control: Corporate Styles in Popular Culture
Throughout history, corporate fashion has represented more than just a dress code, but a reflection of economic tensions and power. Between the provocative 'Office Siren' TikTok trend to the utilitarian styling in Apple TV's hit series Severance, popular culture conveys how professional aesthetics respond to economic uncertainty, reclaim identity, and challenge the subtle control of traditional, patriarchal workplace norms.
In times of economic uncertainty, we yearn for control. This manifests in fashion, as hemlines lengthen, silhouettes sharpen, and corporate dress becomes more indicative of performance rather than individualism. The visual negotiation of success and power, especially in times of chaos, expands across pop culture, seen in TikTok trends such as the ‘Office Siren’ aesthetic, and the resurgence of minimalistic tailoring for a purpose in television series such as Severance.
Throughout history, clothing has mirrored culture’s subconscious, particularly in times of instability. This is reflected in concepts such as the ‘hemline index’, introduced by George Taylor in 1926, which suggests that hemlines tend to be shorter in times of economic prosperity, whilst recession encourages longer skirts which reflect structure. This is extended to other aspects of fashion and appearance, for example, the chairman of Estée Lauder, Leonard Lauder’s ‘lipstick index’, acknowledges the increase of lipstick sales in recession when perhaps they cannot buy more expensive luxury items. These are brief outlines of two examples of the market responding to mood, which, through the subconscious, forces our corporate wardrobes to recalibrate. Corporate fashion is not simply a trend, but a coping mechanism. This is explored in popular culture and media, which is not only representative of but influenced by the economic uncertainty of the current global economic and political climate, encouraged by Trump-era tariffs.
Melanie Griffith in Working Girl, 1988, 20th Century Fox
Professional identity through fashion is a concept that underscores much of corporate fashion throughout history. By the 1920s, the concept of ‘fashion’ in corporate environments encompassed a range of styles and products. A commercial identity was established that distinguished corporate professionals from tradespeople, which encouraged sleek style and taste in their dress. The business suit emerged as the male uniform of modernity, as it projected discipline and professionalism through its sharp hemlines and structured silhouette. For women, the early 20th century marked their entrance into office spaces and prompted a different style of sartorial negotiation with their male counterparts, through shirtwaists, midi skirts, and later skirt suits, that mirrored the meticulous tailoring in male corporate fashion, and reinforced power and femininity within the corporate limits.
The 1980s introduced the rise of the ‘power suit’, which emphasised definition in the shoulders and traditional structured tailoring, alongside modern dynamism in patterns and colours. The ‘power suit’ for women represented a way of dressing that demonstrated authority and assertiveness that was more often exhibited by men in the patriarchal-dominated corporate arena. The suit was a symbol of exaggeration; for men, an exaggeration of the traditional business suit and an emphasis of professionalism and authority, whilst for women it represented an exaggerated notion of success and empowerment in an attempt to overcome the ‘glass ceiling’, and be considered equal counterparts to men in the corporate sphere. Major fashion designers such as Coco Chanel, Yves Saint Laurent, and Giorgio Armani inspired the power dressing movement, which demanded authority and power through the subversion of traditional gender roles, and reframed the female form with hypermasculine tailoring. Women were fashioned to command, not to conform.
The early 2000s and the Great Recession, alongside the notability of Silicon Valley tech executives, saw minimalism replacing assertiveness. Minimalist corporate fashion emerged as ‘recession core,’ influenced by the desire for affordability and practicality, and due to ‘tech style icons’ such as Bezos and Jobs. Even in its casual forms, corporate fashion privileged certain incomes and ideologies governed by the market and influence of significant figures. Today, corporate fashion fluctuates between individuality and control, with subtle suggestions of power in tailoring and structure. This has been adapted in and by popular culture, including the controversial ‘Office Siren’ TikTok trend that represents the adaptation of corporate fashion to accentuate femininity and sexuality.
Andrea Edelman/Vogue, When It Comes to the Office Siren Trend, Are Women In On the Joke?
Since its initial rise in late 2023, the ‘Office Siren’ trend has taken TikTok by storm, as it’s aesthetic blends style and confidence, remixing the corporate fashions of pencil skirts and oversized blazers of the late 90s and early 00s, with modern styles and allure. The trend is at the intersection of dressing authoritatively and the power of feminine sexuality, as a provocative response to the traditional patriarchal workplace dress codes that align more with masculine, tailored ideals. It is hinged upon the ‘girlboss’ aesthetic, which endeavours to emulate the power associated with ‘a man in a suit’ whilst challenging it through subtle objections. For example, there is agency in embracing female sexuality through body-forming silhouettes, sheer fabrics, and bold makeup, that disrupts the compliant image of a ‘quiet, respectable, working woman’. Furthermore, through this aesthetic, the trend critiques the hypocrisy of the corporate ideals that, despite advocating that downplaying feminine sexuality is crucial to professionalism, sexualise women passively through the policing of their appearance or plain objectification. The aim for many is to reclaim femininity as a legitimate expression of power, and to assert that competence and sexuality do not undermine each other, forcing a reassessment of the visuality of authority in the corporate environment.
Despite criticism, the trend is rooted in rejecting the male gaze and asserting autonomy over the female image, without catering to male ideals and corporate policy. Due to its provocative nature, the trend has faced much controversy, as other creators have responded with videos that highlight ‘HR violations’ and argue that the trend altogether is inappropriate, confusing self-expression with self-commodification that 'only promotes institutional sexism'. Given its confrontational nature this is unsurprising, as the trend aims to confront and subvert the comfortable expectations of women’s fashion in the corporate arena. One cannot challenge corporate ideology without being labelled provocative.
That being said, critiques that the trend enforces objectification rather than dismantling it, are not misplaced. In equipping feminine sexuality to promote authority and agency, creators subsequently equate the authority of women in the corporate arena with their sexuality, further implying mutual exclusivity between the two. This is an impossible dynamic to regulate, as the distinctions between ‘boss’ and ‘sexy secretary’ are subjective, unless of course, we fall back onto dress codes informed by patriarchal tradition, which imagines women with authority in a business suit. Despite objectivity, it can be definitively said that the ‘Office Siren’ trend questions the battle of objectification that underlies dressing for the corporate arena.
The ‘Office Siren’ aesthetic is not simply a statement of femininity in historically male-dominated corporate spaces, but also a reflection of a wider economic mood marked by uncertainty and inflation. Since the beginning of his second term in January 2025, Trump’s tariffs have disrupted the global economy, particularly targeting Chinese manufacturing. As a result, the costs of clothing imports and production have sharply risen, intensifying issues in the global supply chain. The ‘Office Siren’ trend’s resurgence transpires at a time when women, and particularly young professionals, are navigating uncertain wage stagnation and job markets. Dressing with intention, even through the provocative, assertive aesthetic of the trend, is symbolic of maintaining control and assurance. Like the hemline index, the trend is informed by the present economic landscapes, representing assertion in times of chaos. However, there are, of course, clear differences between the two. Longer hemlines paired with neutral colours have been marked as ‘recession indicators’, along with a focus on functionality over fashion.
The ‘Office Siren’ trend, on the other hand, employs the intersection between allure and austerity to reflect both economic constraint and the cultural shift between femininity and power, through fitted clothes that walk the line between work-wear and fashion. Unlike the ‘hemline index’, which suggests that shorter skirts indicate economic stability, the fashioning of fitted clothes and shorter skirts for the ‘Office Siren’ aesthetic attempts to reclaim power and authority in a distinctly feminine way, in precarious times. In this sense, it both mirrors and complicates the logic of the ‘hemline index’, as fashion signals strategy, not submission, in an attempt to control instability.
Symbolic styling of corporate fashion does not just exist in the real world and on social media, but in film and television. For example, Apple TV’s hit series Severance utilises fashion to convey institutional control and psychological fragmentation, as yet another example of corporate wear as a vehicle of emotional and economic disposition. Set in the vacant hallways on the severed floors of Lumon Industries, the series imagines a corporate environment where certain employees divide their consciousness into separate selves, between work and personal identities. On screen, this split is depicted greatly in their wardrobes, which are highly curated interpretations of corporate wear that signal the power structures at play within the series.
The fashion of the severed workers, particularly, is devoid of character, in the muted colour palettes, ill-fitting suit jackets, and shapeless silhoettes. The lack of individuality in their dress reflects the lack of identity of the severed workers who are confined within the basement of Lumon Industries, having never experienced the outside world. They are rudimentary depictions of corporate America that have been stripped of glamour and individuality, which creates the essence of corporate limbo, indicative of the severed floor itself. The uniformity of the fashion ensures that, despite their characters that we grow to adore, no one stands out and individuality is neutralised. In doing so, the idea that personal expression opposes corporate control is substantiated.
John Turturro (Irving. B), Zach Cherry (Dylan. G), Britt Lower (Helly. R), and Adam Scott (Mark. S) in Severance season 1, episode 2. Image courtesy of Apple TV+.
In contrast to the charged, provocative ‘Office Siren’ aesthetic, the fashion in Severance emphasises what is lacking. For example, there are no marks of individuality or identity, as this is forbidden when entering the severed floor, and femininity and sexuality are muted. Even defiant characters, such as Helly R, who actively rebels against being kept on the severed floor, wears shapeless dresses and muted colours, emphasising her lack of autonomy. The series emphasises how corporate fashion reflects and responds to emotional instability, and how its policing may constitute subtle acts of oppression. In Severance, the wardrobe reflects the emotional dissonance of corporate workers who may be present and functional, yet are not ‘themselves’, as obedience is masked as professionalism. The styling of the corporate fashion in the series reflects the lack of control of the severed workers, as it critiques capitalist labour and suppression of identity in the workplace.
Now let’s put this all in the context of the present day. As economic turbulence defines the current global economic state, fashion, once again, emerges as a response toward, and a tool to negotiate it. Between the hyper-visibility of the ‘Office Siren’ trend and the utilitarian wardrobes of Severance, corporate fashion is highlighted as a performance of identity and control, particularly in times of instability. In the current economic climate marked by inflation, job insecurity, and ongoing fallout from Trump-era tariffs, corporate clothing can be understood as 1) a response to reshaping consumer behaviour, and 2) a strategy to reclaim control in these corporate environments.
In the last few months, you may have seen the term ‘recession indictor’ used to describe varying trends and fashion. Whilst it cannot be said that we will reach a recession in 2025, the trends associated with corporate fashion can be understood as a response to economic uncertainty. Can the rise in popularity of skinny jeans and ‘business casual in the club’ be definitively understood as a recession indicator? Perhaps not. But the downturn of luxury and increasing minimalistic tailoring, whilst not explicitly indicative of the economy, do offer insights into consumer tendencies. Whilst I would not recommend using such indicators as financial or investing advice, by understanding corporate fashion trends consumer behaviours are contextualised, often as a response to the fluctuating economy.
©Copyright. All rights reserved.
We need your consent to load the translations
We use a third-party service to translate the website content that may collect data about your activity. Please review the details in the privacy policy and accept the service to view the translations.