IN the 1980s, a leading female journalist revealed how she used her considerable décolletage as a professional asset. “As soon as I see a man staring at my chest, I know I’ve got him,” she said, bringing fire and ire from a sisterhood weaned on Sixties feminism. But things have quickly changed.

Nowadays, men working in offices often find themselves short of anywhere not to look. There’s more heaving cleavage than a BBC costume drama. Where the 1980s had power-dressing and shoulder pads, the Noughties have underwiring and gel inserts. Old-style feminism burnt bras, but girl power does push-ups.

We can blame shows such as Ally McBeal for promoting the idea that skimpy costumes equal career success. “Professional women watching TV take it as a guideline for what to wear to work,” says David Wolfe, the creative director of the fashion analysts Doneger Group. But does dressing for distraction really provide women with a career boost? No, says Peter Glick, a psychology professor at Lawrence University in Wisconsin. His study concludes that women in high-status positions who dress provocatively are rated as less competent and elicit negative reactions from colleagues. The same is not true for women in lower-status positions, such as receptionists: “For young women starting out, it’s a temptation to be sexy. You get more attention, but . . . eventually, it undermines perceptions of your competence.”

Already there’s a backlash building. Donna Flagg, owner of the Krysalis Group, a human resource and consulting firm in New York, recently wrote a dress code for a company that included a “no cleavage” rule. And in August, Arlington, a city in Texas, passed a bylaw banning women from wearing plunging necklines in its schools. Could we soon see the fall of the Wonderbra, and the rise of the business burka?

Times Recommends

• Inspirational leadership
• How to get a new job
• The reluctant CEO