Elizabeth Holmes and Theranos: A Contrarian Perspective s3 -Episode 6: Accessories (or Lack Thereof)

Darlings, let’s talk about the art of accessorizing – or in the case of Elizabeth Holmes, the art of not accessorizing. In the grand fashion show that was Holmes’ public persona, accessories played a role so minimal, it makes Marie Kondo look like a maximalist hoarder.

Now, in the world of high-powered executives, especially women, accessories often speak as loudly as words. A Hermès scarf here, a Cartier watch there – these are the status symbols that often punctuate power suits and boardroom attire. But Holmes? She chose a different path. A path so bare, so stripped down, that it became a statement in itself.

Let’s start with what wasn’t there. No dangling earrings to distract during intense conversations about nanotainers. No chunky necklaces to compete with the austere line of the black turtleneck. No cocktail rings to flash as she gestured during TED talks. The absence was so complete, so deliberate, that it couldn’t help but be noticed.

But why, you ask? Why would a woman in Holmes’ position eschew the trappings of success that so many others flaunt? Well, my dears, that’s where it gets interesting.

First and foremost, the lack of accessories aligned perfectly with Holmes’ overall aesthetic of minimalism and focus. Every item not worn was one less distraction, one less thing to fiddle with during high-stakes meetings or media appearances. It was an extension of her wardrobe philosophy – nothing extraneous, nothing frivolous. Just the bare essentials needed to get the job done.

This absence of adornment also served to emphasize Holmes’ youth and the image of the Silicon Valley wunderkind. Accessories, especially fine jewelry, often connote a certain level of establishment, of having “arrived.” By forsaking these tokens, Holmes maintained an air of the scrappy startup founder, even as Theranos’ valuation soared into the billions.

But let’s not mistake this minimalism for a lack of understanding about the power of accessories. On the contrary, Holmes’ choice to abstain from conventional jewelry was a power move in itself. In a world where people often use accessories as a shorthand for success and status, Holmes was saying, “I don’t need these trinkets to prove my worth. My ideas, my company, my presence – these are my accessories.”

It’s also worth noting that this lack of conventional accessories drew even more attention to the few functional items Holmes did wear. Her Stanford class ring, for instance, became a subject of fascination. Was it a reminder of her roots? A token of the education she left behind to pursue her dreams? Whatever the reason, in the barren landscape of Holmes’ accessory collection, this ring stood out like a beacon, inviting speculation and adding to her mystique.

Then there were her functional accessories – the truly necessary items that couldn’t be eliminated. Her phone, presumably. Maybe a simple watch. These weren’t fashion statements; they were tools, as utilitarian as her black turtleneck and as essential to her work as her intense, unblinking stare.

But here’s where it gets really interesting. In choosing to forgo traditional accessories, Holmes inadvertently turned herself into the ultimate accessory. She became a walking, talking embodiment of the Theranos brand. Her black turtleneck, her messy blonde updo, her red lip – these became her accessories, her trademarks, more recognizable than any designer bauble could have been.

This strategy of self-as-accessory reached its zenith with the black turtleneck itself. More than just a piece of clothing, it became a symbol, an icon, a shorthand for everything Holmes and Theranos represented. Who needs a statement necklace when your entire outfit is a statement?

It’s also worth considering the gender implications of Holmes’ accessory aversion. In a world where women’s appearances are often overly scrutinized, where the choice of earrings can sometimes garner more attention than the content of a speech, Holmes’ minimalism was a radical act. It forced people to focus on her words, her ideas, her presence – not her adornments.

In the end, Holmes’ approach to accessories was much like her approach to everything else – ruthlessly efficient, meticulously cultivated, and designed for maximum impact. She understood that sometimes, the boldest statement is made through absence rather than presence.

So the next time you’re standing in front of your jewelry box, wondering which pieces to wear, think of Elizabeth Holmes. Remember that sometimes, wearing nothing can say everything. In the grand accessory show of life, she chose to be the headliner, not the supporting act. And for a while, at least, the world couldn’t look away.