Casual Dress Code
The Cause and Effects of Casual Dress in the Workplace
Before the 1990's the average business dress code required a suit be worn everyday of the work week. Then at the beginning of the 1990's the "business casual" attire swept the American office environment, bringing with it many positive aspects as well as negative (Encyclopedia of Small Business, 2002). During the beginning of this revolution it seemed like this new style of dress would turn businesses and organizations around for the better, but as the times progressed the employees would discover that "casual Fridays" and other opportunities to dress down were not just a chance for employees to unwind. Businesses have not only changed the dress code with the help of society's view but have also used "business casual" as a strategic tool to help employees cope with recent decisions that have been made and for the market they are in.
The Image of God
We as a people have been created in the image of God. And we as Christians should abide by formal dress codes, because we should always want to say and do our best for God. Michael Speer an associate director of the Southern Baptist Convention Stewardship Commission wrote in his book Put Your Best Foot Forward, "a gentleman may not always be a Christian, but it goes without …show more content…
saying that a Christian should always be a gentleman. A Christian should strive to know how to conduct himself wherever he is" (Speer, 1977). Even though Christians are not perfect and make mistakes, this is compounded by people who are not Christians and are only in it for themselves.
The Christian example
It is important for Christians to understand that because we are made in the image of God we are to set a Christian example in all that we do including making the very best possible personal appearance. This does not mean that we must look like "wingtip warriors" from IBM, but according to how old you are and the kind of work you do will all have an effect on how you dress. But if IBM is concerned with the image projected by their employees, "how much more important it is for the Christian to project the very best possible image for the greatest cause in the world, the cause for Christ" (Speer, 1977).
Business Dress History
Formal business dress was the norm for many companies before the 1990's. Although during the 1980's professional business wear for men became louder, with the entrance of blue shirts and white collars, bright suspenders, and wild ties, the suit still remained as normal Monday through Friday business attire, until the beginning of casual Fridays around 1991 (Weiser, 1996, ¶ 2).
By 1992 a survey by Levi Strauss showed that 26 percent of companies had a dress-down day. Now nearly 75% of the largest companies encourage casual dress for the office at least some of the time (Weiser, 1996, ¶ 3). And according to the Society for Human Resource Management, 95 percent of U.S. companies had some sort of casual day policy in place in 1999 (Encyclopedia of Small Business, 2002). This may seem like a turn in the right direction to achieve employee happiness and a relaxed office environment, but dressing down seemed to go hand-in-hand with downsizing.
Casual dress linked to downsizing
Since 1989-1993, about 3 million people have been laid off from their jobs, fortunately this trend began to steadily decrease, but insecurity still ran rampant throughout the business world. Almost half of white-collar workers who lost their jobs during the 1991-1992 recession had to settle for lower pay, and nearly 40% of the major firms that downsized in 1994 boosted hours for the survivors (Weiser, 1996, ¶ 4).
Employee reaction to casual dress. David Passman a managing partner from Deloitte & Touche Atlanta states, "In this anxious environment, business casual is "a no-cost benefit." Too bad that real-dollar wages and benefits are down 5.5 percent since 1987. But in your Nautica ensemble, the new business-think goes, you'll feel blissful anyway" (Weiser, 1996, ¶ 4). Because of this new view on business management with the effect of the new dress code in play, many employees may think that business casual is just a plot to turn employees "trembling beneath the budget axe into smiley worker bees." On the other hand many employees just like the new dress code (Weiser, 1996, ¶ 5).
Besides the employees enjoying to dress down many other catalysts came into play when businesses were deciding on whether to change their dress code or not. Some of the catalysts were the sudden upstart of entrepreneurship in the late 1980's to the arrival of women into management. In Dress for Success, John Molloy had praised the IBM uniform of dark suits and white shirts, arguing that the right look infused companies with group spirit. But within a few years, IBM was swayed by innovative Silicon Valley companies, where computer geeks ran the show and dress codes were unheard of (Weiser, 1996, ¶ 5).
Dress in the Corporate World
IBM dress code
The trend toward casual business attire began in the high-technology companies of California's Silicon Valley, where young computer and Internet entrepreneurs refused to wear business suits and often showed up at work in denim jeans and cotton T-shirts (Encyclopedia of Small Business, 2002). The trend spread rapidly throughout the business world and finally made its way into the more strict companies like IBM. But the norm for most companies including IBM was to gradually move toward business casual by first testing the waters with a "casual Fridays" policy (Encyclopedia of Small Business, 2002).
In 1995 IBM Chairman Lou Gerstner informed employees that they may dress more casually.
After that announcement IBM's corporate office claimed that they never actually had a dress code and that the uniform of IBM's salespeople was imprinted in customer's minds: dark blue suit, starched white shirt, and conservative tie for men; dark dresses, suits, or skirts for women (Cohen, 1995, ¶ 2). The navy blue suit that IBM was well known for was not selected randomly, according to John Molloy in Dress for Success concerning the solid navy suit: "every man should have at least one is his wardrobe. The upper middle class likes it. The lower middle class likes it and respects you in it" (Molloy,
1988).
Now the salespeople of IBM have the freedom to choose the clothes they want to wear, but there are still times when formal attire is expected. "If you have a meeting with a customer or other outsiders, it makes sense for an IBM rep to be dressed up," says IBM spokesperson Tom Beermann (Cohen, 1995, ¶ 3). In addition to the newly found gray area that has been brought to the forefront.
Marge Kingsley (1995), who used to sell for IBM in Miami, says the new dress code will complicate salespeople's lives a little. Reps now have to make judgment calls when in front of customers, and that salespeople now have to determine the right clothes to wear in different situations. And because of this customers may be turned off by a rep that is too dressed up or too dressed down (Cohen, ¶ 4).
Continuing on the idea of a salesperson's appearance and how it affects the business they do a study was performed by the Research Institute of America. The survey concluded that 56 percent of the people said that their tendency to listen to a salesman is affected by his clothes. Over 43 percent said that they judge the salesperson's product by their personal appearance (Speer, 1977).
Overall, IBM employees, including sales and marketing people, are pleased with the move to casual wear in the office. Farid Metwaly an IBM national marketing manager based in Canada believes that at least one major benefit has resulted. "The relationship between employee and employer is much less strained with a relaxed dress code," he says. "When you see executives in casual clothes you view them as more human, more like peers" (Cohen, ¶ 5).
IBM Canada dress code
In the article Be it Ever so Humble, by Tillson Tamsen, she sheds light on some other reasons why IBM opted for the dress code change in 1994. Tamsen focuses on IBM Canada and how they made the change first before IBM did in 1995. She states the main reason for change was the fact that IBM was in crisis, and from 1991 to 1993, they lost a total of $15.5 billion worldwide with IBM Canada losing $125 million due to the market shifting toward the world of personal computers. Consumers wanted less professional sheen and more fun. IBM had lost its profitability, its dominant position in the computer industry and its reputation (Tamsen, ¶ 4).
Before the dress code change in 1994 the IBM brand name had become worthless, according to a study published in Financial World magazine. Then shortly after the study, the CEO of IBM Canada Khalil Barsoum stated, "it took us too long to understand and react to the marketplace, and in a market as fast as ours that could make you go away" (Tamsen, ¶ 4). Among all of the other companies that easily changed their dress code, this would be a discouraging task for IBM because changing a corporate culture is not easy, and in order to take the correct steps and revise their culture IBM will have to undo more than a half-century of distinct cultural learning (Tamsen, ¶ 4).
Wal-Mart uniforms
Another example of a new dress code that can be observed currently is that of Wal-Mart. As part of an ongoing effort to improve its image the workers have taken on a new look. Wal-Mart has made its first change in four decades to its employee dress code in 3,400 stores nationwide. The retail behemoth has done away with the old blue smocks with the smile-face logo and has adopted dark blue shirts and khaki pants in an attempt to change attitudes as well as image. Over the years Wal-Mart has taken heat for its pay and benefits practices so now the company wants to remake its image as a more fashion-forward retailer to increase sales growth (Gogoi, ¶ 4).
Gallup Poll Survey
Recently in 2007 Gallup's annual Work and Education poll surveyed American workers about their work clothing. Through this research they have discovered that only a small percentage of people wear formal business clothes. Women are more likely than men and those in the higher income bracket than those of the lower income bracket are more likely to wear professional business clothes to work. Specifically during August the poll found that 43% of full or part-time workers who are not self-employed say they wear business casual clothing to work most days, while 28% wear casual street clothes, 19% wear a uniform, and just 9% wear formal business clothing (Carroll, ¶ 1-2).
Furthermore, research from the Gallup Poll has broken down the groups of people into Work Attire by Household Income and Work Attire on Most Days by Gender. The household poll found that of the households that make less than $50,000 per year 3% wear business dress and 29% wear casual business dress, whereas in the household's who make $50,000 or more per year 10% wear business dress and 39% wear casual business dress, and on both surveys the remainder of the percentages fell into the category of either casual street clothes or uniform (Carroll, ¶ 6).
According to the poll on Work Attire on Most Days by Gender men lead the two with 12% wearing formal business clothes followed by the women with only 6%, but for casual business attire, women rank in with 52% where men come in with only 34%. In addition to the previous information, as time goes on business formal dress seems to be fading into the past, according to another Gallup Poll on work attire among women business dress in 2002 has dropped from 13% to 6% in 2007 (Carroll, ¶ 7).
Problems with Casual Dress
Along with the benefits of business casual many problems have arose, ranging from employees taking advantage of the policy to casual office attire causing the employees to work less seriously. The main problem that has caused the most damage is when employees work less efficiently that they would if they were dressed in formal attire. A survey of managers conducted by the employment law firm Jackson Lewis and cited in Entrepreneur indicated that 44 percent noticed an increase in employee absenteeism and tardiness when casual dress policies were introduced (Encyclopedia of Small Business, 2002).
Major companies have picked up on the results of survey's and other qualitative data that instating a casual dress code might not have been the best plan of action for the long-run. The Men's Apparel Alliance reported in November of 2004 that "many firms are returning to traditional attire. One in five of big companies that once had a formal dress code re-instituted their policy in the past year" (Neelly, ¶ 18).
Christian Appearance
All of the ups and downs of the rationale behind a dress code change is enough to make anyone confused, especially for the non-believer, but we as Christians should be guided by three basic principles in choosing proper clothing; propriety, conformity, and acceptability. These words might sound worse than what they are, which are simply used to identify the principles. For the propriety principle, we as Christians we should be concerned that our clothing is conservative enough that we do not stand out in a crowd for no good reason. But at the same time we will want to dress like we know something about fashion and style (Speer, 1977).
The principle of conformity grows out of propriety. Even though many would think of this principle as being bad, that is not necessarily so. We as Christians should wear clothes that conform to the standard of what our bosses and supervisors wear, yet still have an individually chosen wardrobe of good quality and variety. The last principle is probably the easiest. Dress according to the occasion. After all of these three principles are put into practice it will provide a psychological advantage to knowing that you are well dressed, and makes you feel good and gives you confidence, and more importantly it adds to your total personality presentation as a Christian. And we as Christians should strive to use every possible available asset to be acceptable to others, because our clothes can be used as tools that can either help us relate to other people or keep us from reaching them effectively.
Before the 1990's the average business dress code required a suit be worn everyday of the work week. Then at the beginning of the 1990's the "business casual" attire swept the American office environment, bringing with it many positive aspects as well as negative (Encyclopedia of Small Business, 2002). During the beginning of this revolution it seemed like this new style of dress would turn businesses and organizations around for the better, but as the times progressed the employees would discover that "casual Fridays" and other opportunities to dress down were not just a chance for employees to unwind. Businesses have not only changed the dress code with the help of society's view but have also used "business casual" as a strategic tool to help employees cope with recent decisions that have been made and for the market they are in.
The Image of God
We as a people have been created in the image of God. And we as Christians should abide by formal dress codes, because we should always want to say and do our best for God. Michael Speer an associate director of the Southern Baptist Convention Stewardship Commission wrote in his book Put Your Best Foot Forward, "a gentleman may not always be a Christian, but it goes without …show more content…
saying that a Christian should always be a gentleman. A Christian should strive to know how to conduct himself wherever he is" (Speer, 1977). Even though Christians are not perfect and make mistakes, this is compounded by people who are not Christians and are only in it for themselves.
The Christian example
It is important for Christians to understand that because we are made in the image of God we are to set a Christian example in all that we do including making the very best possible personal appearance. This does not mean that we must look like "wingtip warriors" from IBM, but according to how old you are and the kind of work you do will all have an effect on how you dress. But if IBM is concerned with the image projected by their employees, "how much more important it is for the Christian to project the very best possible image for the greatest cause in the world, the cause for Christ" (Speer, 1977).
Business Dress History
Formal business dress was the norm for many companies before the 1990's. Although during the 1980's professional business wear for men became louder, with the entrance of blue shirts and white collars, bright suspenders, and wild ties, the suit still remained as normal Monday through Friday business attire, until the beginning of casual Fridays around 1991 (Weiser, 1996, ¶ 2).
By 1992 a survey by Levi Strauss showed that 26 percent of companies had a dress-down day. Now nearly 75% of the largest companies encourage casual dress for the office at least some of the time (Weiser, 1996, ¶ 3). And according to the Society for Human Resource Management, 95 percent of U.S. companies had some sort of casual day policy in place in 1999 (Encyclopedia of Small Business, 2002). This may seem like a turn in the right direction to achieve employee happiness and a relaxed office environment, but dressing down seemed to go hand-in-hand with downsizing.
Casual dress linked to downsizing
Since 1989-1993, about 3 million people have been laid off from their jobs, fortunately this trend began to steadily decrease, but insecurity still ran rampant throughout the business world. Almost half of white-collar workers who lost their jobs during the 1991-1992 recession had to settle for lower pay, and nearly 40% of the major firms that downsized in 1994 boosted hours for the survivors (Weiser, 1996, ¶ 4).
Employee reaction to casual dress. David Passman a managing partner from Deloitte & Touche Atlanta states, "In this anxious environment, business casual is "a no-cost benefit." Too bad that real-dollar wages and benefits are down 5.5 percent since 1987. But in your Nautica ensemble, the new business-think goes, you'll feel blissful anyway" (Weiser, 1996, ¶ 4). Because of this new view on business management with the effect of the new dress code in play, many employees may think that business casual is just a plot to turn employees "trembling beneath the budget axe into smiley worker bees." On the other hand many employees just like the new dress code (Weiser, 1996, ¶ 5).
Besides the employees enjoying to dress down many other catalysts came into play when businesses were deciding on whether to change their dress code or not. Some of the catalysts were the sudden upstart of entrepreneurship in the late 1980's to the arrival of women into management. In Dress for Success, John Molloy had praised the IBM uniform of dark suits and white shirts, arguing that the right look infused companies with group spirit. But within a few years, IBM was swayed by innovative Silicon Valley companies, where computer geeks ran the show and dress codes were unheard of (Weiser, 1996, ¶ 5).
Dress in the Corporate World
IBM dress code
The trend toward casual business attire began in the high-technology companies of California's Silicon Valley, where young computer and Internet entrepreneurs refused to wear business suits and often showed up at work in denim jeans and cotton T-shirts (Encyclopedia of Small Business, 2002). The trend spread rapidly throughout the business world and finally made its way into the more strict companies like IBM. But the norm for most companies including IBM was to gradually move toward business casual by first testing the waters with a "casual Fridays" policy (Encyclopedia of Small Business, 2002).
In 1995 IBM Chairman Lou Gerstner informed employees that they may dress more casually.
After that announcement IBM's corporate office claimed that they never actually had a dress code and that the uniform of IBM's salespeople was imprinted in customer's minds: dark blue suit, starched white shirt, and conservative tie for men; dark dresses, suits, or skirts for women (Cohen, 1995, ¶ 2). The navy blue suit that IBM was well known for was not selected randomly, according to John Molloy in Dress for Success concerning the solid navy suit: "every man should have at least one is his wardrobe. The upper middle class likes it. The lower middle class likes it and respects you in it" (Molloy,
1988).
Now the salespeople of IBM have the freedom to choose the clothes they want to wear, but there are still times when formal attire is expected. "If you have a meeting with a customer or other outsiders, it makes sense for an IBM rep to be dressed up," says IBM spokesperson Tom Beermann (Cohen, 1995, ¶ 3). In addition to the newly found gray area that has been brought to the forefront.
Marge Kingsley (1995), who used to sell for IBM in Miami, says the new dress code will complicate salespeople's lives a little. Reps now have to make judgment calls when in front of customers, and that salespeople now have to determine the right clothes to wear in different situations. And because of this customers may be turned off by a rep that is too dressed up or too dressed down (Cohen, ¶ 4).
Continuing on the idea of a salesperson's appearance and how it affects the business they do a study was performed by the Research Institute of America. The survey concluded that 56 percent of the people said that their tendency to listen to a salesman is affected by his clothes. Over 43 percent said that they judge the salesperson's product by their personal appearance (Speer, 1977).
Overall, IBM employees, including sales and marketing people, are pleased with the move to casual wear in the office. Farid Metwaly an IBM national marketing manager based in Canada believes that at least one major benefit has resulted. "The relationship between employee and employer is much less strained with a relaxed dress code," he says. "When you see executives in casual clothes you view them as more human, more like peers" (Cohen, ¶ 5).
IBM Canada dress code
In the article Be it Ever so Humble, by Tillson Tamsen, she sheds light on some other reasons why IBM opted for the dress code change in 1994. Tamsen focuses on IBM Canada and how they made the change first before IBM did in 1995. She states the main reason for change was the fact that IBM was in crisis, and from 1991 to 1993, they lost a total of $15.5 billion worldwide with IBM Canada losing $125 million due to the market shifting toward the world of personal computers. Consumers wanted less professional sheen and more fun. IBM had lost its profitability, its dominant position in the computer industry and its reputation (Tamsen, ¶ 4).
Before the dress code change in 1994 the IBM brand name had become worthless, according to a study published in Financial World magazine. Then shortly after the study, the CEO of IBM Canada Khalil Barsoum stated, "it took us too long to understand and react to the marketplace, and in a market as fast as ours that could make you go away" (Tamsen, ¶ 4). Among all of the other companies that easily changed their dress code, this would be a discouraging task for IBM because changing a corporate culture is not easy, and in order to take the correct steps and revise their culture IBM will have to undo more than a half-century of distinct cultural learning (Tamsen, ¶ 4).
Wal-Mart uniforms
Another example of a new dress code that can be observed currently is that of Wal-Mart. As part of an ongoing effort to improve its image the workers have taken on a new look. Wal-Mart has made its first change in four decades to its employee dress code in 3,400 stores nationwide. The retail behemoth has done away with the old blue smocks with the smile-face logo and has adopted dark blue shirts and khaki pants in an attempt to change attitudes as well as image. Over the years Wal-Mart has taken heat for its pay and benefits practices so now the company wants to remake its image as a more fashion-forward retailer to increase sales growth (Gogoi, ¶ 4).
Gallup Poll Survey
Recently in 2007 Gallup's annual Work and Education poll surveyed American workers about their work clothing. Through this research they have discovered that only a small percentage of people wear formal business clothes. Women are more likely than men and those in the higher income bracket than those of the lower income bracket are more likely to wear professional business clothes to work. Specifically during August the poll found that 43% of full or part-time workers who are not self-employed say they wear business casual clothing to work most days, while 28% wear casual street clothes, 19% wear a uniform, and just 9% wear formal business clothing (Carroll, ¶ 1-2).
Furthermore, research from the Gallup Poll has broken down the groups of people into Work Attire by Household Income and Work Attire on Most Days by Gender. The household poll found that of the households that make less than $50,000 per year 3% wear business dress and 29% wear casual business dress, whereas in the household's who make $50,000 or more per year 10% wear business dress and 39% wear casual business dress, and on both surveys the remainder of the percentages fell into the category of either casual street clothes or uniform (Carroll, ¶ 6).
According to the poll on Work Attire on Most Days by Gender men lead the two with 12% wearing formal business clothes followed by the women with only 6%, but for casual business attire, women rank in with 52% where men come in with only 34%. In addition to the previous information, as time goes on business formal dress seems to be fading into the past, according to another Gallup Poll on work attire among women business dress in 2002 has dropped from 13% to 6% in 2007 (Carroll, ¶ 7).
Problems with Casual Dress
Along with the benefits of business casual many problems have arose, ranging from employees taking advantage of the policy to casual office attire causing the employees to work less seriously. The main problem that has caused the most damage is when employees work less efficiently that they would if they were dressed in formal attire. A survey of managers conducted by the employment law firm Jackson Lewis and cited in Entrepreneur indicated that 44 percent noticed an increase in employee absenteeism and tardiness when casual dress policies were introduced (Encyclopedia of Small Business, 2002).
Major companies have picked up on the results of survey's and other qualitative data that instating a casual dress code might not have been the best plan of action for the long-run. The Men's Apparel Alliance reported in November of 2004 that "many firms are returning to traditional attire. One in five of big companies that once had a formal dress code re-instituted their policy in the past year" (Neelly, ¶ 18).
Christian Appearance
All of the ups and downs of the rationale behind a dress code change is enough to make anyone confused, especially for the non-believer, but we as Christians should be guided by three basic principles in choosing proper clothing; propriety, conformity, and acceptability. These words might sound worse than what they are, which are simply used to identify the principles. For the propriety principle, we as Christians we should be concerned that our clothing is conservative enough that we do not stand out in a crowd for no good reason. But at the same time we will want to dress like we know something about fashion and style (Speer, 1977).
The principle of conformity grows out of propriety. Even though many would think of this principle as being bad, that is not necessarily so. We as Christians should wear clothes that conform to the standard of what our bosses and supervisors wear, yet still have an individually chosen wardrobe of good quality and variety. The last principle is probably the easiest. Dress according to the occasion. After all of these three principles are put into practice it will provide a psychological advantage to knowing that you are well dressed, and makes you feel good and gives you confidence, and more importantly it adds to your total personality presentation as a Christian. And we as Christians should strive to use every possible available asset to be acceptable to others, because our clothes can be used as tools that can either help us relate to other people or keep us from reaching them effectively.