THE IMPACT OF WORK ATTIRE ON EMPLOYEE BEHAVIOR

Abstract

This qualitative grounded theory study investigated the impact casual work attire has on employees in a non-consumer facing organization. Research studies provide conflicting results as to whether casual work attire has a negative or positive impact on employees and organizations. The primary focus of this qualitative study was the effects of casual work attire on human behavior, identity and perceptions. The purpose of this was to uncover whether casual work attire has negative, positive or no effects on productivity and behavior in a non-consumer facing organization. This was done by observing and identifying the different effects work attire has on employees in a non-consumer facing environment. The methodology for this study was grounded theory. The researcher collected data by interviewing 40 full-time employees and conducting field observations. Data analysis was completed by identifying emerging themes and patterns, which led to generating a grounded theory. The results of this study helped determine that employee perceptions and experiences led to the belief that casual work attire has a neutral impact on attitude, behavior, productivity, and performance in a non-consumer facing work environment. However, because casual work attire is permitted on Fridays, the weekend atmosphere greatly impacts the environment. The results of this study provide further insight into the effects of work attire on organizational behavior and productivity.

Full text

THE IMPACT OF WORK ATTIRE ON EMPLOYEE BEHAVIOR
Doctoral Dissertation Research
Submitted to the
Faculty of Argosy University, Phoenix Campus
College of Business
In Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Education
by
Courtney Colbert
November, 2014

ii
THE IMPACT OF WORK ATTIRE ON EMPLOYEE BEHAVIOR
Copyright ©2014
Courtney Colbert
All rights reserved

iii
THE IMPACT OF WORK ATTIRE ON EMPLOYEE BEHAVIOR
Doctoral Dissertation Research
Submitted to the
Faculty of Argosy University, Phoenix Campus
in Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Education
By
Courtney Colbert
Argosy University
November, 2014
Dissertation Committee Approval:
Gordana Pesakovic, Ph.D., Chair Date
Anne Nelson, Ph.D., Member Kate Noone, Ed.D., Program Chair
Gordana Pesakovic
Digitally signed by Gordana Pesakovic
DN: cn=Gordana Pesakovic, o=Argosy University, ou=COB,
email=gpesakovic@argosy.edu, c=US
Date: 2014.11.12 12:45:32 -05'00'
Dr. Anne NELSON
Digitally signed by Dr. Anne NELSON
DN: cn=Dr. Anne NELSON, o, ou,
email=anne.nelson@nmainc.net, c=US
Date: 2014.11.12 13:57:21 -05'00'
Kate Noone, EdD
Digitally signed by Kate Noone, EdD
DN: cn=Kate Noone, EdD, o=Argosy University,
ou=College of Business, email=knoone@argosy.edu,
c=US
Date: 2014.11.18 11:14:49 -05'00'

iv
THE IMPACT OF WORK ATTIRE ON EMPLOYEE BEHAVIOR
Abstract of Doctoral Dissertation Research
Submitted to the
Faculty of Argosy University, Phoenix Campus
College of Business
In Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Education
by
Courtney Colbert
Argosy University
November 2014
Gordana Pesakovic, Ph.D.
Anne Nelson, Ph.D.
Department: College of Business

v
ABSTRACT
This qualitative grounded theory study investigated the impact casual work attire has on
employees in a non-consumer facing organization. Research studies provide conflicting
results as to whether casual work attire has a negative or positive impact on employees
and organizations. The primary focus of this qualitative study was the effects of casual
work attire on human behavior, identity and perceptions. The purpose of this was to
uncover whether casual work attire has negative, positive or no effects on productivity
and behavior in a non-consumer facing organization. This was done by observing and
identifying the different effects work attire has on employees in a non-consumer facing
environment. The methodology for this study was grounded theory. The researcher
collected data by interviewing 40 full-time employees and conducting field observations.
Data analysis was completed by identifying emerging themes and patterns, which led to
generating a grounded theory. The results of this study helped determine that employee
perceptions and experiences led to the belief that casual work attire has a neutral impact
on attitude, behavior, productivity, and performance in a non-consumer facing work
environment. However, because casual work attire is permitted on Fridays, the weekend
atmosphere greatly impacts the environment. The results of this study provide further
insight into the effects of work attire on organizational behavior and productivity.

vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to those who have supported me
throughout my educational journey. A very special thanks goes to my family and friends
for their unlimited support and encouragement. I would like to extend my appreciation to
my mom and dad for always being there for me and providing the inspiration that made
this journey possible. I want to also thank Dr. Gordana Pesakovic and Dr. Anne Nelson
for their assistance and support throughout the dissertation process. Thanks to all of you
for your kind words and motivational guidance.

vii
DEDICATION
I would like to dedicate this research to my mom, dad, and grandpa. Throughout
this process you have given me the motivation and inspiration necessary to achieve my
dreams. This journey would not have been possible without you.

viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................1
Problem Background............................................................................................................2
Purpose of Study ..................................................................................................................4
Research Questions ..............................................................................................................4
Limitations and Delimitations..............................................................................................6
Definitions............................................................................................................................7
Importance of Study.............................................................................................................8
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .....................................................10
Introduction ........................................................................................................................10
The Growing Trend of Casual Work Attire .......................................................................10
Benefits of Casual Work Attire....................................................................................12
Drawbacks of Casual Work Attire ...............................................................................15
Defining Casual Work Attire .......................................................................................16
Clothing Attributes.......................................................................................................19
Dress Patterns...............................................................................................................24
Related Theories ................................................................................................................25
Social Theories.............................................................................................................25
Identity Theories ..........................................................................................................26
Comparison of Social and Identity Theories ...............................................................28
Motivation Theories .....................................................................................................29
Gender and Motivation ......................................................................................... 33
Organizational Culture .................................................................................................35
Organizational Behavior ..............................................................................................39
Organizational Communication ...................................................................................41
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................44
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ..........................................................................45
Research Design.................................................................................................................45
Selection of Participants...............................................................................................46
Instrumentation ............................................................................................................47
Interviews.............................................................................................................. 48
Observations.......................................................................................................... 48
Methodological Assumptions ......................................................................................48
Procedures ....................................................................................................................49
Data Processing and Analysis ............................................................................................52
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS ..........................................................................................56
Introduction ........................................................................................................................56
Restatement of Purpose......................................................................................................57
Demographics of Participants ............................................................................................57
Research Question 1...........................................................................................................61

ix
Coding ..........................................................................................................................62
Emerging Themes ........................................................................................................63
Categorization ..............................................................................................................63
Research Question 2...........................................................................................................64
Coding ..........................................................................................................................64
Emerging Themes ........................................................................................................65
Categorization ..............................................................................................................65
Research Question 3...........................................................................................................65
Coding ..........................................................................................................................66
Emerging Themes ........................................................................................................67
Categorization ..............................................................................................................67
Observations.......................................................................................................................68
Emerging Themes ........................................................................................................68
Behavior ................................................................................................................ 68
Attitude.................................................................................................................. 69
Productivity ........................................................................................................... 69
Performance .......................................................................................................... 70
Summary of Themes ..........................................................................................................70
Grounded Theory ...............................................................................................................71
Summary of Findings.........................................................................................................73
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................74
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...75
Introduction ........................................................................................................................75
Summary ............................................................................................................................75
Conclusions ........................................................................................................................77
Implications for Practice ....................................................................................................80
Recommendations for Future Research .............................................................................83
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................84
REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................86

1
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
How does casual work attire impact employee behavior? This question is one that
has been debated for several years. It has been the norm for people to dress
conventionally, but recent trends suggest a more casual look in the work place (Pliagas,
2001). Research studies provide conflicting results as to whether casual work attire has a
negative or positive impact on employees and organizations. Some research suggests that
a causal dress code can create a positive work environment (Anonymous, 2002). Other
research suggests that casual dress codes have a negative impact on employee attitudes
and company images (Badola, 2010). Understanding the effects of casual work attire is
imperative in understanding organizational behavior.
The purpose of this study was to discuss the effects of casual work attire on
human behavior, identity, and perceptions. The focus of the study was on non-customer
facing organizations. The primary methodology for this study was grounded theory.
Data was collected through field observations and individual interviews. A constant
comparative method of data analysis was conducted by taking information from the data
collection and comparing it to emerging categories (Creswell, 2007). Once the data was
collected, it was open-coded in order to identify general themes. Once themes were
identified, categories and subcategories were assigned to the data. This information was
carefully evaluated and organized into specific core categories. The results of this study
provided further insight into the effects of casual work attire on human behavior, identity,
and perceptions, which helped determine whether casual dress codes have a negative or
positive impact on employee attitudes and performance.

2
There are multiple theories that are relevant to this study. These theories can be
categorized as identity theories and social cognitive theories. These theories relate to this
study because they provide knowledge and understanding of human perceptions,
interpretations, and behavior. Research shows that people construct implicit theories of
personality, relationships, interpersonal behaviors, and situational characteristics
however; individuals need to be able to integrate the information based on the roles and
personality traits of a particular situation. Research suggests that clothing provides
information about social status, personality and attributes of individuals. Therefore,
clothing can trigger the use of social and identity theories when trying to draw references
about a person (Damhorst, 1981).
In today’s society, companies are moving towards more casual dress policies
(Pliagas, 2001). This growing trend has led to conflicting research studies suggesting
whether casual work attire has a positive or negative impact on workers and
organizations. Some research suggests that a causal dress code creates a positive work
environment, which increases productivity (Anonymous, 2002). In contrast, some
research suggests that casual dress codes have a negative impact on employee attitudes
and organizational images (Badola, 2010). The effects of casual work attire have been
long debated for several years, which is why the author has chosen this topic for her
dissertation.
Problem Background
For decades, business clothing has remained predictable, but recent trends are
moving towards a more casual look in the work place. In today’s society, there is a
growing trend in casual dress policies in U.S. companies. Despite this growing trend, it

3
is still important to understand dress codes and policies and what is appropriate casual
attire (Pliagas, 2001). There are conflicting research studies suggesting whether casual
dress has a negative or positive impact on employees and organizations. An important
impact of work attire is its effect on employee attitudes. Some research suggests that a
causal dress code can create a positive work environment and encourage employees to be
more productive (Anonymous, 2002).
In contrast, research suggests that casual dress codes can negatively impact
employee attitudes and company images (Badola, 2010). People construct implicit
theories of personality, relationships, interpersonal behaviors, and situational
characteristics. Studies suggest that clothing provides information about social status,
personality and attributes of individuals. Therefore, clothing can trigger the use of social
and identity theories when trying to draw references about a person (Damhorst, 1981). In
addition, motivation theories suggest that people can be motivated by dress policies,
which stimulates the desire to achieve personal and organizational goals (Peterson, 2007).
Rafaeli and Pratt (1993) suggest organizational attire influences several organizational
dynamics. Their research shows that work attire affects the extent to which employees
fulfill role requirements, indicates credibility, influences organizational image, and helps
identify authority within organizations.
Although there are several research studies that focus on work attire, they lack
focus on non-customer facing employees and organizations. Most organizations,
especially customer-facing organizations, require employees to follow specific dress
codes. Dress codes establish what is and is not appropriate work attire (Robertson,
2007). Today, organizations are faced with the task of deciding what type of dress policy

4
is appropriate. Some companies base dress policies on whether employees interact with
customers. For example, Kaiser Permanente Medical Care allows its employees who do
not interact with customers to dress casually because the employees work better when
they are dressed comfortably (Walter, 1996).
The conflicting studies and limited research on the impact of work attire on
employee behavior has led to confusing conclusions. However, with the use of relevant
theories, prior research, observations, and interviews, the author developed a substantial
theory that helps determine the effects of work attire on human behavior, identity, and
perceptions. As a result, the findings of this study help clarify whether casual work attire
has positive or negative effects on employees in a non-consumer facing organization.
Purpose of Study
The primary focus of this qualitative study was the effects of casual work attire on
human behavior, identity and perceptions. The purpose of this was to uncover whether
casual work attire has negative, positive or no effects on productivity and behavior in a
non-consumer facing organization. This was done by observing and identifying the
different effects work attire has on employees in a non-consumer facing environment.
The author also examined employee perceptions on casual work attire in the same work
environment. The results of this study provide further insight into the effects of work
attire on organizational behavior and productivity.
Research Questions
Determining employee perceptions on casual work attire on the success of non-
customer facing organizations is imperative to understanding human behavior in the work
place. According to Rafaeli and Pratt (1993) organizational attire can influence and

5
create a variety of organizational dynamics. Their research suggests that dress affects the
extent to which employees fulfill role requirements, indicates credibility, influences
organizational image, and helps identify authority within organizations. They also
propose that organizational pressures impact dress patterns.
This study used a grounded theory approach to generate a substantive theory on a
scholarly basis (Seldén, 2005). Developing a theory helps explain the findings and
provides a framework for future research (Creswell, 2007). The grounded theory
approach was fitting for this study because there is limited research that focuses on casual
work attire and its effects on employee behavior. As different themes and patterns
emerged in employee behaviors during the course of the study, a grounded theory
approach helped develop a scholarly theory to help explain why.
This study used a systematic approach to examine the effects of casual work attire
in a non-customer facing environment by collecting and coding data. A non-customer
facing environment was used because its customers do not see how employees dress and
therefore, do not make decisions based on employee attire. However, the way employees
dress could impact their behavior, which can impact customer experiences. The purpose
of this study was to identify a theory from the information that is collected and analyzed.
The common themes found among the data provide further insight into the effects of
work attire on organizational behavior and success. The following questions framed the
context of the study and collection of data.
1. What experiences do men and women who work in a non-customer facing
environment have when dressing in casual work attire?
2. How does casual attire impact the behavior of non-customer facing employees?

6
3. How do employees in a non-customer facing environment perceive casual work
attire?
Limitations and Delimitations
The anticipated sample size for this study was 40 subjects, based on the estimate
of those that would participate. Difficulties could have arisen if not enough subjects were
willing to participate in the study. Due to the lack of access to non-customer facing
organizations, the results drawn from the sample size available for the study would not be
generalizable beyond the sample population.
The rigor of this study was assured through relevant theories and the method of
analysis. There are multiple theories that were relevant to this study including identity
theories and social cognitive theories. The findings were interpreted objectively and
examined against existing theories and previous research studies. The combination of
these theories and the results of this study provided a better understanding of the
correlation between human perceptions, interpretations, and behavior and casual work
attire in non-facing customer organizations.
There are limitations to using a grounded theory approach to conduct research.
One limitation of grounded theory is that the emergence of theories depends on the
researcher and the extent of research conducted. It is also possible for collected data to
be disconnected from the context of research during coding, which is why taking detailed
field notes is critical. Another limitation is the lack of insight and pre-understanding of
the research, which can result in lack of learning. Researchers using a grounded theory
approach risk producing common knowledge that does not contribute to scholarly
research (Seldén, 2005).

7
In order to examine the effects of casual work attire on employees of non-
customer facing organizations, full-time employees of a non-customer facing
organization were interviewed and observed. The researcher is employed at the
organization, but clarified her involvement to the participants and discussed the
anonymity of the research. In addition, the researcher reflected throughout the study by
keeping a journal and evaluated field notes to remain objective. The reflections helped
shape the direction of the research (Stringer, 2007). Research can be difficult for
researchers working with their own organizations because they need to be objective. On
the other hand, it can be beneficial because the researcher already has an understanding
of the organization (Prosser & Williamss, 2002).
There are many aspects that affect the rigor and validity of research, including
investigators, sampling, interpretation of data, and method of analysis. Unfortunately,
research misconduct such as data faking and fraud occur. Upholding ethical standards
and maintaining integrity are crucial to the validity of qualitative studies. It is important
for researchers to be competent and take necessary measure to verify qualitative data
(Cross, 2004). Researchers can influence participants during the collection of data, even
if it is not on purpose (Pollock, 2012). When conducting interviews, it was a priority to
remain ethical and inform all participants of the nature of the study. In return,
participants were asked to provide truthful and unaltered answers. The credibility and
consistency of the data found throughout the study was evaluated.
Definitions
The terms in this section are directly related to this study and will be used
throughout the research.

8
Casual Work Attire: For the purpose of this study casual clothing refers to jeans and
comfortable clothing, such as sweat pants and sweat shirts.
Dress Code: An organization’s employee dress policy.
Grounded Theory: The grounded theory approach generates or discovers a theory during
the research. The development of a theory helps explain the findings and provides a
framework for future research (Creswell, 2007).
Non-consumer Facing: Employees have no face-to-face contact with customers. All
communication is electronic or over the phone.
Trend: The direction in which something is developing (Trend, 2014).
Importance of Study
The effects of casual work attire on the success of non-customer facing
organizations are important areas of study. Research is lacking in this area of study and
there is a need for further exploration. There are several theories related to employee
dress codes and its effect on organizational and individual success however; there is little
evidence to validate these theories. Further research needs conducted and data needs to
be investigated. This study determined how employees perceive casual work attire on
their success in a non-customer facing environment, and opened the door for future
research studies.
There are conflicting research studies suggesting whether casual dress has a
negative or positive impact on employees and organizations. Some research suggests that
a causal dress code can create a positive work environment and encourage employees to
be more productive (Anonymous, 2002). In contrast, research suggests that casual dress
codes can negatively impact employee attitudes and company images (Badola, 2010).

9
Understanding the effects of casual work attire on employees of non-customer facing
organizations is imperative in understanding organizational behavior. The best method of
qualitative analysis was grounded theory. By using this approach, theories developed
through data collection and analysis to provide further insight into the effects of casual
work attire.
To conduct a qualitative grounded theory study appropriately, the author collected
data through interviews and field observations. Interviews allow participants to describe
experiences surrounding the phenomena being studied and provide the author with a
record of their perspectives (Stringer, 2007). In addition, the author observed
participants’ behaviors and actions to better understand the phenomena. Once the data
was collected, a constant comparative method of analysis was conducted. This involved
open-coding the data to identify emerging themes.
After the themes were identified, categories and subcategories were assigned to
the data. The data was then carefully analyzed and organized into core categories.
Finally, the author used past research and literature to compare and contrast the findings.
This verified the validity of the data (Seldén, 2005).

10
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
In order to research the effects of casual work attire on the success of a non-
customer facing organization, previous research and studies were reviewed. There were
multiple theories that were relevant to this study. These theories are categorized as
identity theories and social cognitive theories. These theories were related to this study
because they provide knowledge and understanding of human perceptions,
interpretations, and behavior. The purpose of this literature review is to discuss the
effects of casual work attire on human behavior, identity, and perceptions. In order to
accomplish this, the meaning of casual work attire must be defined and the relevance of
identity and social cognitive theories must be explained and reviewed. This review lays
the foundation for further exploration of the affects casual clothing has on the success of
non-customer facing organizations.
The Growing Trend of Casual Work Attire
For decades, business clothing has remained predictable, but recent trends
are moving towards a more casual look in the work place. Despite this growing trend, it
is still important to understand dress codes and policies and what is appropriate casual
attire (Pliagas, 2001). In 1991, Alcoa Inc., an aluminum company based out of
Pittsburgh, PA, was one of the first companies to implement a casual dress policy when it
allowed employees to dress casually for a couple of weeks if they made a donation to the
charity United Way. This was the beginning of the casual boom that continues to grow
today. Mercer Human Resource Consulting, L.L.C. reports that as of 2006, 84% of
companies employing more than 2,000 people have a business-casual dress code. This

11
increased from 79% two years earlier, according to a survey completed by 1,400
companies (Tan, 2006).
In today’s society, there is a growing trend in casual dress policies in U.S.
companies. Research suggests that one reason for this growth may be due to the affects
organizational dress has on employee attitudes. A causal dress code can create a positive
work environment and encourage employees to be more productive (Anonymous, 2002).
Casual Friday has been common for years, but more companies are now embracing a
policy of casual business attire five days a week. The goal is to improve morale and
productivity by allowing employees to work in comfortable clothes (Ryan, 1997).
Over the past decade, organizations have adopted more casual dress policies to
increase morale and enhance job satisfaction (Robertson, 2007). In 1992, 20% of
companies permitted business casual dress policies and 17% allowed workers to dress in
casual attire at least once day a week (Walter, 1996). Three years later, 33% of
companies implemented business casual dress policies, but 42% allowed employees to
dress in casual work attire at least once a week (Elsberry, 1997). By 1997, 53% of
companies in the United States implemented casual dress codes at least once a week (Ten
Kate, 1998). The percentages of organizations in other countries with casual work days
are:
 Europe 51%,
 Sweden 81%, and
 England 23% (Elsberry, 1997).
Considered one of the most comprehensive studies conducted Dockers and Slates
brands polled 1,000 office workers to gain perspective on the effects of business attire.

12
The findings of this study suggest a growing trend to casual attire. Both male and female
employees that were surveyed said that they wear both casual and professional clothes to
work. Sixty percent of those questioned said dressing casual improves their productivity
and 58% agree it increases morale. According to a 2001 questionnaire, 70% of men said
they no longer wear suits to work and 78% believe that business casual is becoming a
part of corporate culture in the United States (Business/Feature/Lifestyle Editors &
Apparel Writers, 2001).
Benefits of Casual Work Attire
In 2002, fifteen major U.S. cities were surveyed about the definition of business
casual and other issues related to inappropriate office attire, and the effects of business
casual attire. Overall, respondents feel that the biggest benefits to business casual are:
 relaxed atmosphere 34%,
 comfort 21.9%,
 saving time and money 16.3%, and
 morale 14.7% (Business, Fashion, & Lifestyle Editors, 2002).
Organizational variables such as job characteristics, organizational culture,
regulatory conditions, and supervision affect employee perceptions and motivation
(Ramlall, 2004). Job characteristics are features that should be satisfying and motivating
because they shape employee perceptions. Robertson (2007) conducted a study that
explored the perceptions of different generations towards dress code policies. The study
specifically focused on how Generation X, Generation Y, Baby Boomers, and Matures
viewed professional business, business casual and casual work attire. Robertson (2007)
focused on how dress policy perceptions affected preference, productivity,

13
professionalism, job satisfaction, and retention. The study also focused on differences of
perceptions between generations towards dress codes by gender. The results of the study
found an overall consistency between the perceptions of the generational cohorts towards
dress codes.
Robertson (2007) found that Generation X and Generation Y felt casual clothing
is acceptable in professional business environments. Overall, the generational cohorts
preferred business casual and casual attire. The different generations believed that dress
attire affects productivity and morale, but not job satisfaction, and that casual dress attire
is a perk organizations offer employees. The results of Robertson’s (2007) study suggest
that dress attire does not seem to affect employee behavior, productivity or job
satisfaction. In addition, organizations do not have to adopt casual dress codes in order to
attract and retain different generations. However, organizations should offer casual work
attire as a perk.
Robertson (2007) suggested that casual dress policies are perks organizations can
offer employees at no cost to the organization. Casual dress policies can also save
employees money by preventing the cost of formal work attire. Ceridian Employer
services asked over 100 companies if casual dress was offered as a perk to employees.
The companies ranged in size from small businesses to corporate businesses. The results
of the poll showed that 82% of the companies permitted employees to dress in casual
work attire as a perk to attract and retain employees (Robertson, 2007). According to
Walter (1996), about 90% of office works in the United States wear casual attire at least
once a week. A study conducted by Lee Apparel Company found that over 80% of
female employees are allowed to dress in casual attire at least once a week. The study

14
also concluded that almost half of female employees dress casually five days a week
(Elsberry, 1997).
Research studies suggest that switching to casual dress policies positively impacts
productivity. One reason for this positive impact is that employees are able to focus better
when they are dressed comfortably (Robertson, 2007). Levi Strauss and Company
conducted a survey in 1994 on employers that implemented a casual dress code at least
one day a week. The results found that four out of five employees felt that casual work
attire increased morale and improved productivity (Bragg, 1994). Franz and Norton
(2004) found that employees experience more job satisfaction in organization with casual
dress policies.
Galin and Benoliel (1990) conducted a study to see whether casual work attire
affected performance evaluations. The results of the study concluded that managers who
dressed casually rated employees higher than managers who dressed formally. Research
suggests that employees who prefer to dress formally have more positive feelings towards
their employers and report higher job satisfaction. In addition, they are more committed
to organizational goals (Franz & Norton, 2004). When employees are satisfied they are
more productive and committed to achieving organizational goals. According to Bragg
(1994), when Chase Manhattan Bank adopted its casual dress policy, it enhanced morale
and employees increased productivity.
A productive and respectful environment provides a positive work environment
and helps employees to feel included (Ramlall, 2004). According to the results of
Mahal’s (2009) study, employees who feel that the organizational environment is positive
are more productive. Dress policies reflect an organizatio n’s values. Casual dress

15
policies can reflect a more participative structure because managers and employees dress
similarly. This promotes equality and creates a sense of unity (Robertson, 2007). In
addition, dressing casually can help ease tensions and minimize communication barriers
between employees and managers (Franz & Norton, 2004).
Casual work attire can create an informal organizational culture, which may
increase creativity and innovation. Organizations require creativity and innovation to
remain competitive and become successful (Robertson, 2007). Studies show that people
are more productive and efficient when they feel comfortable in their work environment.
Uncomfortable organizational climates can lead to various problems, such as increased
stress and employee dissatisfaction, which can result in the failure to achieve goals. One
way to create a comfortable and satisfying work climate is to adopt a casual dress code.
Dress codes help encourage employees to achieve positive outcomes (Schein, 1996).
Drawbacks of Casual Work Attire
In contrast, research suggests that casual dress codes can negatively impact
employee attitudes and company images. Badola (2010) found that “if employees don’t
dress properly for a job, others assume they don’t take their responsibilities seriously” (p.
1). This assumption can lead to negative attitudes and decrease productivity. It is also
suggested that workers feel pressured to follow specific dress patterns in order to achieve
success in the corporate world (Do work places, 2009). A survey conducted by Office
Team found that 81% of workers think the way they dress for work affects how they are
viewed professionally and 46% feel that work attire has a meaningful impact on their
image (Cline, 2005).

16
Franz and Norton (2004) suggest that employees behave in accordance to how
they dress, and that employees who dress professionally act professionally. Some
organizations fear that casual dress policies may cause employees to act more relaxed,
decreasing professionalism and productivity (Franz & Norton, 2004). Another negative
impact of casual work attire is customer impressions. First impressions are imperative to
building customer relationships and customers may judge employees based on
appearance. Even though employees may act professionally, if they are not dressed
professionally, customers may not view them as professionals (Robertson, 2007).
Defining Casual Work Attire
During the summer months some companies adopt casual dress code policies
throughout the work week. Unfortunately these policies tend to cause issues regarding
what is appropriate and not appropriate to wear to work. At Nationwide Mutual
Insurance Co. managers worried that the relaxed dress code would create an
unprofessional work environment and rewrote the dress code. Similarly, Emprise Bank
in Kansas had to send out a 20-page presentation to its employees clarifying its casual
business attire guidelines because they were receiving countless questions about
appropriate and non-appropriate attire (Tan, 2006).
Dressing inappropriately can interfere with work and personal life. There is
subjective evidence that suggests that clothing can manipulate work outcomes. To
achieve specific goals, it is important to learn how to use clothing and image effectively.
Individuals can gain confidence just by changing their appearance (Buzza & Mosca,
2013). According to a 2002 survey conducted in 15 cities, 88% of companies enjoy at
least one day of business casual dress per week but, the definition of what is appropriate

17
business casual attire is not clearly defined. The survey consisted of a serious of
questions which lead to answers that helped establish three business casual categories:
 Corporate casual.
 Classic casual.
 Comfortable casual.
Corporate casual is similar to traditional business attire but eliminates the suit coat
and tie. This style includes dress pants, dress shirts and blouses. Classic Casual is a
more relaxed style that allows both men and women to mix formal and casual.
Comfortable Casual is described as sport attire that can go from the office to the beach
(Business, Fashion, & Lifestyle Editors, 2002). According to Kaiser (1998), the way
people dress is significant in forming social relationships. Clothing is a form of
communication which helps display the personalities and identities of individuals. In
social interactions or when forming relationships, clothing plays a heavy role in forming
impressions.
According to Buzza and Mosca (2013), both females and males feel that the
appropriateness of their attire affects their performance and mood. Employees that
believe they are properly dressed feel more knowledgeable, hardworking and
professional. Gragg (2004) suggested that it is important to differentiate work attire
between genders. For men, professional business attire includes suites, ties, dress pants
with sports coats. For women, professional business attire includes pant suits, skirts with
blazers, blouses, and pantyhose. Gragg (2004) also described business casual attire as
 khakis,
 polo shirts,

18
 nice jeans,
 blazers,
 dress pants,
 dress shirts, and
 mid-calf skirt or dress.
Casual attire is less formal than business casual and includes sweatpants,
sweatshirts, T-shirts, and tennis shoes (Gragg, 2004). According to Lawroom (2006),
companies are not permitted to implement dress codes that affect only one type of
employee because of race, color, origin, ethnicity, sex, disability, religion, sexual
orientation, or any other classification protected by law. However, it is acceptable for
companies to base dress codes on business needs, safety issues, health concerns, and
work environments.
Defining casual dress policies is challenging because of the thin line between
casual and too casual. More time is being spent conveying what constitutes as
appropriate casual work attire because there are many different styles. For examples,
some employees may view casual work attire as T-shirts and flip-flops (Robertson,
2007). One of the most common errors made by employees is not taking business causal
seriously. Many assume that business casual means casual and dress unprofessionally for
work, but they must understand that clothing can impact individual perceptions and can
cause people to be viewed as not taking their roles seriously (Pliagas, 2001). Buzza and
Mosca (2013) describe six types of dressers:
1. The business casual dresser that shows confidence and respect.
2. The casual dresser that lacks flair.

19
3. The flashy dresser that sets themselves apart from others.
4. The sloppy dresser does not put forth any effort.
5. The Goth dresser that signifies depression, anger and insecurity.
6. The athletic dresser that is either concerned with health or can be construed as
sloppy.
It is important to consider what is appropriate to wear in professional settings.
There are unwritten rules regarding attire and professional opportunities. For example,
people are expected to dress in formal business attire when interviewing for jobs (Glazer,
2011). Failure to dress appropriately can affect the way employees are treated and
impact professional opportunities (Buzza & Mosca, 2013). Even when employees
participate in company events, it is important to carefully consider attire. Although
company events may be held outside of the workplace, it is still proper etiquette to dress
appropriately (Glazer, 2011).
Franz and Norton (2004) surveyed 95 undergraduate students to determine
acceptable work attire. The results of the study suggest that business casual work attire
has little to no effect on employee behavior and attitudes. According to Gordon (2003),
many corporations have gone back to the more traditional business dress policies. One
research study found that senior executives felt that employees, who dress in formal
business attire gain more respect, project a positive image, appear more confident, and
are more likely to be promoted (Robertson, 2007).
Clothing Attributes
The relationship between work attire and identity is affected by aesthetics.
Aesthetics impact how people assign value, perceptions and self-expression. It is

20
important to combine dress, identity and aesthetics to better understand human behavior.
According to Sklar (2010), it is especially important to consider aesthetics and dress in
the work place because jobs are imperative aspects of social structure that provide
stability and income. Work attire is a form of expression and is relative to how people
act in the workplace. Jobs help individuals engage and interact, and demand high
expectations for performance (Sklar, 2010).
Work attire can impact the functionality of the workplace, as well as interactions
between employees (Sklar, 2010). Two primary concerns of social interactions are image
and presentation. Studies on interpersonal interactions show certain types of clothing
enhance positive social interactions. For example, job seekers and job interviewers are
expected to be appropriately dressed and groomed in order to make a good impression
(Yener, 1982).
When people first see each other, appearance is the only piece of information they
have about one another. “Clothing is a readily perceived aspect of appearance that has
been shown to influence first impressions of the wearer as well as behavioral responses
toward the wearer” (Yener, 1982, p. 23). According to Rafaeli and Pratt (1993)
organizational attire can influence and create a variety of organizational dynamics. Their
research suggests that dress affects the extent to which employees fulfill role
requirements, indicates credibility, influences organizational image, and helps identify
authority within organizations. Organizational dress can be defined and measured by
three attributes. These attributes are identified as color, material, and style.
Rafaeli and Pratt (1993) suggested that colors are associated with different meanings.
Bold colors may represent power whereas dull colors may represent weakness. The same

21
associations of meaning can apply to colors of clothing. Individual and organizational
dress color can inadvertently determine image. Materials may also be associated with
individual and organizational images. Materials such as polyester may convey a lower
class status where silk may convey an upper class status. The style of organizational
dress that employees display can symbolize social status. Their research discussed the
distinction between formal and tailored versus informal and casual styles. They suggest
that employees that wear suits are rated as having a higher social status than employees
that dress casually.
Research has shown that clothing is an important factor in forming impressions.
Color is an important attribute of clothing that contributes to forming impressions. Yener
(1982) conducted a study on the influence of color on attraction and impressions and
found that there are certain meanings and affects associated with colors. Colors are
associated with specific moods. Because of this, color meanings affect perceptions
depending on the color of association. For example, red may be perceived warmer than
blue, so an individual wearing red clothing may be perceived as a warm person (Yener,
1982).
Varying fashion styles result from changing social and political climates. Work
environments are constantly changing, which leads to changes in dress policies. For
example, during the 20th century, organizations saw many changes in work attire due to
labor needs and the development of technology (Sklar, 2010). With the innovative
technology available today, many people find themselves working from home or from
virtual offices. Several businesses have become online businesses or non-consumer
facing businesses, in which customer contact is via phone or Internet (Foster, 2013).

22
Innovations in technology have led to fluid work environments where employees can
work from almost anywhere. Mobile devices, laptops, and telecommuting allow people
to dress more casually. Foster (2013) found that employee satisfaction was higher for
employees who transitioned from working in an office to working from home. A primary
reason for this increase in satisfaction is that working from home or in a non-consumer
facing environment is a more relaxed dress code (Foster, 2013).
As organizations become increasingly casual with dress policies, it can be more
difficult to differentiate between organizational hierarchies. However, levels of status
can be illustrated through the use of expensive accessories, grooming and physical fitness
(Sklar, 2010). Instead of restricted dress policies, individuals strategically choose their
attire based on personal preferences, situational factors and how they will visually be
perceived (Maynard, 2004). People alter dress styles according to the needs of different
situations. Often, individual interpretations dictate the purpose of certain styles (Sklar,
2010).
Frank (1997) suggested that men’s fashion became increasingly important in the
1970s. Remaining in style with fashion trends was viewed as progressive and
demonstrated competence. Eventually, dress policies became flexible and workplaces
more diverse. Women and minorities became more inclusive in the work place and
business casual attire became the standard work attire. Changing demographics in the
work place have affected dress attitudes and behaviors. As women have acquired more
powerful roles, the emphasis on polished appearances has become increasingly prevalent.
In addition, the increase in minority works has diversified acceptable work attire (Sklar,
2010).

23
Attitudes towards formal attire and appropriate dress have evolved over the last
decade, but recently thee has been a shift towards a more refined look in the work place
because of an emphasis on organizational goals and positive images (Sklar, 2010).
Changes in the workplace create new perspectives towards work attire. “Therefore,
studying dress in the workplace is a valuable line of research to help understand these
societal changes, as well as the related productivity and success rates of the workplaces
and the people, products, and ideas within them” (Sklar, 2010, p. 49).
It is important to dress cautiously for the office. Every workplace is different and
some prefer formal business attire, while others allow for more causal business attire.
Regardless of the dress policy, employees should dress to impress in the office (Mirror,
2014). The well-known phrase “dress for success” indicates a powerful relationship
between dress and the workplace. To determine appropriate work attire, people use
intuition about their work environment and organizational expectations (Sklar, 2010).
Dress policies should be determined by organizational culture and occupational roles.
Research suggests that companies without mandated dress codes follow a set of norms
where workers dress in what they find appropriate, which helps them feel more
responsible, efficient, competent, and professional (Kwon, 1994).
Even when people dress appropriately, it is important to know which colors,
patterns and clothing attributes are flattering. Some colors may flatter specific skin tones,
while others may not (Buzza & Mosca, 2013). Research has found that people associate
work attire with behavior and attitude. It is suggested that formal business attire is
associated with power and authority, while casual work attire is associated with comfort
and creativity (Sklar, 2010). People use dress as a tool to improve work identity and

24
reputation. Often, work attire is viewed as a vital characteristic linked to desired
outcomes, professionalism and competence. According to Sklar (2010), “Work dress
therefore has been linked to both the expression and communication of identity as well as
the attempt to manage impressions on others” (p. 44).
Dress Patterns
Rafaeli and Pratt (1993) propose that organizational pressures impact dress
patterns. Different variances of homogeneity and conspicuousness dress patterns are
defined and discussed in order to verify their influence from organizational pressures.
Homogeneity refers to the differences of employee dress within an organization.
Conspicuousness is the degree to which the attire of members of an organization differs
from nonmembers.
According to Rafaeli and Pratt (1993) there are different degrees of homogeneity.
Stratified homogeneity refers to the likeness of dress within organizational departments
and complete homogeneity occurs when all employees dress alike. Research suggests
that there is a relationship between these dress patterns. A national survey developed by
Robert Half Technology refutes the idea that IT departments within organizations dress
less formal than other departments. The survey showed that 66% employees polled
described the dress code among their IT departments as dress pants and button-down
shirts (Dress to impress, 2012). This survey shows that both homogeneity and
conspicuousness can be present within an organization.
Smith (1998) discusses how it is difficult to fit in and still earn the respect of
peers. Organizational dress should depend on one’s audience and the culture of their
organization. Clothes do make an impressio n. In today’s society casual dress is growing

25
more popular among organizations. It is important to remember the audience that may
judge the organizational dress. Consider company culture and character when
determining whether to dress professionally or casually. Clothing can also provide an
understanding of interactions between individuals. Culture is an important aspect to
consider when determining the meaning of attire or “reading” a person (Kaiser, 1998).
Dress according to audience expectations and standards.
Related Theories
Several studies related to human traits and the influence of clothing on
interactions were examined for common and differentiated findings. Research shows that
people construct implicit theories of personality, relationships, interpersonal behaviors,
and situational characteristics however; individuals need to be able to integrate the
information based on the roles and personality traits of a particular situation. Research
suggests that clothing provides information about social status, personality and attributes
of individuals. Therefore, clothing can trigger the use of social and identity theories
when trying to draw references about a person (Damhorst, 1981).
Social Theories
According to Damhorst (1981), implicit personality theories center on the way
people use familiar categories when trying to predict and understand human behavior. In
other words, people assume that people have common attributes. These theories can be
applied to the relationships and interactions among people. Implicit personality theories
refer to the inferences that people make from personality traits of individuals (De Soto,
Hamilton, & Taylor, 1985).

26
According to Mccormick and Martinko (2004) social cognitive theories are based
upon cognitive processes and structures that are used to attribute personal meaning to
interpersonal behavior. How people perceive themselves and others in social situations
have been the focal point for past research. The social cognitive framework suggests that
human behavior is a result of dynamic processes among social cognitions, individual
behavior, and social content.
Gibson (2003) discusses how people have expectations about interactions, based
on past experiences, culture, and the roles of others. When the anticipated expectations
of these interactions are met or exceeded, people experience positive emotions. On the
other hand, when the expectations are not met, people produce negative emotions.
According to Ouimet and Radomsky (2011), social cognition theory and measurements
help explain universal human behavior such as decision-making, emotional experience,
and interpersonal relationships.
Identity Theories
The focus of most organizational identity research is the idea that identity is a
result of interactions with others. Hatch and Schultz (2002) discuss how organizational
identity is defined by comparisons and reflections that happen over time and self-identity
is formed through social experience and interactions. Understanding the dynamics of
organizational identity can prevent organizational chaos and increase effectiveness.
Organizations should try to foster and support organizational culture, identity and images.
Comprehending culture and image is necessary to develop and grow in changing
environments.

27
Understanding how employees in organizations view and categorize themselves is
a common concern for researchers. There are two types of theories that can provide
insight into individual perceptions and identities. Theories surrounding self-identity
focus on the patterns and knowledge schemes that support individual concepts. Social
Identity theories focus on how individuals view and categorize themselves as members of
groups (Ravasi & Johan, 2003).
“Identity theory refers to an individual’s composite self that includes the multiple
identitie s tied to social roles and individ ual plays” (Sklar, 2010, p. 17). Social roles can
dictate one’s personal identity. In other words, people may act differently depending on
social interactions and situations. Clothing attire is important in communicating identity.
Attire plays a large role in personal expression and identities are often expressed through
visual aesthetics such as appearances (Roach-Higgins & Eicher, 1992). Appearances can
be changed to fit different social roles and identities. Individuals can manipulate
aesthetics and align themselves with cultural and lifestyle expectations. Context is a
primary determinant of identity and impacts personal appearance (Sklar, 2010).
According to Eicher (2000), dress is a form of nonverbal communication that
affects human interactions. People alter their looks with clothing and accessories and by
using color, texture and scent. The way people express identities through dress can be
difficult to comprehend, but Identity Theory helps explain this phenomena. According to
the theory, thoughts about external roles are internalized based on social meanings and
expectations. In other words, people sometimes hide individual aspects in accordance to
what is deemed appropriate and acceptable by society (Sklar, 2010).

28
There is a struggle between identities and perceptions of what is acceptable by
society, especially when it comes to clothing. For example, the Emiratis wear a national
dress known as the Kandura and Abaya. Most Emiratis believe their national dress is a
source of pride, but question its place in the workplace. Although they feel proud to
represent their country, they are uncertain whether or not it is appropriate work attire (Al
Ameri, 2014). Dress codes usually depend on organizational culture and it is always best
to err on the side of caution (Glazer, 2011).
Kinderman, Moody, and Sinha (2010) conducted a study that indicated mood is a
significant predictor of clothing style preference. On the other hand, personality is only a
moderate indicator of preference. People put physical and mental effort into the attire
they wear, especially when dressing for the workplace. When dressing for the workplace,
people try to determine appropriate attire based on organizational roles. “A great deal of
the development of one’s identity as it pertains to dress is about this interaction with
others and feelings of connection and understanding of one another” (Sklar, 2010, p. 19).
The way people interact is determined by personal values, personality, and emotions.
People tend to interact in ways that are comfortable and familiar. Emotions play an
essential role in forming and managing relationships. Emotions affect behavior,
leadership style, problem-solving, and decision-making. If emotions are not properly
assessed, it is impossible to manage relationships effectively (Shockley-Zalabak, 2012).
Comparison of Social and Identity Theories
Social theories relate to individuals perceptions about their social group. A social
group consists of individuals with common social identification. Identity theories focus
on self-categorization as character, and the meanings and expectations associated with

29
that role. These expectations and meanings formulate standards that guide human
behavior. Although the basis of self-categorization differs between the two theories,
research in both areas recognizes that individuals view themselves based on meanings
structured by society (Stets & Burke, 2000).
Identity and social theories are built on similar foundations, but they differ in
terms of degree of assessment, function of group behavior, relations among functions and
groups, and social circumstances and identity. Identity theory may be more effective in
understanding interpersonal interactions, where as social identity theory may be more
useful understanding identity dynamics. Both theories suggest that behavior is based on
meanings structured from self-concepts, but there are significant differences (Hogg,
Terry, & White, 1995).
First, identity theory is a perspective on the relationship between roles and the
identities that such roles confer. In contrast, social identity theory focuses on intergroup
relations and group processes. Second, social identity theory’s recent extension into self-
categorization theory elaborates further on sociocognitive process that affects identity,
while identity theory has the advantage of focusing more on interpersonal social
interactions and the effects on identity. Lastly, social identity theory perceives identity as
concept that responds to change in interactions. Identity theory views identity as a static
concept. These two theories may be used together to link society with individual social
behavior more effectively (Hogg et al., 1995).
Motivation Theories
Several studies have focused on dress code policies in relation to motivation.
Motivation inspires, encourages and stimulates people to achieve individual and

30
organizational goals. The level of motivation employees apply to initiatives affects all
aspects of an organization (Peterson, 2007). According to theories of motivation, people
can be motivated by several factors including instincts, incentives, arousal, and needs
(Cherry, 2012). Motivation causes direction, persistence and high levels of effort
towards goals based on satisfying individual needs (Ramlall, 2004).
One of the most well-known human relation studies was Elton Mayo’s Hawthorne
Experiments. From 1927 to 1932, Dr. Elton Mayo conducted the Hawthorne
Experiments to study human relations. The experiments recognized the importance of
employee attitudes and explored group behavior. Mayo concluded that employee
performance is influenced by employee attitudes and organizations only succeed when
employees are satisfied (Patil, 2012). The Hawthorne Experiments opened up doors for
future motivational theorists.
In 1943, Abraham Maslow suggested his theory of motivation based on the
hierarchy of human needs. Maslow believed that human behavior is related to satisfying
needs. According to his theory, there are five categories of human needs, which his
hierarchy arranges in order of importance. When one needs is satisfied it no longer acts
as a motivator and is replaced by another. The needs are:
1. Physiological needs, which are basic needs for survival.
2. Safety needs, which are needs for security and protection.
3. Social needs, which are needs for acceptance and belonging.
4. Esteem needs, which are needs for respect and power.
5. Self-actualization needs, which are needs for growth and reaching potential (Patil,
2012).

31
Although Maslow’s theory is very popular, it is over simplified and does not consider
that the needs of employees are not the same.
In 1953, David McClelland established his ideas on motivation. McClelland’s
Achievement Motivation Theory states that there are certain needs that are learned
through social interactions. These needs are categorized as the need for power, the need
for affiliation, and the need for achievement. Achievement motivation is essential for the
success of an organization. McClelland’s theory is important because it suggests that the
need for achievement can be taught. In other words, managers can encourage
achievement by creating favorable work environments (Patil, 2012).
Like Maslow’s theory, Frederick Herzberg’s theory refers to human needs and
their role in motivation. In 1959, Herzberg developed his Theory of Human motivation,
which suggests employee attitudes depend on two set of factors. Those two factors are
hygiene or maintenance and motivating factors. Hygiene factors prevent job
dissatisfaction, but do not motivate employees. Hygiene factors include company
policies, salary, and benefits.
Motivating factors motivate employees and increase efficiency and productivity.
Motivating factors like achievement, recognition, and opportunity for growth are
essential in order to provide job satisfaction (Patil, 2012). Douglas McGregor’s theory of
motivation was developed in the 1960s. This theory suggests that there are two
approaches to management; the traditional approach known as Theory X, and the
professional approach known as Theory Y. Theory X is the conventional approach of
management and assumes that the average human is lazy, dislikes work, avoids
responsibilities, is self-centered, lacks intelligence and creativity, and resists any type of

32
change. Such employees require constant supervision and persuasion to achieve
organizational goals. Theory Y is based on the assumptions that people work better in
favorable environments, people can be responsible and creative if motivated, and people
are only resistant to organizational needs because of experiences (Patil, 2012).
Motivation relates to human needs, desires and expectations which, promotes
employees to contribute to achieving company objectives (Patil, 2012). When using
motivation theories efforts should be made to satisfy the individual needs of the
employees. This fosters a pleasant environment in which employees will take initiative
and perform their tasks more efficiently. Motivation is a continuous process and is
beneficial to both employer and employees (Patil, 2012).
Encouraging, empowering and motivating employees are what builds a strong
relationship between companies and employees (Nisen, 2012). Motivation results in high
performance and productivity. There are several factors that impact motivation,
including expectancy and value. Expectancy leads employees to believe they will be
rewarded for their efforts, and employees must view potential rewards as valuable or they
will lack motivation. These factors directly relate to the level effort and overall outcomes
leaders can expect from motivation strategies (Lopiccolo-Gallagher, 2006).
One way to encourage, empower and motivate employees is to implement a
casual dress policy. Offering casual work attire as a reward can motivate employees to
be more productive. If employees are rewarded for their efforts, they are more likely to
perform on a higher level and be more productive. However, rewards must satisfy
employee needs in order to act as effective motivators and shape organizational culture.
According to George and Jones (2007), “Organizatio nal culture is an important means

33
through which organizations coordinate and motivate the behavior of their members. An
organization can shape work attitudes and behaviors by the way it invests in and rewards
its employees over time and by its attempts to encourage values of excellence” (p. 594).
Gender and Motivation. According to Ebrahimi (1999) “All cultures
differentiate between male and female roles” (p. 1). Research suggests that gender
differences in motivation stem from social beliefs (Meyer-Nikele, Nunner-Winkler, &
Wholrab, 2007). There are specific expectations for male and female roles and behavior.
Gender differences are influenced by sociological and biological influences. Sociological
influences like culture and attitude greatly impact gender identity. Men and women
behave differently and have different motivation because of society’s expectations. For
example, females are expected to be motivated to succeed academically, while males are
expected to be motivated to excel at sports (Kitchenham, 2002).
Due to the many men fighting in World War I, women were sent to replace men
in the work force. Women altered their clothing to fit their work environment and instead
of skirts, women wore loose plants. The acceptance of women wearing pants in the
workplace was not immediate. Some places even required legal action in order for
women to wear pants. Even when women received legal approval to wear pants, they
were required to wear pants suit (Buzza & Mosca, 2013). Gender roles, identities and
style preferences have changed since then and in today’s society, women are able to wear
pants without suit jackets.
Meyer-Nikele et al. (2007) conducted a study on gender and motivation. The
results of their study concluded that 79% of the participants agreed that there are
differences between men and women and what motivates them. Out of all of the

34
participants, 66% believe that women are sensitive and motivated to help others, while
20% believe men are aggressive and motivated by self-interests. Meyer-Nikele et al.
(2007) discuss the differences in moral motivation between males and females and
suggest that women tend to be more emotional than men. Because of this, women are
more likely to be concerned with ethical motivation than men.
Motivation is affected by various factors including gender identity and
stereotypes. Gender stereotypes reflect division of labor between men and women. For
example, men are viewed as responsible for making the income, while women are
responsible for caring for the family (Meyer-Nikele et al., 2007). According to Furnham
and Petrides (2006), gender discrimination is a major ethical issue in relation to
motivation for job advancement. Research suggests that males are more likely to be
promoted over women. Studies show that training has a significant impact on job
advancement, but this impact is in favor of men. This is because work experience is
more beneficial than education for men, because they are viewed as the more intelligent
gender. This negatively impacts motivational strategies for women because if they do not
think they can advance, they will not be motivated to try. Where gender should not be a
promotional factor, decisions are being made based on gender, as well as experience and
motivation (Furnham & Petrides, 2006).
Although women are more motivated than men (Furnham & Petrides, 2006), men
are more motivated to fulfill managerial roles because they strive to have power. In
contrast, women are concerned with the needs of others, and although this is a desired
leadership trait, they are not motivated by power (Meyer-Nikele et al., 2007). Research
suggests there is a stigma associated with woman in leadership roles that has been formed

35
through negative social perceptions. In reality, women are no less effective than man,
and are increasing their fulfillment of leadership positions (Northouse, 2009).
The inequality of men and women in managerial roles is found in cultures around
the world. Both gender stereotyping and motivation impact gender preferences for
managerial positions. Studies show that because society has lower expectations for
females, women have less desire to fulfill management positions (Ebrahimi, 1999). For
example, although the number of women in managerial roles has grown in Hong Kong, a
significant gender gap is present. Since Hong Kong is considered a masculine country,
women face more challenges and resistance than less masculine countries (Ebrahimi,
1999).
In the past, workers were relatively homogenous and motivated by the same
factors. As organizations are becoming more diverse, employees are motivated by
different factors. It is difficult to mutually motivate a diverse organization toward shared
goals. The same motivational strategies will not work for everyone. However, using
motivational strategies can bring about ethical issues such as unequal gender roles and
gender bias in job advancement (Furnham & Petrides, 2006). To address these issues,
leaders need to promote the value of diversity and create equal opportunities for men and
women. This can be done through trainings and diversity programs. Leaders need to
demonstrate that they are unbiased towards genders and promote positive social
perceptions (Shockley-Zalabak, 2012). Motivation is what drives people to succeed.
People who have the required motivation are more likely to succeed, regardless of gender
(Ebrahimi, 1999).
Organizational Culture

36
Diversity is an important expression to consider when implementing motivational
strategies. Cultural diversity focuses on the idea that cultural identities should be valued,
and not disregarded. Culture refers to shared beliefs, values, and norms within a group of
people. “Organizational culture is the set of shared values, beliefs, and norms that
influence the way employees think, feel, and behave toward each other and toward
people outside the organization” (George & Jones, 2007, p. 594). Diversity can be
defined as a mixture of people with different group identities. Diversity emerges when
organizations are composed of workers with different demographics.
Cultural diversity affects worker identities, perceptions, behaviors, and
relationships (Oya, 2006). Cultural diversity can help organizations integrate employees
from different backgrounds however; it can also cause complications because different
cultures have different expectations. For example, many researchers believe that there is
a stigma associated with woman leaders that has been formed through negative
perceptions. However, women are no less effective than man, and are increasing their
fulfillment of leadership positions (Northouse, 2009). This stigma has caused women to
dress differently in the work place in order to be considered for promotions and taken
seriously (Sklar, 2010).
Riccucci (1997) suggests that too much emphasis is placed on diversity initiatives
required by federal laws and regulations. Sexual harassment policies are an example of
initiatives that have been taken far out of context and have caused distance between
genders. In relation to dress policies, organizations should address sexual harassment
issues and discriminatory practices, especially among genders. According to Northouse

37
(2009), organizational leaders should promote the value of diversity. Leaders should
model the behaviors, attitudes, and values that they expect their employees to follow.
Employees relate diversity to the organizational culture and ethics that are
modeled before them. If the organizational culture is supportive of diversity, then the
workers will be too. Valuing cultural diversity should become a standard in the
workplace (Riccucci, 1997). Creating a shared organizational culture can help eliminate
negative judgments, stereotyping, prejudice, correct misconceptions, and increase
employee motivation (Shockley-Zalabak, 2012). Organizations can promote the value of
diversity through casual dress policies, which can increase employee motivation as well.
Job characteristics, like dress codes, are features that should be satisfying and motivating
because they shape employees’ perceptions (Moynihan & Pandey, 2007).
Daft (2008) stated that “culture gives employees a sense of organizational identity and
generates a commitment to particular values and ways of doing things. Culture serves
two important functions in organizations: (1) it integrates members so that they know
how to relate to one another, and (2) it helps the organization adapt to the external
environment” (p. 425).
With the growth of diverse organizations, diversity and culture are becoming
important aspects of organizational success. Diverse cultures consist of different beliefs,
values and attitudes which can lead to conflicts. It is important for organizational leaders
to develop cultural awareness and positively influence employee perceptions and
behaviors in the workplace (Daft, 2008). Enforcing ethical codes of conduct is another
way to promote the value of diversity. Ethical codes of conduct include dress policies,
which represent the values of an organization and guide employee behavior, including

38
respect for diversity (Freeman & Steward, 2006). Ethical conduct is about doing the right
thing, acting honorably and respecting diversity.
According to Skarzauskiene (2010), organizations change frequently and it is
necessary to consider the influence of both internal and external environments while
planning and implementing change, such as dress policies. With the recent changes to
dress policies, it is important for organizations to learn and adapt. According to Garmon
(2004), learning processes should be an integral part of organizational culture. Learning
requires undergoing changes in perceptions, processes and identities. Organizations learn
through transforming information into applicable knowledge and resources.
Organizations are able to learn and adapt can successfully stay ahead of change.
As organizations learn, so do the people working with in the organizations. They use
their knowledge and perceptions to understand changing environments. Social
Contingency Theory suggests that people analyze situational factors in order to respond
to change. Internal processes and politics often affect the ability of the organization to
adapt to external demands. This can cause unexpected reactions to changing external
environments (Hannan & Freeman, 1989).
Over the past decade, dress codes have become increasingly casual, but recent
studies suggest organizations are moving towards more traditional business attire again
(Gordon, 2003). It is imperative organizations use organizational learning to effectively
implement changes in dress policies. Organizational learning plays an important role in
developing and supporting organizational change. When organizations embrace learning,
they are more likely to effectively apply knowledge and adapt to changes in their
environment (Garmon, 2004). What happens inside an organization can affect the

39
external environment and vice versa. That is why it is necessary for organizations to
learn, adapt, and respond to changes within their environment (Sankar, 2003). Ritchie
(2000) found that organizational culture must be learned and shared. Shared values and
behavior are essential to the development of a positive organizational culture. A clear
understanding of organizational culture allows employees to evaluate behavior and make
necessary changes.
Organizational Behavior
Throughout history there have been many theorists who have used different
approaches to creating positive and productive organizational behavior. For over two
centuries, theories on organizational behavior have been based on observations.
However, applying these theories to today’s organizationa l behavior is not easy due to the
changing elements of human behavior, technological advances, and other external factors
(Kaminski, 2011). As society is changing and evolving, so are organizational behavior
theories.
Karl, Peluchette, and Rust (2006) examined employee differences in beliefs and
attitudes towards organizational attire including: the value of clothing, the effects of attire
on organizational outcomes, the effort involved in dressing appropriately for work, and
the impact of attire on impressions in the workplace. The results of the study indicate
that employees who place value on organizational attire use it to form impressions and
feel it positively affects work outcomes. According to Chompookum (2001),
organizational attire influences employee motives, values, behaviors, and reactions to
others in the workplace. Therefore, dress codes can be a predictor of organizational
behavior and impression management.

40
Impression management refers to people’s attempts to control their image
perceived by others. Impressions implicate how people are perceived, evaluated and
treated, which ultimately affects how people view themselves. Because of this, people
tend to behave in certain manors to create certain impressions (Chompookum, 2001).
Rafaeli and Pratt (1993) imply that organizational attire influences individual roles in the
workplace. “Dressing for success”, or dressing to impress is more common among
workers in executive positions. In addition, women are more likely to be interested in
organizational attire and use it to the enhance work outcomes, like promotions and raises
(Karl et al., 2006).
As the business world is becoming more complex, organizations are adjusting to
new business concepts and organizational changes, like casual dress codes. Work attire
is an internal career aspect that affects impression management and organizational
behavior (Chompookum, 2001). According to Karl et al. (2006), “clothing decisions can
make a difference in how one is perceived by others and clothing wearers can use their
attire decisions to influence impressions formed by others in the workplace” (p. 46).
People are influenced by the people they work with. That is why it is important to
have dress policies in place. Clothing plays a large role in appearance. Clothing
expresses individual preferences, attitudes and feelings (Yener, 1982). Yener suggested
clothing impacts the formation of impressions and responses received from others. It is
evident that people convey personal attributes through their choice of attire. Perceivers
attribute traits based on the stimulus of wearers’ color of clothing. People may draw
inferences based on the color of clothing someone is wearing. Therefore, color may
stimulate interactions in the work place (Yener, 1982).

41
The business industry is intensely competitive and organizations must strive to
gain a competitive advantage in order to survive. Organizational behavior is critical to
improving organizational efficiency and effectiveness, which helps companies gain a
competitive advantage (Chompookum, 2001). Organizations can sustain a competitive
advantage through organizational behavior. With the business environment rapidly
changing, organization must be adaptable, flexible and responsive to internal and external
changes. These changes include altering dress codes to satisfy employees and promote
positive organizational behavior.
McCoy (2007) states, “we each need an internal compass as a way to deal with
tension and change in business and in our lives” (p. 16). When an organization clarifies
its values, it is able to apply those same values to govern the actions of its employees
(Kouzes & Posner, 2007). Employee traits, behaviors, and values have a significant
impact on organizational success. Motivating and appreciating employees helps
organizations build credibility and demonstrate values (Kouzes & Posner, 2007).
Organizational Communication
The ability to effectively communicate directly impacts organizational success
(Shockley-Zalabak, 2012). Businesses are comprised of people, processes, and social
units. Different social units exist within businesses that effect organizational
communications, functions and operations (Sankar, 2003). Different social units can be
distinguished by the attire they wear. Higher social units, such as executives and
directors, commonly wear formal business attire like suits and ties. Lower level social
units usually dress in a business casual manor (Karl et al., 2006). The way in which
different social units dress can influence authority, impressions and communication.

42
Organizational communications are the interactions among employees to
accomplish individual and common goals. Organizational communication is a process
that combines people, messages, meaning, and purpose (Shockley-Zalabak, 2012).
Communication is a powerful organizational tool. It influences decision making,
employee satisfaction, and develops organizational culture. Organizational
communication directs organizational behavior and enforces values and standards
(Shockley-Zalabak, 2012). Communication systems exist within organizations, including
verbal and nonverbal forms. Clothing is a nonverbal way of communication, which can
impact how messages are perceived (Sklar, 2010).
Interpersonal relationships are formed through communication interactions
between at least two people. Interpersonal interactions place more emphasis on how
messages are being delivered and interpreted, and less emphasis on the actual message
(Berger, Burgoon, & Waldron, 2000). Communication must be understood in order to be
effective. There are different approaches to communication that examine how
communication is understood. Like organizational attire, communication provides
insight into dominance and power. The different perspectives of organizational
communication focus on how power impacts organizations and employees (Shockley-
Zalabak, 2012).
The critical perspective of organizational communication is fixed on the concept
that communication produces relationships of power. Power relationships support
dominant groups of employees and give them the advantage over subordinate groups
(Shockley-Zalabak, 2012). The critical perspective centers on the abuse of power and
domination within organizations and society. The perspective aims to change society by

43
understanding social aspects that shape how people communicate and the role power
plays in communication (Shockley-Zalabak, 2012). Bartunek and Stevenson
(1996)found that power influences communication patterns across different
organizational groups.
The feminist perspective of organizational communication is based on gender
roles and assumptions within organizations. Gendered organizations are organizations
that are biased toward particular gender identities and relations (Davies & Thomas,
2005). For example, women have been associated with domestic and family life,
emotions, and sexuality. Emotional communication styles may be viewed as weak and
physical features associated with women may be viewed as unprofessional (Shockley-
Zalabak, 2012). For this reason, it is suggested that women commonly dress more
professionally than men with the same roles (Karl et al., 2006).
Davies and Thomas (2005) believed that the feminist perspective of
organizational communication is already changing how employees communicate in the
workplace. Their study on resistance of gender equality within organizations found that
fewer organizations are associating gender with power. Since, women struggle to
manifest the power and communication styles favored by male dominant organizations,
their choice of work attire can significantly impact their success (Davies & Thomas,
2005).
Critical and feminist organizational communication perspectives examine power,
domination and the challenges created by hierarchy and systems of authority. These
theories focus on how organizational communication shapes organizational relationships
(Shockley-Zalabak, 2012). Today, organizations are comprised of diverse workers with

44
different perspectives and styles. It is important for organizations to implement dress
codes that reflect their values and ethics. Organizational attire can impact how messages
are sent and received and ultimately affect interpersonal relationships (Karl et al., 2006).
Conclusion
In today’s society casual dress is growing more popular among organizations. It
is important to remember the audience that may judge the organizational dress. Consider
company culture and character when determining whether to dress professionally or
casually. Dress according to audience expectations and standards (Smith, 1998). Social,
identity, and motivation theories help understand the relationship between organizational
dress and human behavior. Communication perspectives also impact how workers
communicate and interact. Further research is needed to explore the correlation between
these theories and the effects casual clothing has on the success of a non-customer facing
organization.
There is a lack of rules for proper work attire, but with the leniency in dress codes
today, there may be a need for stricter policies (Buzza & Mosca, 2013). Several research
studies on work attire focus on the perceptions of the observer and neglect the
perceptions of the wearer. However, the wearer’s perceptions can provide more insight
into motivation, behavior, attitude, identity, and productivity (Sklar, 2010). This review
of literature was the foundation of this study. It provided relevant background
information and data significant to this study. The next chapter focuses on the
methodology that was used to produce useful and relevant data, and further discusses the
details of the research study.

45
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Mruck and Breuer (2003) believed the purpose of conducting research is to verify
or falsify existing knowledge. To conduct a research study, it is imperative to use the
appropriate methodology along with a well thought-out research design during the
planning, data collection, and interpretation phases of the research process. The
appropriate research method will depend on the purpose of the study and the phenomena
being studied (Creswell, 2009). For example, if the purpose of research is to understand
a phenomenon, a qualitative approach would fit best. On the other hand, if the purpose of
research is to measure variables, a quantitative design would be appropriate (Qualitative
research methods, n.d.).
The purpose of the study was to explore the effects of casual work attire on
human behavior, identity, and perceptions in a non-customer facing organization. The
primary objective was to determine the effects casual work attire has on employee
attitudes and productivity. In order to do this, the author selected an appropriate research
method that fits the problem being studied and the audience (Creswell, 2009). This
chapter assesses the methodology chosen for the study and justifies why it was
appropriate. It also explains the importance of methodology during the planning, data
collection, and interpretation phases of the research process.
Research Design
The phenomenon studied was how casual work attire impacts employee behavior.
There is a growing trend in casual dress policies in U.S. companies today. Research
suggests that a reason for this growth may be due to the affects work attire has on

46
employee attitudes (Anonymous, 2002). In contrast, research suggests that casual dress
codes can have a negative impact on employee attitudes and company images (Badola,
2010). According to Rafaeli and Pratt (1993) employee dress affects how employees
fulfill role requirements, indicates credibility, influences organizational image, and helps
identify authority within organizations.
This study used a grounded theory approach. The purpose of grounded theory
study is to generate a substantive theory on a scholarly basis (Seldén, 2005). The
development of a theory helps explain the findings and provides a framework for future
research (Creswell, 2007). The grounded theory approach was fitting for the work attire
study because there was not a lot of past research that focused on casual work attire and
its effects on employee behavior. As different themes and patterns emerged in employee
behaviors during the course of the study, a grounded theory approach helped develop a
scholarly theory to help explain why.
There is controversy that surrounds the significance of grounded theory and its
applicability to academic research (Creswell, 2007). However, it is a promising and
versatile tool for generating scholarly theories. Theoretical sampling can uncover the
similarities and differences in investigated groups (Seldén, 2005). The purpose of this
study was to identify a theory from the information that was collected and analyzed. The
common themes found among the data provide further insight into the effects of work
attire on organizational behavior and success.
Selection of Participants
In order to examine the effects of casual work attire on employees of non-
customer facing organizations, full-time employees of a non-customer facing customer

47
service organization in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania were interviewed and observed. The
organization works with customers of various demographics over the phone and internet.
The employees do not have face to face contact with customers. The participants
remained Seldén, except to the researcher, however their age, and gender were provided.
Participants consisted of both males and females, ranging from 20-65 years of age. There
are approximately 250 employees within the organization. The sample consisted of 40
employees to gain better insight into their productivity, attitudes and opinions on work
attire.
Participants were asked to volunteer and were given the details of the study and
requirements for participation. The researcher asked employees to participate until 40
participants were collected based on the aforementioned criteria. The amount of
participants accounted for 16% of the company, which provided a wide enough sample to
compare similarities and differences, and generated a scholarly theory. For the purpose
of this study, only full time employees participated. Part-time employees within the
organization do not spend a significant amount of time with customers over the phone
and via email and their responses may have contaminated this study.
Instrumentation
Grounded theory is considered a general methodology used in a diverse array of
disciplines. This type of methodology is concerned with behavior and interactions, and
develops insights into experiences (Goulding & Saren, 2010). To evaluate and
understand the affects casual work attire has on employees in a non-customer facing
environment, data was collected through field observations and individual interviews.

48
Interviews. Interviews allow participants to describe situations in their own
words and provide a record of their perspectives. It is a reflective process that explores
experiences and reveals details that affect the issues being investigated. An issue with
the interview process is that questions can be affected by the researcher’s perspectives
and agenda. To overcome this issue, interview questions should be formulated to allow
participants to express their experiences surrounding the phenomena being studied
(Stringer, 2007). In this study, the researcher identified her role and purpose of the study.
She also asked permission to record the interviews. The researcher recorded the details
of the interview with a recorder, while taking notes. The participants’ responses, as well
as their reactions were noted. Interview questions consisted of open and close-ended
questions.
Observations. In addition to interviews, the researcher used observations to
build an understanding of participants’ everyday behaviors. While conducting
observations, the researcher paid close attention to details including locations, people,
objects, activities, time and emotions. Once the interviews and observations were
complete, the researcher collated the information and identified significant results.
Grounded theory was well suited to examine data collected through observations and
interviews. This was