“Casual dress can have clear advantages, at virtually no cost, for most corporations and industries. Casual dress policies are quickly becoming the rule rather than exception.”

- Michael R. Losey, President & CEO, Society for Human Resources Management, US, in November 2000.

“Continually relaxed dress leads to relaxed manners, relaxed morals and relaxed productivity.”

- Jeffrey Magee, a psychologist, who surveyed 500 firms in the US, in October 2002.

In 1992, the world's second largest entertainment media conglomerate, the Walt Disney Company (Disney), US, was in the news for a rather unusual reason. Around 50% of the employees at its newly-opened EuroDisney theme park had resigned – one of the main reasons being the company's strict regulations regarding the personal appearance of its employees.

These non-negotiable and strictly enforced standards, known as the 'Disney Look', were communicated to the employees through pamphlets and other modes. Strict disciplinary action was taken against those who violated these rules. The EuroDisney incident was not an isolated one. On an average, around 10-20% of the applicants trying for a job at Disney walked out voluntarily after viewing an introductory video detailing these rules.

However the situation at the US software and technology major Microsoft Inc. (Microsoft) was quite different. Microsoft did not impose any dress code for its employees. From the CEO to the trainees – everyone was allowed to wear casuals for office. This was considered to be an important factor for reducing absenteeism and increasing employee productivity. The casual dress code scenario was even more apparent in dotcom offices across the world, with a majority of them allowing employees to come in casual attire to offices.

The two extremities mentioned above are not surprising considering the fact that the importance given to the employee dress code varied extensively between companies, industries, regions and countries. In some cases, the dress code was considered an extremely important part of the corporate culture, while in others it was not paid any attention at all. The companies where employee appearance mattered a lot trained their employees on business etiquette and mannerisms. New employees were even taught how to behave with customers. They were familiarized with the dress code of the organization, which also included the kind of accessories they could wear.

Consistent changes in corporate dress codes the world over had made dressing up for work much more than 'just another routine' for 21st century employees. There has been a tremendous change from the days of strictly formal attire; one would perhaps not be ridiculed for mistaking certain corporate offices for beach-parties with people dressed in colorful casuals all around. The trend was prevalent all over the globe and human resources (HR) policymakers were reportedly divided between the two extremes of formal and casual clothing for employees. Problems cropping up at various companies because of the above issue and confusions regarding the same thus seemed to be inevitable.

Clothing is one of the most basic needs of mankind. However, as human beings evolved, so did the idea of clothing. Clothes were no longer worn only for protection, the natural tendency to put in one's efforts to present a good picture of themselves became more prevalent. Thus emerged the demand for presentable, tailored clothing. The kind of clothing worn by people differed substantially amongst different races, religions, communities and nationalities over the centuries.

However, the corporate world was one arena, wherein 'clothing' has seen certain universally applicable trends. Dress codes have been a vital part of HR policies of companies all over the world ever since the first corporate organization was formed. The industrial revolution of the 18th century brought in many changes in the way people dressed for work. This was due to the basic change in the lifestyle of individuals and the society as a whole. In the 18th century, almost every business organization in the world followed a standard dress code – full hand dark colored business suits with button-down collared shirt neatly tucked into pants, polished shoes and neatly groomed hair. During this period, there existed a very clear demarcation between a business dress and a casual dress.

As the world entered into the 20th century, modernization became the buzzword, transforming the corporate world as well. Businesses were becoming complex, and so were the dressing habits of employees. A whole new range of clothing for both men and women emerged, women's corporate-wear consisted of suits comprising long business skirts, short knee length skirts with matching shirts (or blouse) paired with high-heeled sandals became a rage. Women started sporting shorter curled hair cut into different styles with moderate makeup. Men no longer wore the 'boring' look (with oiled hair neatly combed behind their ears) and sported smarter hairstyles. Many office goers were willing to experiment with new styles and personal appearances at business places.

After the Second World War, as the US population began moving to suburban areas from the cities, the 'relaxed' feel of the suburbs was reflected in the dress code as well. Formal suits thus gave way to simple pants and shirts for men, and peter pan collared blouses and tunics for women. However, this trend remained confined only to a few regions and companies.

With the emergence of fashion as an industry, in the next few decades, there was a radical transformation in the appearances of office-goers. New trends emerged for clothes as well as accessories for men and women. This was the most evident in businesses run by young entrepreneurs, who allowed their employees to dress casually at work. However, things changed drastically, with the boom in the information technology (IT) industry that began in the late-1970s. Throughout the 1980s, many IT companies followed liberal dress codes.

In addition to the IT companies, there were definite indications from traditional organizations, which were keen on making the workplace an 'energizing and exciting place' by allowing their employees to adopt a casual dress code . It was much easier for companies marketing a product or a lifestyle, to adapt to a freer workplace since they were by nature young in ethos and outlook. Multinational companies like Adidas, Reebok and Pepsi, and advertising agencies were able to easily fit into such setups. Naturally, these companies were amongst the first to allow casual dressing.

Also, companies where employees did not have to deal directly with the clients, also permitted its employees to wear casual dresses. Thus, employees into back office jobs and in jobs where they did not have to meet clients/customers either in-house or on the field, were able to leave their formal attire easily. This explained why many IT companies and dotcoms adopted casual dress codes as software programmers typically (almost) never interacted with customers. Commenting on the above, analysts said that the strong performance of the stock prices of these companies proved that their 'non-traditional' dress codes did no harm.

By the time dotcom companies became the darlings of bourses in the early-1990s, unprecedented changes had taken place in terms of all corporate dressing conventions being turned upside down. An industry observer commented, “The dotcoms were casual work environments, come as you are, put in a pool table, make yourself at home.” The reason why dotcoms encouraged a casual atmosphere was because their employees typically worked for long hours. Hence, providing them comfortable, home-like surroundings was seen as an easy way to retain their interest and enhance their productivity.

The trend became so popular that the concept of 'Casual Fridays' emerged in corporate offices across the world in the early-1990s. By 1993, 'Casual Fridays' had become a routine in many offices. In early-1990's, a leading casual apparel company, the US-based Levi Strauss (Levi), launched a campaign in association with various HR groups of the country. They supplied videos to companies explaining them the benefits of adopting a casual dress code at offices. Many other apparel companies followed suit and some even launched an entire new range of clothing to meet the growing demand for casuals.

A survey conducted by Evans Research Associates for the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) and Levi in 1995, revealed that more and more companies were allowing casual attire at offices. Companies allowing casual dresses regularly or on special occasions was as high as 90%, while 28% allowed weekly casual wear. 28% of companies allowed its employees to wear casual dresses daily. While companies which allowed casual dresses only on special occassions and seasonally were 11% and 1% respectively. Another SHRM survey conducted in 1992, revealed that about 24% of companies surveyed allowed casual dress either one day or every day a week. By 1999, this percentage had considerably gone up and 95% of the companies now followed a casual dress code. However, a marginal reduction of 8 points was reported in 2000, followed by a further 2 points reduction by 2002 (Refer Table I).

Table I
Companies Adopting Casual Dress Policies

Source: IBS Center for Management Research

Companies that participated in the SHRM survey said that they reaped many benefits by allowing casual attire at the workplace. Almost 85% of them agreed that having a casual dress policy at offices helped improve employee morale. HR managers agreed that it was an inexpensive way to improve the employee morale, with 82% of them stating that a casual dress code was considered as an added benefit to their working conditions.

Around 72% of the companies reported that wearing casual attire to offices saved employees a lot of time and money, which in turn acted as a good incentive for them to work better. Among the managers of these companies, 66% stated that having a casual dress policy could be used as a means of attracting and retaining employees and 45% of them agreed that allowing employees to wear casual clothing improved their productivity. Thus the percentage of companies allowing casual clothing every day increased at a steady rate from 37% in 1996 to 53% in 2002. It was also found that the percentage of companies that limited casual clothing at workplace to just one day a week had reduced to 56% from 64% during the same period.

The increasing acceptance of casual dress codes at corporates was not only because of the changing fashion/business trends and the IT/dotcom boom. There were a host of other factors responsible for this. Companies which support and adopted casual dress codes claimed that it was an innovative and inexpensive way to improve the morale of the employees. Employees highly appreciated this decision since the atmosphere in the office became quite relaxed. Moreover, allowing casual dress code in the office showed the management's concerned, yet carefree, attitude towards meeting employee needs.

Companies that allowed its employees to wear casual dresses to offices also witnessed an unexpected (but pleasant) change in terms of employee perceptions with regard to the management as well as the company. The management of these companies was seen as more caring and considerate about their employees. Letting employees wear casual attire spoke a lot about management's attitude towards them. It denoted how flexible the management was, its willingness to experiment with doing things in a new way, and the willingness to change with the times. More importantly, the management of such companies was not seen as being unnecessarily strict and controlling regarding the freedom given to their employees.

On the other hand, companies which were very particular about their staff showing up in business attire at office were accused of discriminating between employees who could afford to buy a formal attire and those who could not. This was so because a business suit was usually much costlier than a casual dress. As a result, many employees felt that they were being treated unjustly by being forced to adhere to such strict policies regarding personal appearance at the office. This was one of the reasons why companies like Disney saw new recruits resigning, as they were not able to cope with the stringent policies regarding personal appearance at office premises. On the other hand, new recruits at organizations that did not impose strict rules regarding personal appearances, reportedly felt a sense of security and a sense of being treated equally and justly. Such organizations built up substantial goodwill among its employees.

Interestingly, the practice of allowing casual dress codes was found to be sending indirect signals about the promotion systems followed in the companies involved. Companies adopting casual dress codes were considered fair as they did not favor only those who had the good fortune of having born into the more affluent class of the society. This was substantiated by analysts who stated that wearing a proper business dress was more of an acquired skill that came easily if one was born into the upper classes. Thus, in this context allowing casual dress at offices became a normalizing factor.

Some critics even pointed out that organizations which followed strict policies regarding personal appearance and did not allow casual clothing were, in fact, calling for trouble. A study revealed that some companies came across good quality people who refused to join if they were not allowed to wear casual clothing to office. Such employees did not mind joining the rival companies – thus resulting in a competitive disadvantage for the company.

Commenting on the success of casual clothing, Tim Ricker (Ricker), Deputy Executive Director, Water Environment Foundation, said, “As a member of the over-50 crowd that came from the coat-and-tie era, I think that corporate casual has been successful and does help to create a more enjoyable and productive work environment. It seems to go hand in hand with flexible work schedules and such that enable employees to better balance their personal and professional lives.” As a result of all the above positive attributes, casual dressing was permitted on a daily basis in several industries and gradually, companies in industries such as banking, insurance, law and
accounting also began accepting casual dress codes for its employees. (Refer Table II).

Table II
Companies Allowing Casual Dresses in Various Industries

Source: IBS Center for Management Research

However employees of banks and others in service industries were traditionally expected to wear formal attire for their jobs. Reportedly, these employees felt very uncomfortable and could not concentrate much on the job. As a result, even such companies gradually began following casual dress codes, though to a limited extent. Companies such as Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, J.P. Morgan, Goldman Sachs and Credit Suisse First Boston even instituted full time casual dress policies. Many other companies including Coca-Cola, Ford, General Motors, Andersen Consulting and Sears also put in place casual dress codes.

However, not all organizations were willing to change their dress code policies from formal to casual. Many companies across the world continued practicing strict formal dress codes. They felt that if they allowed casuals at work place, employees would begin 'feeling casual' at work. In addition, it was felt that employees dressed in casuals did not portray a 'proper' picture of the organization in front of its customers.

Despite the growing acceptance of casual dress codes by HR departments of companies the world over, there were many who strongly opposed the policy. Many HR experts and analysts argued that there was a direct connection between employee attitude, dress and productivity. They stated that more than how the wearer felt about his/her clothing, it was important how the people whom they dealt with (that is customers) felt. They severely criticized employees wearing denim, spandex, jeans, team logo shirts, shorts, halter tops, tank tops, leggings, sweat suits, warm-up suits and provocative or revealing clothing.

Commenting on the above, James Ammeen, President of Men's Apparel Alliance, New York, said, “It's about being more serious in terms of how you dress and the respect you show the other party. A lot of people feel that appropriate dress is important in the workplace and important in getting the job done.” It was being felt that allowing casuals and the corresponding casual attitude of the employees led to deterioration in the quality of work, productivity and customer service levels. Pari Kreutter, Director of the leading fashion-house, Saks Fifth Avenue's Fifth Avenue Club said, that “Dressing casual had become too casual.”

Analysts stated that allowing casual clothing in office premises did not mean employees should turn up looking as if they had come to take a stroll on the beach. Commenting on this, Jimmy Newcomer, Professor of fashion design at Manhattan's Fashion Institute of Technology said, “People have become so casual, it's to the point of getting sloppy. Our work force has gotten away from wearing disciplined kinds of clothing. If I go to a bank and deal with someone in dirty pants and an old T-shirt, I do not have a lot of confidence in that bank. Similarly, I do not want a nurse to look like a cocktail waitress. I want her to be in a white uniform, not in a miniskirt.”

Critics added that casual dress codes should be allowed for a certain category of employees who do not interact with customers may be allowed to wear casuals, while employees who interact with customers on a personal level should avoid it. Employees such as sales executives and front office employees should wear formal business attire as they are seen by clients in the course of everyday business. This was considered important because professionalism was necessary during customer-employee interactions.

Similarly, people employed (mostly apprentices) at law firms were expected to wear formals. Many law firms were of the opinion that they could not afford to go casual since dressing professionally enhanced their reputation as well as business. Though many HR officials at law companies stated that they did not have any formal dress policy, employees preferred to wear formals.

Many employees felt that clients and subordinates paid more respect to them when they wore 'a more business like dress.' A survey conducted in April 2002, sponsored by the Men's Apparel Alliance, US, revealed that 17% of the participating senior executives believed that the productivity improved by 40% if the management incorporated a formal business dress code. Another survey conducted on 500 firms in the US concluded that employees who dress casually tend to take things easy at office, chat about games and leer at their colleagues.

The different findings of various surveys regarding employee appearances and productivity levels as well as management-employee relations in context of formal vs. casual dress codes, have led to confusion and uncertainty in HR departments of many companies. Some companies, especially those in the service industry, seemed to have worked out a balance between the casual and formal work attire extremes.

The need for well-designed and color co-ordinated clothing for employees in the service industry is crucial for the success of the concerned company. Restaurants, airlines and entertainment companies therefore spend a considerable amount of money and time to study and understand the psyche of customers. As a result of these studies, fast food joints also focused on creating a bright and vibrant ambience while retail stores (targeted at the general public) focused on projecting a sophisticated look and feel.

The clothes of the employees at such companies were also designed keeping in mind the clientele and the requirements of business. The US-based global fast-food major McDonald's, followed the same dress code throughout the world. The 'crew trainees' and 'crew members' wore bright colored T-Shirts and black trousers with matching caps. This infused a lively and bright atmosphere at the outlets. Similarly, the entire sales force of the US-based retailing giant WalMart wore blue T-shirts and black trousers.

Similarly, hospitals around the world strictly adhered to predetermined dress codes. Doctors,  nurses and other employees adhere to dress code that help in providing the patients a feeling of reassurance. The dress code, predominantly in white and green color, helped create an atmosphere of peace and safety. Thus, the kind of dress code an organization adopts reveals to a certain extent the degree of professionalism in the organization.

The 'traditional' manufacturing and trading companies also re mained loyal to the traditional business attire. Reportedly, these companies felt they were better off in the standard, predictable and safe setup. They believed that changing to casuals would not yield tangible results and may even prove to be detrimental for the business. Employees of such companies thus by and large attended office wearing formal clothing only.

HR researchers and observers suggest that the decision to adopt casual dress codes (in whatever degree) has to be taken with extreme caution. The problems faced by various companies were not due to the adoption of casual dress codes per se – but because the guidelines were neither defined clearly nor properly implemented. Ricker said, “The personnel who abuse the privilege are the ones who always do, no matter what the policy may state. We need to deal with the individuals and not create rules and regulations that are punitive to the entire staff to counter the actions of a few. You can't legislate common sense and good taste.”

Thus, care needs to be taken to ensure that the policy adopted should not result in the deterioration of employee productivity, organizational culture, customer-service standards and the company's image. Many companies allowed casual clothing at office without defining what casual clothing actually meant. This left many people wondering what they could wear at the office and what they could not. Commenting on this, an executive who 'converted' to casual wear said, “Now it's what kind of slacks, what kind of shirt, what's acceptable and what's not. The ranges and limits are tested, and they are a lot more ambiguous.”

The solution was to start with having clearly-defined and specific rules regarding the type of casual clothing allowed in an organization. The HR department of companies where casual dress codes have been successfully adopted have fulfilled the responsibility of formulating appropriate guidelines for their employees keeping in mind their corporate culture. Companies should conduct surveys to find out employee attitudes towards casual dress codes and accordingly formulate dress code policies. The terms and concepts should be clearly defined without leaving any scope for ambiguity. For this, photographs of people wearing appropriate casual attire can also be used. Most importantly, a policy should be designed so as to maintain a professional looking environment for the customers and clients visiting the offices. After formulating the policy, it could first be introduced on a trial basis to measure the success of its implementation before an organization-wide implementation.

Many employment agencies and business consulting firms advice on following a 'business casual' code rather than a purely casual dress code. Laura Mellors, regional Vice President of Adecco, a New York based employment agency, said, “We tell anyone going on to a temporary or permanent position that they should dress on a business level and not casual. If we know a particular company has casual dress, we would assume it is business casual. We would always discount wearing cropped pants, spaghetti-strap tops, jeans or sneakers.”

A survey conducted by AICI3, in early 2002, of male and female executives of Fortune 500 companies revealed that the definition of business casual varied from one industry to another. Therefore, they developed three distinct levels 'business casual', namely Classic, Smart and Relaxed (Refer Table III).

Table III
Casual Dressing Levels

Source: www.ksidaros.com

Meanwhile, the 'battle' between casual and formal clothing was going in favor of formal clothing for the first time in the early 21st century. Dressing up for office seemed to be back in fashion. Employees in many industries, who had begun wearing casual clothes, were seen reverting back to formal attire. Reportedly, employees felt more professional when dressed in formals rather than in casuals.

According to the executive editor of Esquire magazine and author of a book titled Work Clothes, Scott Omelianuk, “Some people are going back to suits, because they like how they look. There is nothing wrong with that. I wear a suit to work every day, sometimes with a tie, sometimes without. The suit becomes, instead of a uniform, a personal choice. Some say that in the business world as a whole, a totally relaxed look will not command the respect that a formal look does.”

The Wall Street Journal and the South China Morning Post opined that the corporate world was reverting to formal dressing. A survey conducted by BBC revealed that almost one in five corporates have re-instituted the formal dress code at office. The source said, “The casual Friday mantra of the 1990s has begun to go out of fashion and the suits and ties are back.”

In late-2002, the investment bank major, Lehman Brothers told its male staff to stop wearing chinos and polo shirts and turn up for work in formals. Citibank's India division also reverted to formal dress codes. A Citibank employee said, “Our dress code was relaxed for about three years, during which, for example, we did not need to wear a tie in office. But now, we have been told to be formally dressed at all times and wear suits during presentations” (Refer Exhibit I for a note on employee appearance trends in the Indian corporate world).

A major reason for the above trend was the collapse of dotcoms around the world and the general economic slowdown which made the people more demure, cautious and traditional. The growing instance of layoffs throughout the world across various industries was also partly responsible for the change in attitudes and hence added to the comeback of formal attire. The era of globalization seemed to warrant for more professionalism – both in business deals as well as business attire. However, companies were finding it tough to revert to formals as they faced considerable opposition from their employees. These companies believed that 'casuals were there to stay.' Commenting on this, Kristin Bowl of SHRM, said, “I think that the death of casual dress has been greatly exaggerated. It is still out there in mainstream America, a very popular benefit.”

Perhaps, the best approach to decide on employee personal appearances was the one adopted by J.P.Morgan, (as summed up by a spokesperson), “We pay our people for their judgment, so we leave it up to them.”

1. Critically examine the reasons behind a typical office-goer from the 1990s converting to casual clothing as against formal dressing. Does the way a person dress up for office affect the way he/she performs his job? Give reasons to support your argument.

2. As part of an MNC organization's HR department responsible for formulating a dress code policy for the company, what are the factors that you would keep in mind before deciding on where to draw the line? As an employee of the same organization, would you like to be told about what you must wear to the office?

3. What are the reasons behind many companies reverting back to formal dress codes in the early 21st century? Do you think casual clothing for work would turn out to be just a fad in the long- run and die-out soon? Justify your answer

Exhibit I
Corporate Clothing – The Indian Perspective

Source: IBS Center for Management Research