Business Research
wana.s
city_employee_perceptions.pdf
Article
Public Personnet Management _ , . ^ _ , - . , . 42(3)452^70
City Employee Perceptions ©TheAuthor{s)2oi3 ^ _ _ _ ^ - Reprints and permissions:
OT the Impact of Dt*eSS 3,nCl sagepub.com/iournalsPermissions.nav ' DOI: 10.1177/0091026013495772
Appearance: You Are What p You Wear
Katherine A. Karl', Leda Mclntyre HalP, and Joy V. Peluchette'
Abstract This study focuses on city employees and their perceptions regarding the innportance of dress and appearance in the public sector workplace. Using the impression management literature and self-presentation theory, v^e examine the Impact of mode of dress worn (casual, business casual, formal business) on their self-perceptions of creativity, productivity, trustworthiness, authoritativeness, friendliness, and competence. We also examine their beliefs regarding the impact of employee appearance on customer perceptions of service quality. Our results suggest that "you are what you wear." Respondents felt more competent and authoritative when wearing either formal business or business casual, more trustworthy and productive when wearing business casual, and least friendly and creative when wearing formal business attire. Respondents also believed that uniforms had a positive impact on customer perceptions of overall service quality, and that tattoos, athletic wear, unconventional hairstyles or hair color, sweat pants, facial piercings, revealing clothing and clothing with tears, rips or holes had a negative impact. Implications and directions for future research are discussed.
Keywords workplace attire, dress code, impression management, service quality
'University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, USA ^Indiana University South Bend, USA ^University of Wollongong, Australia
Corresponding Author: Katherine A. Karl, University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, 615 McCallie Avenue, Chattanooga, TN 337403-2598, USA. Email: [email protected]
Karl et al. 453
Introduction
Significant shifts have occurred over the past decade in what is viewed as acceptable workplace attire. Although traditionally formal with suits and ties, workplace attire became more casual in the late 1990s with the boom of hi-tech and dotcom firms (Pames, 2001). Recently, many organizations have shifted back to a more professional standard of dress, with some even resorting to uniforms or corporate attire (Araneta, 2003; Lee, 2003; Lindeman, 2004; Munoz, 2001; Oleck & Prasso, 2001; Podmolik, 2003). There is still, however, widespread use of business casual or "dress casual" days, based on the notion that such attire contributes to higher employee morale and productivify (Hunsberger, 2005; Morand, 1998; Walter, 1996). In fact, according to a 2007 Benefits Survey by the Sociefy for Human Resource Management, 66% of human resource management professionals responded that their organizations offered casual dress days at least once a week, and 37% allowed casual dress every day (2007 Benefits, 2007).
Given that corporations see a link between workplace attire and other workplace outcomes that are tied to profitabilify, it is not surprising that much of the research on workplace attire has focused on the private sector. However, the same struggle to adopt dress and appearance guidelines that encourage employee productivify and pro- fessionalism has become an increasingly important issue in the public sector and some federal, state, and local offices have adopted policies to standardize attire for public employees (J. S. Bowman & Hooper, 1991; Gilbert, 2003). For example, the cify gov- ernment in Auburn, NY, recently banned the wearing of jeans on Fridays, a day tradi- tionally reserved for casual attire (Armour, 2007). Similarly, in an effort to eliminate its reputation for poor service and low employee morale, the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles went through a major turnaround in 2005 which included a new dress code of navy shirts and khakis (Smith, 2008). However, as baby boomers retire and govern- ment offices face problems in attracting and retaining younger workers, questions are being raised as to how strictly the line should be drawn on attire and other appearance factors in the public sector (Joyce, 2007).
To that end, this study focuses on cify employees and their perceptions regarding the importance of dress and appearance in the public sector workplace. More specifi- cally, using the impression management literature and self-presentation theory, we examine the impact of mode of dress worn (casual, business casual, formal business) on their self-perceptions of creativify, productivify, trustworthiness, authoritativeness, ftiendliness, and competence. We also examine their beliefs regarding the impact of employee appearance on customer perceptions of service qualify and finally, their preferences for several dress styles, including uniforms.
Role of Attire in Impression Management
Impression management, also called self-presentation, is the process by which indi- viduals aftempt to control the impressions others form of them (Gofftnan, 1959; Jones, 1990; Rosenfeld, Edwards, & Thomas, 2005; Schlenker, 1980). The past
454 Public Personnel Management 42(3)
decade has seen an explosion of books in the popular press providing advice on how individuals can manage other's impressions through their dress (Bixler, 1997; Morem, 1997; Sabath, 2000; Waldrop, 1997). Pioneered by John T. Molloy's New Dress for Success Book (Molloy, 1988), the common theme in these books is that clothing deci- sions can make a difference in how one is perceived by others and that clothing wear- ers can use their attire decisions to influence the impressions formed by others in the workplace. In support, studies have shown that the way a person dresses influences others' impressions of their credibility (O'Neal & Lapitsky, 1991), sociability (Johnson, Nagasawa, & Peters, 1977), status (Mast & Hall, 2004; Sybers & Roach, 1962), professionalism, intelligence, competence, efficiency, honesty, and reliability (Y. Kwon, 1994b; Y. H. Kwon & Färber, 1992). Evidence also suggests that indi- viduals consciously use their attire to manage the impressions of others with formal business attire being used to enhance status and respect (Rucker, Anderson, & Kangas, 1999) and more casual dress to develop cotinections with others (Rafaeli, Dutton, Harquail, & Mackie-Lewis, 1997).
In a 1992 study, J. S. Bowman (1992) surveyed personnel officials from fotir agen- cies (the departments of administration, finance, and commerce and the executive office ofthe govemor in all 50 states) and found that 75% ofthe managers in their sample believe that employees who are well-dressed and groomed are perceived as more intelligent, hardworking, and socially acceptable than those with a more casual appearance. The author adds that most respondents believe that
dress establishes a level of respect and authority often necessary to get work done, and rests on the premise that certain kinds of clothes preclude certain types of behavior. Casually attired employees neither command nor show the respect they do when dressed according to agency norms. (J. S. Bowman, 1992, p. 39)
In stimmarizing the findings. Bowman concludes that "employees who have not mastered the simple art of presenting themselves are not likely to master the more complex skills needed to manage people, administer programs, and work with the public" (p. 47). This supports earlier arguments made by J. S. Bowman and Hooper, (1991) that "good dress and good grooming" in govemment agencies allow the wearer to reflect professional confidence and communicate credibility and responsibility.
Impact of Attire on Self-Perceptions
Research has shown that people perceive themselves differently based on the clothing they are wearing. That is, individuals tend to form their own mental models concem- ing proper modes of dress and the expected behaviors congment with those dress styles (Schneider, 1973). For example, Solomon and Schopler ( 1982) found that males and females indicated that the appropriateness of their clothing affected the quality of their performance and their mood in the workplace. Likewise, Y. Kwon (1994a) found that positive feelings about one's clothing were found to enhance self-perceptions of one's emotion, sociability, and occupational competency, whereas negative feelings
Karl et al. 455
about one's clothes tended to reduce self-perceptions of these attributes. Another study found that those who described themselves as properly dressed believed that their attire made them look significantly more responsible, competent, knowledge- able, professional, honest, reliable, intelligent, trustworthy, hardworking, and efficient than when not so (Y. Kwon, 1994b).
Other research has moved beyond appropriate attire to examine the impact of spe- cific styles of clothing on self-perceptions. For example, a 1999 survey of more than a thousand human resource executives by national employment law firm Jackson and Lewis indicated that 44% reported an increase in tardiness and absenteeism and 30% reported a rise in fiirtatious behavior after the implementation of dress-down policies (Survey Finds Tardiness and Absenteeism Up at Workplaces That Dress Down, 2000). These findings suggest that casual dress may lead to a casual work ethic. Another study by Hannover and Kuehnen (2002) found that participants who were dressed formally used more formal adjectives to describe themselves (e.g., career oriented, ambitious, respectable, organized, determined, punctual). The opposite was found for those who were dressed more casually (e.g., casual, easygoing, playfiil, laid-back). Similarly, an examination of flight attendants revealed that they believed they acted less refined when working with passengers when wearing a casual versus formal uni- form and they also reported feeling more self-conscious, unconfident, embarrassed, and unprofessional (Adomaitis & Johnson, 2005). Finally, a study examining the impact of mode of dress worn on employee self-perceptions found that respondents felt most authoritative, trustworthy, and competent when wearing formal business attire, but friendliest when wearing casual (shorts, t-shirt, tetmis shoes), or business casual attire (Peluchette & Karl, 2007).
Less is known about how attire impacts employee self-perceptions in the public sec- tor, although anecdotal data suggests that employees in the federal sector do not feel comfortable unless they dress "to fit the part" (Joyce, 2007). As public sector organiza- tions face increasing pressure to enhance productivity and to attract and retain talent with limited resotirces, aspects of the workplace are coming under greater scrutiny as a means of accomplishing these objectives (Benest, 2008; Leuenberger & Klüver, 2005-2006). Oppermann (2007) argues that development of dress codes in the public sector need to consider employee concerns for comfort, but also strive to maintain productivity and a professional image. The mission and culture of a particular agency would dictate how these are weighed. Given the private sector findings and the anecdotal evidence from the public seetor, we predict that mode of dress affects self-perceptions such that:
Hypothesis 1\ Employees will report feeling more competent, authoritative, trustwor- thy and productive when wearing formal attire than when wearing casual attire.
Hypothesis 2: Employees will report feeling friendlier and more creative in casual or business casual attire than formal attire.
Managing Customer Impressions of Service Quality
Rafaeli and Pratt (1993) suggested that what employees wear while at work and how they appear while interacting with customers can infiuence customers' behaviors and
456 Public Personnel Management 42(3)
expectations about the organization and the service that it provides. In support, find- ings from a study of human resource managers employed in a variety of service orga- nizations (e.g., consultants, health care and human services, hotel and restaurants, financial, employment agencies) indicate that the appearance of professional service employees plays a significant role in the way clients or customers evaluate their com- pany's services (Easterling & Leslie, 1992). Workman and Johnson (1989) also found that inferences about others, based on their clothing, go beyond personal characteris- tics to include extended inferences about the company for which the individual works.
There is evidence that the link between employee clothing and perceptions of ser- vice quality is also being recognized in the public sector. In a 1992 survey of public managers, J. S. Bowman (1992) found that more than 85% agreed that an employee's appearance is important to the organization and its image. In a study of university clerical and administrative staff, employees indicated that appropriate attire allowed them to establish better rapport with key constituencies and deliver better-quality ser- vice (Rafaeli et al., 1997). Likewise, a more recent survey by Smith (2008) found 44% of managers thought dress codes created a more professional atmosphere and 33% thought it created a better public image for the agency.
The employee image issue has become even more complicated for organizations as less-conventional aspects of appearance have gained popularity in society. Today, about 24% of Americans have a tattoo and about 14% have a body piercing some- where other than their earlobe (Laumann & Derick, 2006). These numbers are even higher among young people (Tattoo, Bling Craze Raises Hiring Issues, 2006). As body art becomes increasingly part of the mainstream, some employers have taken a more flexible stance on such trends or are dealing with it on a case-by-case basis (B. Bowman, 2005). Org (2003) states that a number of major corporations, such as Boeing and Ford Motor Company, have adopted relaxed attitudes toward tattoos and body piercings in hopes of attracting younger workers. Some state and federal govem- ment agencies may be relaxing their standards too. For example, a recmiter for a defense and national security placement firm recently indicated that a woman showed up for an interview with a nose stud, but actually got the job with the govemment agency (Joyce, 2007). Medici (2012) suggests that relaxed dress codes are due in part to the preferences of younger generations entering the workforce who believe more in the value ofthe work they do than the image they present.
However, employers are aware that there is a stigma associated with unconven- tional appearance factors which could have implications for customer perceptions. Studies show that individuals with tattoos or body piercings are generally viewed as less credible (Seiter & Hatch, 2005) and are perceived less favorably by coworkers (Chen, 2007; Miller, Niçois, & Eure, 2009). In response, most employers have a nega- tive view of such physical decorations. For example. Acor (2001) found that employ- ers negatively rated applicants with eyebrow piercings, seeing them as unacceptable regardless ofthe size and type of business. A study of employers found that 72% were repelled by body piercings, 69% by visible tattoos, 73% by unusual hair color, and 64% by unusual hairstyles (How Companies Are Dealing With Workplace Body Art Issues, 2004). Many employers have conservative clients and they want to portray a professional image. For example, Joyce (2007) argues that govemment employers
Karl et al. 457
generally see these new types of piercings as offending clients or making them feel uncomfortable. As in the private sector, customer perceptions in the public sector are likely to be influenced by the attire worn by direct service employees or those in regu- lar contact with the public. More specifically, we predict that:
Hypothesis 3: Employees will agree that more casual attire, unconventional hair- styles or color, facial piercings, and revealing clothing will have a negative impact on customer perceptions of service quality.
Method
This section outlines the characteristics of our sample, the various measures used for our study, and procedures used for data analyses.
Sample
We were interested in a population of public sector working professionals employed in a variety of occupations who had experience wearing the three styles of workplace attire that were the focus of our study: formal business, business casual, and casual. To access a sample with such variety and experience, we surveyed employees of a mid- sized city in the Midwest which we believe reflect fairly mainstream views about attire. The HR department supplied a list of managers and we randomly selected 12 managers from this list and surveyed them and their 417 direct reports, 260 surveys were returned.
About half (52%) of the respondents were males. The average age was 45.94 (SD = 11.58) and the average hours worked per week was 40.6 (SD = 8.45). With regard to position, 37% of the sample consisted of management or executive personnel. These respondents worked in a wide variety of agencies or departments including parks department, zoo, water works, police department, fire department, building depart- ment, clerk's office, financial administration, code enforcement, public works, and the legal department.
Sixty-six percent of our 260 respondents (n = 172) reported that their organization had a dress code policy and also had casual dress days. Four percent (n = 9) reported they used to have casual dress days but do not now. Most respondents (56%, n = 146) reported that the trend in general attire worn in their organization over the past 10 years had stayed the same, 30% (n = 78) reported it had gone from formal to casual and 11% (w = 29) reported it had gone from casual to formal.
Measures
The survey instrument consisted of two sections: (a) background information and (b) workplace attire. The workplace attire section consisted of three subsections: self- perceptions, impact of attire on customer perceptions, and dress preference.
458 Public Personnel Management 42(3)
Background information. Respondents answered several single-item demographic questions regarding gender, age, position level, and hours worked per week. In addi- tion, respondents answered the following attire-related questions: (a) "Does your orga- nization have an explicit dress code (written policy) for employees in your position?" (b) "Does your organization have "dress casual" days?" and (c) "Over the past ten years, how would you describe the trend in general attire in your organization?"
Self-perceptions. Self-perceptions were measured using the scale developed by Peluchette and Karl (2007). Respondents were given a detailed description of each of the three modes of dress (formal business, business casual, and casual) for men and women. They were then asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed that each of three modes of dress had an impact on 16 self-perceptions: authoritative, influential, powerñil, self-confident, competent, professional, hardworking, produc- tive, trustworthy, dependable, agreeable, friendly, cheerful, approachable, creative, and inspired. For example, in the formal business attire question, respondents were asked, "On the day or days I dressed in formal business attire, I felt . . . ." This question was followed by each of these 16 adjectives, along with a 5-point response scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). These 16 items were grouped into six sub- scales: friendly (agreeable, friendly, cheerful, and approachable), creative (creative and inspired), competent (self-confident, competent, and professional), authoritative (authoritative, infiuential, and powerful), productive (hardworking and productive), trustworthy (trustworthy and dependable).
Because each respondent answered each item three times (once for each mode of dress), we calculated three reliabilify coefficients (Cronbach's a) for each. The reli- abilify coefficients for each scale (formal, business casual, and casual) were as fol- lows: Friendly (.90, .90, .90), Creative (.90, .90, .89), Competent (.90, .89, .83), Authoritative (.91, .87, .86), Productive (.92, .91, .91), and Trustworthy (.94, .90, .93).
Impact of attire on customer perceptions. For this measure, respondents were asked what impact they believed that 11 different appearance factors or items of clothing had on customer perceptions of an employee's (a) abilify to provide accurate and dependable service; (b) willingness to help customers and provide prompt service; (c) knowledge, competence and abilify to convey trust and confidence; and (c) abilify to provide caring and individualized attention. Each of these measures correspond to four of the service dimensions in the well-known SERVQUAL measure developed by Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry (1988) namely, reliabilify, responsiveness, assurance, and empa- thy, respectively. The 11 items included the following: uniforms; facial piercings; tat- toos; unconventional hair color (e.g., blue, green, bright red); sweat pants; team apparel; athletic wear (e.g., spandex, tights, tank tops), clothing displaying written words; cloth- ing with tears, rips, or holes; and clothing that bares belly buttons, midriff, or cleavage. All items were answered using a 5-point response scale (1 = very negative, 5 = very positive). An overall measure of customer perceptions of service qualify was computed for each of the 11 items by calculating the average of all 4 ratings for each measure. Coefficient alphas for these 11 overall measures ranged between .89 and .97.
Karl et al. 459
Dress preference. Respondents were asked to place an X in the column that indicates the mode of dress which most closely describes (a) "what you would prefer to wear to work every day," and (b) "how you usually dress in your department/division." For these two questions, respondents were given five choices: formal business, business casual, casual, casual cool/fashion, and uniform. Three additional items included the following: (a) "I personally like having casual dress days (e.g., every Friday or once a month, etc.), (b) "I personally like casual dress policies (i.e., dressing casually every day or almost every day," and (c) "I personally don't like having to wear a uniform." The last three items were answered using a 5-point response scale (1 = strongly dis- agree, 5 = strongly agree).
Analyses
To examine the impact of mode of dress wom on self-perceptions, we used the SPSS general linear model (GLM) repeated measures procedure, which provides analysis of variance (ANOVA) when the same measurement is made several times on each subject. The within-subjects variable, mode of dress wom, was measured three times for each respondent: once for formal business attire, once for business casual, and once for casual. The ANOVA with repeated measures was conducted six times: once for each of the self-perceptions measured (Productive, Authoritative, Tmstworthy, Friendly, Creative, and Competent). The SPSS GLM repeated-measures procedure also provides post hoc comparisons when significant differences between means exist. This proce- dure compares differences between the estimated marginal means and adjusts for mul- tiple comparisons using the Bonferroni test, which is powerful when the number of mean comparisons is small. Because past research has found dress preference to be an important variable affecting self-perceptions (Peluchette & Karl, 2007), we controlled for this effect by including dress preference as a covariate. Moreover, because we were only interested in the impact of formal dress, business castial, and casual attire on self- perceptions, we eliminated those who indicated that either uniforms or fashion/casual cool was their preferred mode of dress. The dress preference variable was coded 1 = formal business, 2 = business casual, and 3 = casual. Furthermore, not all of our 260 respondents had experience wearing all three modes of dress, thus, the final sample size for this analysis was 148. Ofthe 148,67% were females (« = 84), 42% were managerial employees (« = 62), and 69% were in positions that involved interacting with the public (n = 102). The average age was 45.42 {SD = 10.6).
Results
Table 1 shows the results of the within-subject tests for the main effect of mode of dress wom on each of the six self-perceptions. These results are also shown graphi- cally in Figure 1. Mode of dress wom had a significant main effect on all six self- perceptions. Respondents felt more competent and authoritative when wearing either formal business or business casual than when wearing casual attire. However, respon- dents felt more tmstworthy when wearing business casual (than when wearing casual) and more productive when wearing business casual (than when wearing formal
460 Public Personnel Management 42(3)
Table I . ANOVA Results for the Main Effect of Mode of Dress Worn on Self-Perceptions.
Mode of dress worn
Self-perceptions
Friendly
Creative Productive
Competent Trustworthy Authoritative
Formal
M
3.58»
3.43» 3.59» 4.09» 3.89='
3.85»
SE
.08
.08
.08
.07
.07
.08
Business
casual
M
3.98"
3.73" 3.83"
3.96" 3.98'
3.85"
SE
.06
.07
.07
.06
.06
.06
Casual
M
3.87"
3.67" 3.70'
3.59^ 3.74"
3.11^
SE
.07
.07
.07
.07
.07
.06
6.55 (2, 290)**
7.98 (2, 290)*** 12.73 (2, 292)***
13.03(2,288)*** 9.37 (2, 292)***
7.34 (2, 288)***
Note. Means shown are the estimated means and those with different superscripts (a, b, c) are significantly different from one another.
—• • Friendly II Creative
•••A" Produtive —H- Competent —«— Trustworthy - • • Authoritative
Formal Business Business Casual Casual
Figure I . The impact of mode of dress worn on employee self-perceptions.
Karletal. 461
Table 2. Results for the Impact of Clothing or Appearance on Customer Perceptions of Service Quality.
Overall Percent of respondents reporting that the service clothing or appearance item had no impact on quality' customer perceptions of . . .
M SD Reliability Responsiveness Assurance Empathy
24 39 47 39 24 22 21 23 21 20
34 46 52 46 32 32 34 34 28 29
Uniforms 3.95 .75 30 31 Team apparel 2.75 .99 34 44 Clothing displaying written words 2.53 .77 46 51 Tattoos 2.23 .77 34 41 Athletic wear 2.05 .81 18 27 Unconventional hairstyles 2.02 .73 19 31 Unconventional hair color 1.97 .74 18 29 Sv^eat pants 1.97 .72 19 26 Facial piercings 1.90 .75 44 27 Clothing that bares belly buttons, 1.81 .83 15 24
midriff, or cleavage Clothing with tears, rips, or holes 1.73 .72 10 18 14 20
"The response scale for these items ranged between I = very negative impact, and 5 = very positive impact.
business or casual). Thus, Hypothesis 1 was only partially supported. Respondents reported feeling least friendly and creative when wearing formal business attire, sup- porting Hypothesis 2.
Because managers and those who interact with the public are more likely to be concemed with impression management (Easterling & Leslie, 1992; Nickson, Warhurst, & Dutton, 2005; Rafaeli et al., 1997), we performed two additional ANOVA with repeated-measures analyses in which managerial status was included as a between-subjects factor in the first, and interaction with the public was included in the second. We chose not to include both factors together because of small cell sizes (e.g., the number of managers who did not interact with the public was only 18). There were no significant main effects or interactions for managerial status on any ofthe six self- perceptions. Likewise, there were no main effects for interaction with the public; how- ever, there was one significant interaction involving feelings of competence, F(2, 286) = 4.28, p < .05. Those who interact with the public feel equally competent in either business casual or formal business. Those who do not interact with the public feel more competent in formal business than they do in business casual. Both groups feel the least competent in casual attire (see Figure 2).
Table 2 shows the means and standard deviations for respondents' beliefs regarding the impact of clothing or appearance on customer perceptions of service quality. The percent of respondents who believed that the clothing or appearance item had no impact on customer perceptions is also shown. In general, respondents believed that uniforms had a positive impact on customer perceptions of overall service quality
462 Public Personnel Management 42(3)
4.4
4.2
3.8
3.6
3.4
3.2
Formal Business Business Casual Casual
No Interaction with Public Interacts with Public
Figure 2. The interaction between mode of dress worn and interaction with the public on employee self-perceptions of their own competence.
(M = 3.95, SD = .75). Most respondents believed that team apparel and clothing dis- playing written words had no impact on customer perceptions {M= 2.75, SD = .99 and M= 2.53, SD = .77, respectively). In contrast, respondents tended to believe that tat- toos, athletic wear, unconventional hairstyles or hair color, sweat pants, facial pierc- ings, revealing clothing, and clothing with tears, rips, or holes had a negative impact on customer perceptions of service quality. Interestingly, a within-subjects test (using ANOVA with repeated measures) for the main effect of clothing or appearance item on customer perceptions revealed that tattoos, while generally perceived as having a negative impact on customer perceptions of service quality (M= 2.23, SD = .77), were perceived as having less of a negative impact than athletic wear (M= 2.05, SD = .81), imconventional hairstyles (M = 2.02, SD = .73) or hair color (M = 1.97, SD = .74), sweat pants (M = 1.97, SD = .72), facial piercings (M= 1.90, SD = .75), revealing clothing (M= 1.81, SD = .83), or clothing with tears, rips or holes (M= 1.73, SD = .72). Thus, Hypothesis 3—which predicted that employees will agree that more casual attire, unconventional hairstyles or color, facial piercings, and revealing clothing will have a negative impact on customer perceptions of service quality—was supported.
A comparison of means revealed managers were more likely than nonmanagers to report that tmiforms had a positive impact on customer perceptions of service quality,
Karl et al. 463
F(l, 238) = 6.56,p < .05. There were no significant differences between managers and nonmanagers on the other variables. We also compared the means of "those employ- ees who interact with the public" with "those who do not" and found significant dif- ferences on 2 of the 11 items. Those who interact with the public were more likely to report that unconventional hair color, F(l, 238) = 5.01, p < .05, and clothing with tears, rips or holes, F(l, 238) = 5.01,p< .05, had a negative impact on customer per- ceptions of service qualify. Age was also related to respondents' ratings. More specifi- cally, older workers were more likely than younger workers to report that facial piercings {r = -.l6,p< .05) tattoos (r = - .23 ,p < .001), unconventional hair color (r = -.20, p < .01) and hairsfyles (r = -.18, p < .01), clothing with tears, rips or holes (r = -.26,p < .001), and revealing clothing (r = -.l6,p< .05) had a negative impact on customer perceptions of service qualify. In contrast, older workers were more likely than younger workers to report that team apparel (r = .14, jo < .05) had a positive impact on customer perceptions.
Business casual was the preferred mode of dress for most of the public employees we surveyed. Specifically, about half of the respondents showed a preference for busi- ness casual attire (49%), followed by casual (28%), uniform (15%), formal business (6%), and fashion/casual cool (2%) attire. Similar results were found for the fype of attire that respondents reported that they usually wore to work. Most wore business casual (55%), followed by either casual (16%) or uniforms (16%), then formal busi- ness (11%) and fashion/casual cool (2%). When asked whether they liked casual dress policies or wearing uniforms, our respondents, in general, gave neutral responses (M= 3.07, SD = 1.35; andM= 2.76, SD = 1.44, respectively). In contrast, respondents generally liked having casual dress days {M= 3.87, SD = 1.2).
Discussion
The results of this study do indeed suggest that "you are what you wear," or the way one looks can affect the way one thinks, feels, and acts. Respondents in this study reported feeling more competent and authoritative in either formal business or busi- ness casual attire than they did in casual attire. Our findings also indicate that respon- dents felt less creative in formal business attire, providing support for the late 1990s casual dress practices of high-tech and dotcom companies in their efforts to promote creative thinking (Paige, 2004). Not surprisingly, our respondents also felt less friendly when formally dressed as compared with either of the other two sfyles. This is consis- tent with previous research suggesting that one's workplace attire can lead to more open communication by eliminating status barriers and making everyone seem more approachable (Gutierrez & Freese, 1999). Based on evidence that individuals in for- mal dress described themselves as ambitious, organized, determined, and punctual (Hannover & Kuehnen, 2002), we expected that respondents would report feeling most productive in formal attire. However, our findings show that respondents felt more productive in business casual attire than they did in formal attire. It is likely that comfort plays a role in productivify. Individuals may feel more professional when dressed formally, but at the same time they feel less comfortable, physically, and as a result feel less productive than they would if they were dressed more comfortably.
464 Public Personnel Management 42(3)
Much ofthe literature reviewed earlier suggests clear cotinections between employee dress and customer perceptions of service quality with employees seen as "animate components of organizational aesthetics" (Witz, Warhurst, & Nickson, 2003). That is, customer evaluations of service encounters and their perceptions of service quality are based on the nature of their interactions with service employees. These interactions include verbal behavior (e.g., use of greetings, courtesy) and nonverbal communica- tion, such as body language, use of touch, and physical appearance or appropriate dress (Rafaeli & Pratt, 1993; Sundaram & Webster, 2000). Our respondents agreed that more casual attire (athletic wear, sweat pants, and clothing with holes), unconventional hair- styles or color, facial piercings, and revealing clothing would have a negative irnpact on customer perceptions of service quality. Because public employees, in general, are maligned and portrayed as less effective and less efficient than their private sector counterparts (Goodsell, 1994), employee image may be more important in the public sector. Even though this negative stereotype of public employees is not supported by facts, the impression is strong, pervasive, and often ñieled by elected officials (Goodsell, 1994; Halachmi, 1997). Thus, regulating attire seems to be a straightforward option for public administrators seeking ways to eam positive evaluations from customers.
Relevant to enacting public sector dress codes is whether the employee has direct contact with the public. Those who are fire fighters, police officers, park naturalists, sanitation workers, or health service providers have daily interaction with those who they serve, making their attire more salient for self and public perceptions. Within job type, there may be different expectations as to what is seen as appropriate attire depending upon the type of office and/or clients served. For example, it is possible that the attire and appearance of clerical staff in the Mayor's office would be held to a dif- ferent standard of professionalism as compared with the clerical staff in the zoning office. However, to avoid claims for discrimination or unfair practices, public agen- cies are required to have standard dress codes within profession groups to ensure uni- formity of treatment for those in professional and nonprofessional staff positions. Since most of our public sector respondents reported that wearing business casual attire had a positive impact on their self-perceptions of productivity and that they also preferred wearing such attire, we argue that business casual attire would be a good attire style choice for public sector dress codes.
Given that employee appearance may have a negative impact on customer percep- tions, any dress code policy should not only prohibit the wearing of tom or revealing clothing, but should also establish standards for hairstyles and color, and body art or piercings. Interestingly, we found that tattoos were generally viewed as having a nega- tive effect on customer perceptions. However, our respondents saw these as having less of an impact than the other unconventional aspects of appearance. While this might provide evidence as to a gaining acceptance of body art in society, there still appears to be a stigma associated with such adomments and their appropriateness in the workplace. In particular, our older respondents believed that tattoos would have a greater negative effect on customers' service quality perceptions. Thus, while we believe that public sector dress policies should be extended to include standards for other aspects of appearance, this would appear to be especially pmdent for those pub- lic agencies serving large populations of older clientele.
Karl et al. 465
Although our findings help serve as a guide in developing dress codes for the public sector, the process for developing and implementing dress policies should involve sharing information with employees as to the benefits expected from such policies. For example, public sector managers could emphasize how unconventional appear- ance characteristics would reduce customers' respect for employees and make it dif- ficult for them to carry out their public duties. In addition, it is important to obtain employee input and involvement in the process so as to gain broader understanding and acceptance for smoother implementation. As noted by J. S. Bowman and Hooper (1991), a perfectly reasonable dress or appearance code may cause disruption if it comes in the form of a command. This was the case in San Bernardino County when a dress code was imposed on county employees (Powers & Keller, 2006). For exam- ple, one employee stated "What I most dislike about the dress code is that it's being imposed by a group of people that are parochial in their views on fashion; they're very conventional in style and want to impose that on everybody." Even if an organization decides on a particular style of attire for its dress code, getting employee input on some of the finer details (such as the color, fabric, etc.) can go a long way in facilitating acceptance and implementation of the policy. Similarly, from his experience as a supervisor in the federal workplace, Oppermann (2007) learned that lack of solicita- tion of employee input was a major mistake in his initial development of a dress code for his agency. After significant backlash, he then involved employees in the process and negotiated a dress code that satisfied all parties.
Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research
One limitation of this study is that we measured self-reported employee perceptions of how they felt in different modes of workplace attire. Some people may not be effective in describing how they felt in different circumstances other than their current circum- stances, in part because how one feels is influenced by current mood states (Barsade & Gibson, 2007; Judge, Woolfe, & Hurst, 2009; Liu, Prati, Perrewe, & Ferris, 2008). Moreover, people who believe that "dress makes the person" are likely to provide favorable ratings for what they feel is proper workplace attire regardless of how they actually feel in various clothing styles. Thus, future research should measure employee self-perceptions while they are wearing different styles of clothes and control for gen- eral beliefs.
Future research should not only measure self-perceptions but actual behavior. Even though our respondents reported feeling less friendly in formal attire, we cannot con- clude that they actually behave in a less-friendly manner. However, given the ample research demonstrating a strong link between self-perceptions and behavior, we believe that the behavior of employees is likely to be consistent with attitudes when the employee wears certain modes of attire. For example, research by Bandura (Bandura, 1986, 1997) has shown that self-perceptions of one's competence, or self- efficacy beliefs, affect how much effort a person will direct toward a goal and how long he or she will persist in striving to attain a goal. Self-perceptions have also been found to create a self-fulfilling prophecy. Referred to as the Galatea effect, it has been found that individuals' self-expectations about their performance largely determine
466 Public Personnel Management 42(3)
their actual performance (Eden, 1990; Eden & Kinnar, 1991; Eden & Ravid, 1982). Future research should examine the effect of workplace attire on self-perceptions and behavior.
How one feels in a certain type of clothing may also depend on the culture of the organization or the norms for dress in that organization. The organization's mission or goals or the type of clients served may also play a role. For example, those employees whose jobs involve nurturing, such as social services or health care, may have differ- ent perceptions from those whose jobs involve enforcement such as a zoning office or court house. Thus, future research should examine the impact of culture, norms, orga- nizational goals or type of services provided. Given that most ofthe employees in our sample were not required to wear uniforms, we chose not to examine the impact of wearing uniforms on self-perceptions. However, given the past research on flight attendants showing that many felt better able to perform their jobs in formal uniforms as opposed to casual uniforms consisting of khakis and t-shirts (Adomaitis & Johnson, 2005), future research is needed to examine the impact of wearing uniforms on employee self-perceptions. Type of work being performed should also be examined as part of this. For example, an initial Homeland Security Department's "coat and tie" dress code for federal air marshals was protested by many marshals for compromising their in-flight anonymity and safety from attack, arguing that the tie would allow an attacker to incapacitate them (Oppermann, 2007).
Based on the rationale that most, if not all, respondents in our sample would have been past or present customers of public services themselves, we examined public sec- tor employee beliefs regarding the impact of appearance on customer perceptions of service quality. However, we recognize that not surveying actual customers of public sector services is another limitation. Another limitation is that our sample was limited to one city in the Midwest. While Midwestem city employees may reflect mainstream cultural norms and values, our findings may not be generalizable to other parts of the country or other types of govemment workers. Future research should also examine state and federal govemment workers. In addition, this study only examined the impact of extremely casual attire or unconventional appearance items such as facial piercings on customer perceptions. Moreover, the impact of formal versus business casual attire on customer perceptions of service quality should be studied. Finally, the type of work performed may affect customer perceptions such that certain clothing or appearance items may have a greater impact on employee perceptions of service quality depending on the type of public service provided by the worker. For example, formal business attire may be more important for employees in a court house than for social workers in the department of health and human services.
Conclusion
This exploratory study has provided preliminary evidence suggesting that workplace attire can affect public employee self-perceptions of competence, friendliness, author- ity, and creativity as well as customer perceptions of the quality of public services. While dress codes and uniforms have long been a part of many public sector jobs (e.g,, fire fighters, police officers, park naturalists, health service providers), our findings
Karl et al. 467
suggest that other public organizations should devote more attention to the issue of workplace attire in efforts to enhance the service experience.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
Acor, A. (2001). Employers' perceptions of persons with body art and an experimental test regarding eyebrow piercing. Dissertation Abstracts International, Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 61(1-B), 3885.
Adomaitis, A. D., & Johnson, K. K. P. (2005). Casual versus formal imiforms: Flight atten- dants' Self-perceptions and perceived appraisals by others. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 23, SS-lOl.
Araneta, R. (2003). Dressing up for success (again). Working Woman, 26, 20-21. Armour, S. (2007, July 10). "Business casual" causes confusion; Are flip-flops a faux pas? It
can be tough as the line keeps moving. USA Today (Money Section), p. IB. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social-cognitive view. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman. Barsade, S., & Gibson, D. (2007). Why does affect matter in organizations? Academy of
Management Perspectives, 21, 36-59. Benest, F. (2008). Retaining and growing talent: Strategies to create organizational "stickiness."
Public Management, 90, 20-25. Bixler, S. (1997). The new professional image: From business casual to the ultimate power
look. Cincinnati, OH: Adams Media Corp. Bowman, B. (2005, March 30). Many employers still have no policy on tattoos, body piercings,
survey shows. Knight Ridder Tribune Business News, p. 1. Bowman, J. S. (1992). Dress standards in government: A national survey of state administrators.
Review of Public Personnel Administration, 12, 35-51. Bowman, J. S., & Hooper, H. (1991). Dress and grooming regulations in the public sector:
Standards, legality, and enforcement. Public Administration Quarterly, 15, 328-340. Chen, H. H. (2007). Tattoo survey results: Vault explains it all for you. Retrieved from http://
www.vault.com/nr/main_article_detail.jsp?article_id=5319842&ht_type=5 Easterling, C. R., & Leslie, J. E. (1992). Perceived importance and usage of dress codes among
organizations that market professional services. Public Personnel Management, 21,211-220. Eden, D. ( 1990). Pygmalion in management: Productivity as a self-fulfilling prophecy. Lanham,
MD: Lexington Books. Eden, D., & Kinnar, J. (1991). Modeling galatea: Boosting self-efficacy to increase volunteer-
ing. yo«r«a/o/.^;jp/¡eí/P5yc/!o/ogy, 76, 770-780.
468 Public Personnel Management 42(3)
Eden, D., & Ravid, G. (1982). Pygmalion versus self-expectancy: Effects of instructor and self- expectancy on trainee performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 50,351-364.
Flach, T., & Hinshaw, D. (2009). Lexington county ponders new employee dress code. Retrieved from http://www.thestate.coni/154/story/726105.html
Gilbert, J. (2003). Image is everything. Sales and Marketing Management, 155, 30-36. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NJ: Doubleday. Goodsell, C. T. (1994). The case for bureaucracy: A public administration polemic (3rd ed.).
Chatham, NJ: Chatham House Publishers. Gutierrez, T., & Freese, J. (1999). Dress-down days: Benefit or burden? CPA Journal, 69,
32-37. Halachmi, A. (1997). Service quality in the public sector: An international symposium. Public
Productivity & Management Review, 21,7-13. Hannover, B., & Kuehnen, U. (2002). "The clothing makes the self via knowledge activation.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 3, 2513-2525. How Companies Are Dealing With Workplace Body Art Issues. (2004, April). HR Focus, 81, 9. Hunsberger, B. (2005, March 10). Fashion and corporate policy collide in Portland, Oregon.
Knight Ridder Tribune Business News, Washington, p. 1. Johnson, B. H., Nagasawa, R. H., & Peters, K. (1977). Clothing style differences: Their effect
on the impression of sociability. Home Economics Journal, 6, 58-63. Jones, E. (1990). Interpersonal perception. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman. Joyce, A. (2007, February 25). Fashion leads by a nose; Piercings are pushing the limits of
office dress. The Washington Post (Financial Section), p. F04. Judge, T., Woolfe, E., & Hurst, C. (2009). Is emotional labor more difficult for some than for
others? A multilevel experience-sampling study. Personnel Psychology, 62, 57-88. Kwon, Y. (1994a). Feeling toward one's clothing and self-perception of emotion, sociability,
and work competency. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 9, 129-139. Kwon, Y. (1994b). The influence of appropriateness of dress and gender on the self-perception
of occupational attributes. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 12, 33-37. Kwon, Y. H., & Färber, A. (1992). Attitudes toward appropriate clothing in perception of occu-
pational attributes. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 74, 163-169. Laumann, A. E., & Derick, A. J. (2006). Tattoos and body piercings in the United States: A
national data set. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 55, 413-421. Lee, J. (2003, December 15). Leave your hat on, but lose the jeans. Newsweek, 142, p. 22. Leuenberger, D., & Klüver, J. (2005-2006). Changing culture: Generational collision and cre-
ativity. Public Manager, 34, 16-21. Lindeman, T. (2004, March 2). Tough job climate causes casual look to give way to more for-
mal attire. Knight Ridder Tribune Business News, p. 1. Liu, Y., Prati, L., Perrewe, P., & Ferris, G. (2008). The relationship between emotional resources
and emotional labor: An exploratory study. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38, 2410-2439.
Mast, M. S., & Hall, J. A. (2004). Who is the boss and who is not? Accuracy of judging status. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 28, 145-165.
Medici, A. (2012). Jeans and flip-flops at work? Generations collide as dress codes relax. Retrieved from http://www.federaltimes.com/artiele/20121104/PERSONNEL03/31104 0005/Jeans-flip-flops-work-Generations-collide-dress-codes-relax
Miller, B., Niçois, K. M., & Eure, J. (2009). Body art in the workplace: Piercing employment "ÇiOssihWiiitsl Personnel Review, 38, 621-640.
Molloy, J. T. (1988). New dress for success book. New York, NY: Warner Books.
Karl et al. 469
Morand, D. A. (1998). Getting serious about going casual on the job. Business Horizons, 41, 51-56.
Morem, S. (1997). How to gain the professional edge: Achieve the personal and professional image you want. New York, NY: Checkmark Books.
Munoz, L. (2001). The suit is back—Or is it? Fortune, 143, 202. Nickson, D., Warhurst, C , & Dutton, E. (2005). The importance of attitude and appearance
in the service encounter in retail and hospitality. Managing Service Quality, 15, 195-208. Oleck, J., & Prasso, S. (2001, March). Casual dress: Dot-com casualty? Business Week, p. 8. O'Neal, G. S., & Lapitsky, M. (1991). Effects of clothing as nonverbal communication on cred-
ibility ofthe message source. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 9, 28-34. Oppermann, S. (2007). Is a dress code an anachronism or useful tool in projecting an agency's
image? FedSmith.com, For the Informed Fed. Retrieved from http://vvww.fedsmith.com/ article/1257
Org, M. (2003, August). The tattooed executive. Wall Street Journal (Eastem Edition), 242, p. Dl-15.
Paige, J. (2004, July 2). HR managers tackle issue of proper dress. Triangle Business Journal. Retrieved from http://triangle.bizjoumals.com/triangle/stories/2004/07/05/focus 1 .html
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64, 12-40.
Pames, A. (2001, June). Dress-down is down if not quite out. New York Times, 150, p. Gl. Peluchette, J., & Karl, K. (2007). The impact of workplace attire on employee self-perceptions.
Human Resource Development Quarterly, 18, 345-358. Podmolik, M. (2003, August 18). Clothes call. Crain 's Chicago Business, p. 1. Powers, A., & Keller, M. (2006, February 8). New dress code draws squawks. Los Angeles
Times, pp. B, 8. Rafaeli, A., Dutton, J., Harquail, C , & Mackie-Lewis, S. (1997). Navigating by attire: The use
of dress by administrative employees. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 19-45. Rafaeli, A., & Pratt, M. (1993). Tailored meanings: On the meaning and impact of organiza-
tional dress. Academy of Management Review, 18, 32-55. Rosenfeld, P., Edwards, J. E., & Thomas, M. D. (2005). Impression management. In
N. Nicholson, P. G. Audia, & M. M. Pillutla (Eds.), Organizational behavior (pp. 163-165). Maiden, MA: Blackwell.
Rucker, M., Anderson, E., & Kangas, A. (1999). Clothing, power and the workplace. In K. Johnson, & S. Lennon (Eds.), Appearance and power: Dress, body, culture (pp. 59-77). New York, NY: Berg.
Sabath, A. M. (2000). Beyond business casual: What to wear to work to get ahead. Franklin Lakes, NJ: Career Press.
Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression management: The self concept, social identity, and inter- personal relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Schneider, D. (1973). Implicit personality theory: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 79,294-309. Seiter, J., & Hatch, S. (2005). Effect of tattoos on perceptions of credibility and attractiveness.
Psychological Reports, 9ö, 1113-1120. Smith, M. (2008, July 20). BMV's customer satisfaction rate on the rise. Associated Press State
& Local Wire. Solomon, M., & Schopler, J. (1982). Self-consciousness and clothing. Personality and Social
P.<¡ychology Bulletin, 8, 508-514.
470 Public Personnel Management 42(3)
Sundaram, D., & Webster, C. (2000). The role of nonverbal communication in service encoun- ters. Jowrna/o/S'emceí Mírfe?/«g, 14, 378-391.
Survey Finds Tardiness and Absenteeism Up at Workplaces That Dress Down. (2000). Retrieved from https://www.jacksonlewis.com/legalupdates/article.cfhi?aid= 121
Sybers, R., & Roach, M. E. (1962). Sociological research: Clothing and human behavior. Journal of Home Economics, 54, 184-187.
Tattoo Bling Craze Raises Hiring Issues. (2006, April). USA Today Magazine, 134, p. 10. 2007 Beneflts. (2007). A survey report by the society for human resource management.
Alexandria, VA: Society for Human Resource Management. Waldrop, D. (1997). Best impressions: How to gain professionalism, promotion and profit.
Cleveland, OH: Best Impressions. Walter, K. (1996, June). Dress for success and comfort. HR Magazine, 41, pp. 55-60. Witz, A., Warhurst, C , & Nickson, D. (2003). The labour of aesthetics and the aesthetics of
organization. Organization, 10, 3354. Workman, J., & Johnson, K. (1989). The role of clothing in extended inferences. Family and
Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 18, 164-168.
Author Biographies
Katherine A. Karl is a professor of human resource management at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. Her current research focuses on workplace polices related to social networking sites, fun, romance and attire.
Leda Mclntyre Hall is an associate professor of management in the Judd Leighton School of Business & Economics at Indiana University South Bend. Her recent research focuses on employee satisfaction issues, including workplace attire, and management of not-for-profit organizations.
Joy V. Peluchette is an honorary senior fellow in the Faculty of Commerce at the University of Wollongong, NSW Australia. Her research interests focus on workplace implications of social networking, attire, fun, and generation differences.
Copyright of Public Personnel Management is the property of International Public Management Association for Human Resources and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
