URC

The Effect of Casual Dress on Performance in the Workplace

Sarah Maloney Hughes
The Master’s College


Abstract

In the workplace today, casual dress is becoming increasingly standard. Whether or not employers are aware of an effect in job performance because of casual dress is unknown. The purpose of this study was to determine whether or not supervisors of selected work-study students at The Master’s College experienced a decline in the performance of their employees since the relaxing of the campus dress code. The survey instrument used in this study was a six-question Likert-type attitudinal scale to determine whether or not supervisors of selected work study students at The Master’s College experienced a decline in the performance of their employees since the relaxing of the campus dress code. A personal data sheet requested demographic data. The research indicated that although there is an effect on performance because of casual dress in the workplace, the type of effect has not been observed or classified by work-study supervisors at The Master’s College since the relaxing of the campus dress code. Therefore, it was determined that casual dress does not have a defined effect on performance in the workplace.

Introduction

            “The way you look directly affects the way you think, feel, and act . . . . When you dress down, you sit down—the couch potato trend. Manners break down, you begin to feel down, and you’re not as effective” (Kaplan-Leiserson, 2000, p. 39). Stephen Goode (2000, p. 4) states the findings of research psychologist, Jeffery L. Magee, that “Continually relaxed dress leads to relaxed manners, relaxed morals and relaxed productivity” and “leads to a decrease in company loyalty and increase in tardiness.”        Dolbow suggests that the accepted casual dress in the office workplace is causing “casual attitudes and a lack of office decorum” (2000, p. 10). 

There are benefits to wearing casual clothing in the workplace, such as good morale, open communication between managers and employees, and a lack of cost to the employer (Gutierrez & Freese, 1999, p. 35-36). However, Gutierrez and Freese also note that the “professional image may be weakened if clients feel employees are too casual to be entrusted with their business.” Whether or not employers are aware of an effect in job performance because of casual dress is unknown. This problem was categorized as developmental research because it “focuses on the change and process of human development . . .” by examining “aspects of behavior in particular sociocultural contexts” (Brown, Cozby, Kee, & Worden, 1999, p. 9).

Historical Foundation

“There once was a time when a person could walk into the office of a manager, account executive, or salesperson and expect to see the individual behind the desk adorned in crisply pressed suits with starched white shirts. It was something that was not open to discussion but rather ingrained in American culture that certain dress was considered appropriate in those professions” (McPherson, 1997, p. 134). However, since the beginning of the 1990s, a change has been occurring called casual dress (Biecher, Keaton, & Pollman, 1999). There are a variety of reasons as to why this adoption of dress has happened. Some sources state only the factual evidences for the implementation. “Casual Fridays were introduced, experts say, to improve morale among cynical white-collar folks who saw their coworkers falling like flies during the layoffs of the 1980s and early 1990s. Generally, the casual look was never meant to replace traditional Monday-through-Thursday business attire” (McPherson, 1997, p. 134).

Sweeney (1999, p. 38) used the words of Michael Zolnierczyk, director of sales and marketing at Model Apparel, Charleroi, Pennsylvania, who said “the casual dress movement began about five years ago in Los Angeles with such companies as Levi Strauss and Liz Claiborne.” Other resources say that “the birth of dress-down days is . . . credited, in part, to the high-tech companies in the Silicon Valley of California that, when they started 30 years ago, hired primarily people from blue-collar backgrounds” (Gutierrez & Freese, 1999, p. 32). More than one source believes that this is the case, because Kaplan-Leiserson (2000, p. 38) states, “we could thank (or blame) the Internet age . . . . It’s generally agreed that casual days started on the U.S. West Coast, where computer companies allowed programmers to dress comfortably to encourage creativity. Like the Internet, the casual trend spread.”

Despite this more objective approach to the whole issue of casual business dress, there are those who feel that the change has been for a variety of subjective reasons. “Casual dressing may be the result of two distinct trends: a return to elegance as a way of conveying professionalism, and a loosening up of formal dress codes, as demonstrated by casual Fridays and dress-down days” (Biecher, et al., 1999, p. 17). “The dress-down movement is as symbolic as it is the result of indulgent management. Its roots are traceable to the egalitarian movement that began permeating industry in the early 1980s, leading to the current ideas of ‘teamwork’ and ‘empowerment.’ The idea was to reduce or eliminate class distinction regardless of one’s rank, salary, or corporate position” (p. 18). Kaplan-Leiserson (2000, p. 39) quotes Judith Rasband, director of the Conselle Institute of Image Management, as having said, “The business casual trend isn’t about fashion. It’s about the whole casualization of America that began in the turbulent 1960s. It’s about the general decline in civility.” “The dress-down mood here may be connected to the volatility of the job market in the last few years. You cannot sustain a high dress code during a period of instability” (McPherson, 1997, p. 135).

Overall, the outstanding consensus is that there has been a rise in casual dress in the recent past. “In the past 10 years, the trend toward dress-down Fridays and dress-down everydays has spread through the corporate world” (Gutierrez & Freese, 1999, p. 32).

Subsequent Changes

            Whether or not this rise in casual dress within the business world will have an effect upon the performance of the individuals is a debated issue. Some sources suggest that there is no possible way that this will have an effect on work performance. “The aesthetic qualities of various physical characteristics are unlikely to have any effect on performance” (Miner, 1963, p. 108). “The rulers of corporate and political America wear suits—always have and always will,” notes John Molloy, author of Dress for Success. He states that the move toward informal office attire is strictly an American phenomenon that shows no signs of catching on elsewhere in the world. He adds: “by and large business people the world over, especially outside the U.S., are extremely conservative. That is not going to change” (Biecher et al., 1999, p. 19).

Other resources seem to believe that an effect on work performance because of casual dress is a real possibility. “The occasion will not be improved by this departure from the formal to the semicasual. A sense of occasion and the ability to dress properly for it are among the refinements of civilization. ‘Casual,’ a word whose meaning is much abused these days, too often means slack and slovenly. In this context it is a short step from a business suit to a sports jacket” (Horn, 1975, p. 59). “In research we’ve done, the fact is if you feel better and are more comfortable, you’ll be more productive” (Sweeney, 1999, p. 38).

            Also relevant, are those informants who have fairly unbiased opinions on the issue. They believe that there may be a change, but whether that will be important is debatable. Michael Evans, the spokesman of Burger King, commented after the destruction of hurricane Andrew in 1992 forced people to come to work in casual clothes: “We learned that you don’t have to wear a uniform to get the job done. It is not what you look like—it is what you can do” (Biecher et al., 1999, p. 20).

            Law student, Ronald Jacobs says, “I like to dress up, and I feel much more professional when I’m dressed for the workplace. Casual clothes can be a little more comfortable, but a suit is not uncomfortable. I think people generally look better when they are dressed up. It also eliminates the confusion about what you should wear” (Billups, 2000, p. 31). With these attitudes about whether or not there is any effect, it is interesting to see from other sources what those effects may be.

Positive Effects

            Although the tendency to have casual dress in the business world has been increased, this is not to say that the change has been bad. Several sources stake claims in the positive results of the business casual adoption. “Some of the more commonly touted benefits include improved employee morale, a lack of cost to the employer, increased worker productivity, more open communication between staff and managers, cost savings to employees because casual business wear is less expensive, and improved work quality” (Gutierrez & Freese, 1999, p. 33).

            Employees themselves are enjoying this alteration in the traditional corporate world. They have noticed some positive effects at work. A national survey of office workers’ attitudes toward casual dress shows that “41% felt casual dress improved worker productivity while only 4% perceived a negative impact . . . . 51% said they did their best work when dressed casually” (McPherson, 1997, 136). “Many employees . . . also believe casual dress makes them more effective. In a 1998 survey by USA Today, 64 percent of respondents said they work more efficiently when wearing casual dress” (Kaplan-Leiserson, 2000, p. 38). “The vast majority of the surveyed employees felt that dressing casually resulted in a variety of benefits, including comfort, increased camaraderie and better work environments” (McPherson, 1997, p. 136). A survey from a sample of 1,540 Certified Public Accountants illustrates that about 60% agree that “wearing casual clothing at work increases productivity” (Gutierrez & Freese, 1999, p. 37).

Corporations as a body are seeing some constructive benefits to the casual dress allowances that they have put in place. “A Deloitte Human Resources assistant stated that the dress policy is an added benefit and a morale booster. She feels that the more comfortable employees are, the more productive they will be” (McPherson, 1997, p. 144). “Companies gain by creating a workforce that feels more flexible and productive. Dressing casually also creates a feeling of freedom for employees” (Biecher et al., 1999, p. 20). Many people feel that “dressing casually can lead to better attitudes about work, greater spontaneity, and improved relations among employees” (McPherson, 1997, p. 146).

Negative Effects

            Although the positive effects of casual clothing on performance in the work place are good, there is another side to the coin. Many sources have noticed a decline in work performance since the start of this trend. “The rise of ‘casual dress’ in the workplace has resulted in casual attitudes and a lack of office decorum” (Dolbow, 2000, p. 10). The Tailored Men’s Clothing Industry cites two recent studies to validate its belief that “casual dress habits in the workplace environment that does not promote or encourage productivity” (Goode, 2000, p. 4). After surveying 500 firms in 1997 and 1998, research psychologist, Jeffrey L. Magee came to the supposition that, “Continually relaxed dress leads to relaxed manners, relaxed morals and relaxed productivity . . . [and] that relaxed dress led to an increase in litigation, a decrease in company loyalty and increases in tardiness” (p. 4).

The Conselle Institute of Image Management teaches, “The way you look directly affects the way you think, feel, and act.” Judith Rasband, director of the Conselle Institute of Image Management, agrees that there is a negative effect (Kaplan-Leiserson, 2000). Along these same lines, there comes some explanation behind why this tendency to “slack off” has risen. “When relaxing dress codes, management has to clarify the distinction between casual and slovenly, specially in the U.S. Unlike Europeans, most Americans have never had a tradition of elegant casual dress. When not in suit and tie, the American male often adopts what etiquette authority Leitia Baldrige calls the ‘bathrobe attitude,’ defined thus: ‘I am comfy, and that is all that counts’” (Biecher et al., 1999, p. 19). “Casual workplace attire can lead to a decline in ethics and productivity” (Billups, 2000, p. 31). There “is a fear that casual dress makes employees too comfortable and not professional enough. ‘When you wear the more casual attire, human nature says you will act a little bit more casual’” (Sweeney, 1999, p. 38).

Almost worse than having the productivity within the office itself deteriorating, is the possibility that the effectiveness with the company’s public is affected. “The professional image of workers may be weakened if clients feel employees are too casual to be entrusted with their business” (Gutierrez & Freese, 1999, p. 36). “What I’m hearing from my customers is that workers are not deciphering the difference between being at home and being at work. I think the original thought was that people would be more casual and maybe that’s OK in a dot-com or more creative business, but if we’re talking about attorneys or accountants, I just don’t think it’s proper. I hear grumblings from people . . . they’re paying an attorney $300 - $400 an hour, [and] they don’t want to see him dressed in khakis and a polo shirt” (Stein, 2000, p. E1).

Observed Results

            With all of this information about the effects of casual dress, the wonder is whether or not the managers notice. “It is a rare manager who does not realize how appearance affects credibility in the workplace” (Berryman-Fink, 1989, p. 187). However, whether or not managers notice that there is an effect, can they in turn decipher what that effect is? Several sources discuss this topic.

            Many companies who offer casual dress benefits to their employees “report that wearing casual clothing can boost morale, improve quality, encourage more open communication, and increase productivity by creating a more comfortable work environment” (McPherson, 1997, p. 137). “[Human Resource] managers cited increased employee morale and productivity and the opportunity to use casual dress as a recruitment and retention tool” (Kaplan-Leiserson, 2000, p. 38). Because of this tendency, “many companies decided to adopt a casual business wear policy after observing a national trend” (McPherson, 1997, p. 136).

            Managers are noticing some of the positive effects discussed earlier and are adopting casual dress programs for their own offices. “Dress-down days and casual dress are being used by companies to boost morale, improve communication, and reward employees” (McPherson, 1997, p. 136). However, “while clothing may seem common to many managers, it isn’t so simple . . . because of the matter of individual taste. [Sharon L. Custer, president of BMI Federal Credit Union says] ‘It’s always going to be subjective. I don’t see it ever being an issue we don’t have to grapple with’” (Sweeney, 1999, p. 39).

            The issue regarding the effect of casual dress on job performance is still very unpredictable. “Even in a blue-collar situation, when dress is allowed to be more casual, the level of service is also more casual . . . . If you are talking on the phone and a customer comes in, you are more likely to get off the phone right away if you are in a suit” (Billups, 2000, p. 31). “Managers should look more at professionalism, performance, and productivity as personal attributes that really matter in the workplace. An employee should be able to come off as a professional without having to dress like one” (McPherson, 1997, p. 146).

Awareness of a Productivity Decline

            “Companies in the forefront of productivity improvement programs believe that a conducive company climate is another essential ingredient of effective productivity improvement. According to a number of companies, an important element of this climate is productivity awareness. In order to develop a company climate conducive to promoting productivity, organization members—managers, supervisors, and employees—must be aware of the productivity problem. They must be aware of what productivity is, what it means to their jobs and companies, and how it can be measured and improved” (Buehler & Shetty, 1981, p. 236). Awareness of how dress affects a person’s performance is key and the curiosity about where it will lead has existed awhile. Ralph Waldo Emerson commented, “I have wondered how long men would retain their ranks if divested of their clothing” (Kaplan-Leiserson, 2000, p. 38). “Employers are also divided on the question of whether more relaxed dress leads to lax behavior or greater productivity. The annual workplace survey by employment law firm Jackson Lewis found that 40% of the 1,000 respondents said that relaxing the dress code had improved productivity. However, 44% said that tardiness and absenteeism have increased since dressdown policies were added” (“How Casual Dress,” 2000, p. 8). These percentages suggest that there is greater decline in productivity than the picture of improved morale portrayed.

“A 1999 study by employment law firm Jackson Lewis found that 44 percent of the [Human Resource] executives polled noticed more tardiness and absenteeism after implementing a formal casual dress policy” (Kaplan-Leiserson, 2000, p. 39). Despite these research findings, some companies still do not view productivity as an important issue. The increased positive atmosphere appears to produce a sense of pleasure from the relaxing of the dress code, rather than professional alarm. “I think people, when they don’t have ties around their necks, tend to feel a little better. It’s really improved morale around here. The dot-coms sell the casual wardrobe, and that is sometimes who we are competing against for top talent” (Stein, 2000, p. E1).

Other sources make dramatic, blanket statements about the state of affairs they observe. “Corporate America is not really happy with effects that dressing casually have had” (Stein, 2000, p. E1). Therefore, research suggests that the outlook on what the effect of dress on workplace performance is varied. Employers embrace broad perspectives on their perceptions, as well as their rationale for the perceptions.

Method

            The purpose of the study was to determine whether or not supervisors of selected work-study students at The Master’s College experienced a decline in the performance of their employees since the relaxing of the campus dress code. Generating from this general purpose, the following research questions were cited:

1.                  What is the effect of dress on performance in the workplace?

2.                  Are the work-study supervisors at The Master’s College aware of a decline in their employees’ performance since the relaxing of the campus dress code?

Data Collection

            The survey instrument used in this study was to determine whether or not supervisors of selected work-study students at The Master’s College experienced a decline in the performance of their employees since the relaxing of the campus dress code. Demographic data were requested in addition to the responses to the six-question Likert-type survey instrument. The survey instrument was distributed to supervisors of selected work-study students at The Master’s College during the Spring of 2001 and returned through the on-campus mail system.

Statistical Procedures

            STATPAK was employed to examine the data; the desired scale of measurement was ordinal. “Ordinal scales allow us to rank order the levels of the variable being studied and therefore involve quantitative comparisons” (Brown et al., p. 56). The One-Dimensional Chi-square Statistical Test was used to analyze the data because “it is used when the data consist of frequencies - the number of subjects who fall into each of several categories” (p. 340). A .01 level of significance was used to test the results of the study. 

Results

            The subjects sampled for this study were supervisors of selected work-study students at The Master’s College in the Spring of 2001. 44 copies of the survey instrument were distributed; 34 were returned; and 34 were used in this study. The sample indicated that 11.8 % had been employed for 1 year; 8.8 % for 1½ years; 2.9 % for 2 years; 8.8 % for 3 years; 14.8 % for 4 years; 2.9 % for 4½ years; 23.5 % for 5 years; 5.9 % for 6 years; 5.9 % for 7 years; 8.8 % for 8 years; and 5.9 % for 10 years. The distribution of gender indicated 38.2 % males, 55.9 % females, and 5.9 % no responses. The sample indicated 29.4 % enforce a stricter dress code and 70.6 % do not. 

Research Question One

            What is the effect of dress on performance in the workplace? Questions 1,2, and 3 of the survey located in Appendix A addressed this research question.

Table 1 – Responses to Work Performance Survey (* = significant at the .01 level) 

Agree

Disagree

X2

1. Dress affects quality of performance 

7 (.265)

17 (8.5)

4 (2.382)

6 (.735)

11.882*

2. Casual dress negatively affects quality
    of productivity

3 (3.559)

13 (2.382)

7 (.265)

11 (.735)

6.941

3. Dress codes ensure professional
    performance

10 (.265)

8 (.029)

9 (.029)

7 (.265)

.588

4. Casual dress promotes efficiency

2 (3.388)

10 (1.506)

11 (2.594)

10 (1.506)

1 (4.947)

13.941*

5. Work-study students perform the same
    regardless of dress

10 (1.506)

12 (3.976)

4 (1.153)

7 (.006)

1 (4.947)

11.588*

6. Quality has decreased since relaxing of 
    dress code

2 (3.388)

5 (.476)

11 (2.594)

13 (5.653)

3 (2.124)

14.235*

            Survey Question 1. Because the computed Chi-square value (11.882) is greater than the tabled Chi-square value (11.345) at the .01 level, it can be concluded that there is a statistically significant difference between the work study supervisors who agree that dress affects the quality of performance in the workplace and those who do not agree. This finding aligns with the research conducted by Horn (1975) who found that casual dress does affect the quality of performance (p. 59). This finding also aligns with the research conducted by Sweeney (1999) who found that productivity is affected by dressing casually (p. 38).

            Survey Question 2. The computed Chi-square value (6.491) is less than the tabulated Chi-square value (11.345) at the .01 level, so it can be concluded that there is not a statistically significant difference between the work study supervisors who agree that casual dress in the workplace negatively affects the quality of productivity and those who do not agree. This finding deviates from the research conducted by McPherson (1997) who found that casual dress actually improved worker productivity rather than had a negative impact (p. 136). This finding also deviates from the research conducted by Gutierrez and Freese (1999) who found that casual clothing at work increases productivity (p. 37). 

            Survey Question 3. Because the computed Chi-square value (0.588) is less than the tabled Chi-square value (11.345) at the .01 level, it can be concluded that there is not a statistically significant difference between the work study supervisors who agreed that dress codes are necessary for a professional performance in the workplace and those who do not agree. This finding deviates from the research conducted by Goode (2000) who found that casual dressing leads to sloppy standards and a workplace that does not promote productivity (p. 4). This finding also deviates from the research conducted by Billups (2000) who found that professionalism is more readily acquired when a person is dressed up (p. 31). 

Research Question Two

            Are the work-study supervisors at The Master’s College aware of a decline in their employee’s performance since the relaxing of the campus dress code? Questions 4, 5, and 6 of the survey located in Appendix A addressed this research question.

            Survey Question 4. Because the computed Chi-square value (13.941) is greater than the tabled Chi-square value (13.277) at the .01 level, it can be concluded that there is a statistically significant difference between the work study supervisors who agree that casual dress promotes efficiency in performing tasks and those who do not agree. This finding deviates from the research conducted by McPherson (1997) who found that the more comfortable employees are in their dress, the more productive they will be (p. 144). This finding aligns with the research conducted by Sweeney (1999) who found that casual dress makes employees too comfortable and not professional enough (p. 38).)

            Survey Question 5. The computed Chi-square value (11.588) is less than the tabled Chi-square value (13.277) at the .01 level, therefore it can be concluded that there is not a statistically significant difference between the work study supervisors who agree that students perform the same regardless of dress formality and those who do not agree. This finding deviates from the research conducted by Kaplan-Leiserson (2000) who found that when a person dresses down, their manners break down and they are not as effective (p. 39). This finding aligns with the research conducted by McPherson (1997) who found that employees should be able to be professional without having to dress like one (p. 146).

            Survey Question 6. The computed Chi-square value (14.235) is greater than the tabled Chi-square value (13.277) at the .01 level, so it can be concluded that there is a statistically significant difference between the work study supervisors who agree that quality work performance has decreased since the relaxing of the campus dress code and those who do not agree. This finding deviates from the research conducted by Billups (2000) who found that casual workplace dress leads to a decline in productivity (p. 31). This finding also deviates from the research conducted by Goode (2000) who found that relaxed dress leads to relaxed productivity (p. 4). 

Summary

            The results of the Chi-square statistical test suggest that there is an effect on the performance in the workplace because of casual dress, that casual dress has equally positive and negative effects, and that dress codes may or may not be necessary for professional performance. The results also suggest that casual dress does not promote task efficiency, that work-study students may or may not perform the same regardless of dress formality, and that quality work performance has not decreased since the relaxing of the campus dress code.

Discussion

            Whether or not employers are aware of an effect in job performance because of casual dress was unknown. Within the stated purpose and findings of this study, the following conclusions appear warranted:

1.         The effect of dress on performance in the workplace is wide-ranging and diverse according to the selected population who participated in this study.

2.         The work-study supervisors at The Master’s College are not aware of a decline in their employees work performance since the relaxing of the campus dress code.

            Because of the variety of responses from the sample, it is difficult to reach conclusive implications. Research suggests that there are negative effects and positive effects on performance in the workplace relating to casual dress. A portion of the discrepancy depends on the nature of the occupation where the survey was conducted. Personal employee dispositions also play a role in how much the dress code affects job performance. Objectively speaking, there really can be no firm implications drawn from this study as to what the exact effect of dress on performance in the workplace is.

            The Review of the Literature suggests that casual dress, depending upon the population evaluated, can either encourage or discourage greater productivity. However, this study’s survey results suggest that while casual dress may not cause a decrease in work performance, it does not promote an increase. There is reason to believe that casual dress may simply allow employees to complete their work effectively, without prompting them to give out extra effort. Employers generally desire employees who exhibit first-class performance. Although casual dress may not hinder this performance in an excellent employee, it may indeed prevent a moderately effective employee from giving a better effort. However, the extent of impact dress plays on altering the wearers’ actions and motivations is yet to be determined and thus warrants further study.

Recommendations for Further Study

            Additional questions pertaining to whether or not employers are aware of an effect in job performance because of casual dress warrant further investigation; thus the following recommendations for further research and study are offered:

1.         This study should be replicated, using a different population to determine whether or not employers are aware of an effect in job performance because of casual dress.

2.         A study should be conducted to determine whether or not dress codes have a positive effect on a person’s motivation and attitude.

3.         A study should be conducted to determine whether or not employees are aware of the characteristics of casual business dress.

4.         A study should be conducted to determine whether or not college students understand the importance of dress in a professional environment.

5.         The effects of employees’ dress upon the public they are serving should be studied.

6.         A study should be conducted to determine whether or not the populace makes business decisions based on the appearance of the employees in those particular establishments.

References

Berryman-Fink, C. (1989). The manager’s desk reference. New York: American Management Association.

Biecher, E., Keaton, P. N., & Pollman, A. W. (1999). Casual dress at work. S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal, 64(1), 17-20.

Billups, A. (2000). Informal attire does not suit all . . . some traditionalists are fit to be tied. Insight on the News, 16(28), 31.

Brown, K. W., Cozby, P. C., Kee, D. W., & Worden, P. E. (1999). Research methods in human development. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company.

Buehler, V. M., Shetty, Y. K. (Eds.). (1981). Productivity improvement: Case studies of proven practice. New York: American Management Association.

Dolbow, S. (2000). Apparelers dress down casual-look instigators. Brandweek, 41(33), 10.

Goode, S. (2000). Clothes do make the man, after all. Insight on the News, 16(27), 4.

Gutierrez, T.,& Freese, R. J. (1999). Dress-down days: Benefit or burden? CPA Journal, 69(4), 32-37.

Horn, M. J. (1975). The second skin: An interdisciplinary study of clothing. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

How casual dress can backfire--and what to do about it. (2000). HR Focus, 77(6), 8-9.

Kaplan-Leiserson, E. (2000). Casual dress/Back-to-business attire. Training & Development, 54(11), 38-39.

McPherson, W. (1997). “Dressing down” in the business communication curriculum. Business Communication Quarterly, 60(1), 134-146.

Miner, J. B. (1963). The management of ineffective performance. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.

Stein, J. (2000, July 21). “Dress-up Thursdays” would suit retailers just fine. The Los Angeles Times, p. E1.

Sweeney, T. (1999). Proceed with caution. Credit Union Management, 22(6), 38-39.

Appendix A

 


WORK PERFORMANCE
SURVEY INSTRUMENT

How long have you been a work-study supervisor at The Master’s College? _____years

            Male _____      Female _____

Do you enforce a dress code for your employees that is stricter than the campus code?

            Yes____          No____

Rate the following statements according to the indicated scale:

1=Agree  <-------->  4 or 5=Disagree

1.  Dress affects the quality of performance in the workplace.

Agree   1          2          3          4 Disagree

2.  Casual dress in the workplace negatively affects the quality of productivity.

Agree   1          2          3          4 Disagree

3.  Dress codes are necessary for ensuring a professional performance at work.

Agree   1          2          3          4 Disagree

4.  Casual dress promotes efficiency in performing tasks.

Agree   1          2          3          4         5 Disagree

5.  Work-study students generally perform the same regardless of dress formality.

Agree   1          2          3          4        5 Disagree

6.  Since the relaxing of the campus dress code, quality work performance has decreased.

Agree   1          2          3          4        5 Disagree

Please return to 
Sarah Maloney,
Box #1642 by 2/16/01:

 


URC RESOURCES:

©2002-2014 All rights reserved by the Undergraduate Research Community.

Research Journal: Vol. 1 Vol. 2 Vol. 3 Vol. 4 Vol. 5 Vol. 6 Vol. 7 Vol. 8 Vol. 9 Vol. 10 Vol. 11 Vol. 12 Vol. 13
High School Edition

Call for Papers 1 ¦ Call for Papers 2 ¦ Inventory ¦ News
Planning Conference ¦ Priorities ¦ Faculty Development ¦ Priority Issues ¦ Institutional Plan ¦ URC Home

KONbuttonspaceK O NspaceKONbutton