Clothing and Textiles Research Journal

Clothing and Textiles Research Journal http://ctr.sagepub.com

Casual Versus Formal Uniforms: Flight Attendants' Self-perceptions and Perceived Appraisals by Others Alyssa Dana Adomaitis and Kim K. P. Johnson Clothing and Textiles Research Journal 2005; 23; 88 DOI: 10.1177/0887302X0502300203 The online version of this article can be found at: http://ctr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/23/2/88

Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

International Textile and Apparel Association

Additional services and information for Clothing and Textiles Research Journal can be found at: Email Alerts: http://ctr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://ctr.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations http://ctr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/23/2/88

Downloaded from http://ctr.sagepub.com at Magrath Library, University of Minnesota Libraries on April 26, 2010

Casual Versus Formal Uniforms: Flight Attendants’ Self-perceptions and Perceived Appraisals by Others Alyssa Dana Adomaitis, Kim K. P. Johnson

Key Words Behavior, Casual Dress, Self-perceptions, Uniforms

Abstract Flight attendants were required to wear a casual uniform consisting of khakis and t-shirts in place of a formal one consisting of a suit. Within a year, management eliminated the casual uniform and returned to the formal uniform. The purpose of our research was to investigate whether type of uniform (formal versus casual) worn influenced flight attendants’ role enactment and self-perceptions at work and in what ways, if any, the change to a casual uniform affected employee relationships with peers and passengers. Interview data were gathered from 37 flight attendants who experienced the switch from a formal to a casual uniform and then back again. Participants were asked to reflect on their experiences with co-workers and customers, as well as to reflect on their own perceptions and behaviors while wearing the formal and casual uniforms. Data were analyzed using the line-by-line approach (Van Manen, 1990). Flight attendants’ behavior, self-perceptions, and feelings about their ability to carry out their role as flight attendants, as well as their perceived treatment by others were altered when wearing a casual uniform as compared to wearing a formal uniform.

D

uring the 1990s numerous companies implemented casual dress policies for both men and women (Agins, 2000; Cummins, 2004; Heller, 1995; Jones, 1996; Marech, 2000; Steinhauer, 1997). Biecher, Keaton, and Pollman (1999) credited the origin of the change to casual dress in the workplace to an egalitarian movement within businesses. Littlefield (1994) noted that casual dress evolved out of societal changes. The idea was to “minimize or eliminate class distinction regardless of rank, corporate position, or salary” (p. 17). Casual dress was viewed as appropriate for the workplace for several reasons. Many people were working long hours and fulfilling multiple obligations. Casual dress promoted a type of concurrence between work and other areas of life (Brown, 1994). In addition, casual dress appealed to Authors’ Addresses: Alyssa Dana Adomaitis, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, 3801 W. Temple Avenue, Pomona, CA 91768 and Kim K. P. Johnson, 240 McNeal Hall, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108-6136.

88

Clothing

Textiles

employees who wanted their performance to speak louder than their dress. Woodard (1999) found, in her research with one manufacturing company, that employees believed wearing casual dress would improve relationships and their sense of belonging to the organization. Another reason for the transition to casual dress was the belief that casual clothing saved employees’ money. Casual clothes were less expensive than suits to purchase and they were easier to care for (“The dress-down phenomenon,” 1995). There was a corporate benefit to casual dress. Casual dress was an employee benefit that did not cost the company, yet it enhanced employee productivity. Yates and Jones (1998) found in one organization absenteeism rates for women dropped as a result of the implementation of casual dress days. One service company that adopted casual dress policies during the 1990s was Sun Country Airlines. The dress code of flight attendants was changed

©2005 International Textile & Apparel Association


from a formal uniform to a casual uniform. Within less than a year, however, the airline eliminated the casual uniform and required employees to return to their previous uniform. The change in required uniform from formal to casual and then back to formal allowed us to test some assumptions about how dress functions in occupational settings in a time when dress codes are evolving for many different types of social organizations (e.g., banks, schools). Therefore, the purpose of our research was to investigate whether type of uniform (formal versus casual) worn influenced flight attendants’ role enactment and self-perceptions at work and in what ways, if any, the change to a casual uniform affected employee relationships with peers and passengers. Our research questions were as follows: In what ways did the type of uniform influence flight attendants’ behaviors? In what ways did the type of uniform enhance or hinder ability of flight attendants to do their job? In what ways did what flight attendants wore impact their job success? What were the experiences of flight attendants when wearing a casual uniform with peers and passengers? In what ways did the type of uniform influence flight attendants’ self-perceptions relative to the job? Fight attendants are important to study for several reasons. Flight attendants are in a unique position because they assume many roles to passengers. For example, they act as police authorities when they enforce airline regulations and as hospitality agents when they serve food and beverages. Another reason is that flight attendants have a high level of contact with customers. Customers may evaluate an airline company on the basis of their experience with flight attendants. In addition, the environment in which flight attendants work has increased in stressfulness in a variety of ways, including aggressive passengers (Haise & Rucker, 2003) and the threat of terrorism. Theoretical Orientation Uniforms serve as expressions of authority (Rubinstein, 1995). Rubinstein noted that uniforms signal different social roles for organizations including those who have the right to enforce organizational


policy, those who have the right to interfere with on-going actions, those who have the right to control access, and those who have the right to exercise force over others. When uniforms represent established social roles and levels of authority in organizations such as an airline, there are explicit expectations for behavior for uniformed individuals (e.g., flight attendants) and for non-uniformed individuals (e.g., passengers). The process of establishing and maintaining the authority that is associated with a uniform occurs over time. Once the connection is established, the uniform may remain unchanged for long periods of time to ensure that the connection between level of authority and uniform is sustained. When a change of uniform occurs, questions can arise over whether the old social meanings of the uniform are automatically transferred to the new uniform. Does the authority communicated by a woman appearing in a skirted suit transfer over to that same woman wearing shorts and a t-shirt? Stone (1962) outlined a process of four parts— program, review, challenge, and validation— that can be used to understand how a change in uniform can change how others respond to individuals. An individual’s program “is responses about the wearer’s appearance by the wearer” (Stone, p. 96). Because there are role expectations for flight attendants and a tradition of how that role had been communicated (i.e., formal uniform), the success or failure of an individual in communicating a flight attendant identity to the public can be assessed both by the individual assuming the role as well as by others. For example, flight attendants might question how effective a casual uniform (i.e., t-shirt and khaki pants) were going to be at communicating their identity as flight attendants. Review is an evaluation made by others in response to the identity communicated through the appearance of an individual (Stone, 1962). According to Stone an individual may change their appearance in response to the review of others. When the review results in a validation, the identity communicated by the dress or uniform of the individual

Volume 23


#2

2005

89

appearing is attributed to that person (e.g., you are a flight attendant because you look like a flight attendant). When the review results in a challenge, the announced identity is not attributed (e.g., you are not a flight attendant). In response to a challenge, an individual can chose to redefine the identity that their appearance and dress were attempting to communicate or give up that identity. Stone noted that a review affects subsequent behaviors of both the reviewed and the reviewer. A validation could subsequently facilitate ability to perform a role whereas a challenge could subsequently hinder ability to perform a role.

to control the messages sent about the company through their employees’ dress. The second function of a uniform is that it suppresses individuality. Putting on a uniform represents a loss of an individual’s idiosyncratic values and attitudes, while at the same time a taking on of the organization’s values and attitudes. Furthermore, the uniform requires that an individual reflect the corporate identity so one is not reminded of any other agendas or personal obligations. The uniform is a reminder to the wearer that he or she is at work and is responsible for certain tasks during the day.

Related Research In his book Uniforms and nonuniforms, Joseph (1986) reported on several research studies he conducted investigating the role of uniforms in several different types of organizations. Much of his research was gathered from individuals working in military organizations. His ideas about how uniforms operate and what purposes they serve both individuals and organizations are useful in understanding how dress codes and appearance standards required by other types of social organizations function. According to Joseph (1986), uniforms serve to “(1) identify group members, (2) suppress individuality, (3) certify legitimacy, and (4) order priorities of group and status demands for the individual” (p. 66). A uniform functions as an emblem that is used to identify group members. Uniforms distinguish members from non-members. Establishing identities is important because knowing another’s identity influences how individuals communicate with one another in social or work environments. According to Joseph and Alex (1972), “One does not simply wear blue, white, or khaki; instead one’s dress indicates membership in a police force, medical group, or military service” (p.122). The uniform becomes the focal point and not the individual wearing the uniform. As a result of the focus on the uniform, companies that want to convey a clear message about organizational values and codes of conduct may implement dress codes or adopt a prescribed outfit for employees in an attempt

90

Clothing

Textiles

Another function of a uniform is that it certifies legitimacy. The uniform establishes that there is a legitimate relationship between the wearer and the organization. By wearing the uniform, the individual implicitly states that he or she will adhere to the values and beliefs of the organization, master the required skills needed for the position, and will be responsible for his or her actions. Rafaeli, Dutton, Harquail, and Mackie-Lewis (1997) investigated everyday decisions about the dress of female administrative employees working in a university setting. Participants did use dress to illustrate organizational membership, to feel appropriate in their roles, as well as to feel effective during interaction with others. The final function of a uniform is that a uniform can reveal or conceal status positions of individuals (Joseph, 1986). If everyone wears the same uniform with no other indicators of status (e.g., pagers or pins), the uniform can send the message that group members are to be considered equal in status. Flight attendants’ uniforms. Existing research on flight attendant uniforms is limited to investigating flight attendants’ uniform preferences, flight attendant image, and employee satisfaction (Haise & Rucker, 2003). Haise and Rucker were also interested in identifying likes, dislikes, and level of satisfaction with current uniforms of flight attendants. They examined two types of shoes (high heels, flats) and three types of neck treatments (open collar, floppy bow, masculine tie) on flight attendants’



preferences and on the impression the uniform would make. Different combinations of neckwear and footwear did not impact liking of the uniform. However, neckwear had a significant effect on the image of a flight attendant as competent. The tie created the most competent image. Neckwear also had on impact how unpleasant the flight attendant was perceived with the tie conveying the most unpleasant image. With respect to shoes, flats were perceived as more unpleasant than heels. Uniform Guides According to policy statements located in the uniform guides supplied to all flight attendants and crewmembers, the leadership at the airline believed that employees not only represented the image of the company but also were the company to the public. Sun Country Airlines uniform guides (2000, 1996) explicitly detailed personal appearance standards for flight attendants and included sections devoted to mandatory uniform items, care of uniform items, deadhead1 attire, personal grooming standards, required accessories, and optional accessories. Mandatory uniform items for the formal uniform were as follows: a navy suit jacket with gold buttons and a thin gold braid about three inches above the end of the sleeve, tailored pants (both men and women) or a tailored skirt (women), and a white tailored shirt (men) or blouse (women). Suit fabric was lightweight wool. Women’s blouses could be white, burgundy, or navy striped. The blouse was worn with a sweater or vest. Men wore coordinating neckties and women were required to wear coordinating scarves or ties. Men’s shoes were black and businesslike and worn with navy or black socks. Women’s shoes were navy blue, a conservative pump, closed or sling back that were businesslike. Hosiery had to be worn at all times and could

Figure 1. Formal and casual uniform worn by male flight attendants. Photograph by Alyssa Adomaitis.

be beige, taupe, nude, or navy. Regulations for uniform items forbid alterations that reflected personal style and prescribed the skirt length for female attendants as well as the color of belts, accessories, and hosiery (SCA Uniform Guide, 2000). Personal grooming regulations indicated that extremes in hairstyles, lengths, or colors were not acceptable. Failure to comply with these regulations could result in disciplinary action including job loss. The casual uniform, required between 1996 and 1997, consisted of white tennis shoes, matching socks, khakis (pants or shorts depending on the season), and short-sleeved t-shirts with a large airline logo2 printed on center front. A precise uniform guide outlining casual uniform requirements was not developed. Rather, a memorandum was produced and distributed to flight attendants detailing what comprised the casual uniform. Grooming specifications, care directives, accessories, and so forth were not discussed or even implied in these guidelines. The switch to the casual uniform was completed in an informal manner.

1

Deadhead as used here is slang for an off-duty flight attendant traveling on a plane in uniform.

Methods

2

The airline logo consisted of a caricature of an airplane called Sunny. Sunny was depicted in sunglasses relaxing in a hammock tied between two palm trees and holding a hard drink. The background setting was a beach with the sun setting in the background. Split between the upper left and lower right hand corners of the logo was the saying “Sunny says for hot times in the summertime fly Sun Country Airlines.”


An ethnographic approach was used to investigate flight attendants’ perceptions and their recalled experiences over time with wearing a formal versus a casual uniform. Ethnographic methods are use-

Volume 23


#2

2005

91

ful in understanding the nature and experience of phenomenon (Morse, 1994). Data Collection The data collection procedure for this study was a semi-structured interview (Fontana & Frey, 1994; Touliatos & Compton, 1988). Each participant was asked a series of pre-established open-ended questions. After receiving approval from the institutional review board for use of human subjects in research, a total of 37 interviews were conducted between May 2001 and November 2001. The average length of an interview was two hours. The time of the interviews was approximately five years after the change to a casual uniform and then back to a formal uniform.3 We used purposive sampling, which involved handpicking the subjects to be included in the research because they appear to be representative of the population in which we were interested (Touliatos & Compton, 1990). This sampling technique allowed for the interviewing of flight attendants who experienced the change from casual uniform back to a formal uniform. The manager of in-flight services and training at the airlines made the initial contacts with flight attendants. Next, an introductory letter was e-mailed to those flight attendants who indicated they were willing to be interviewed. Included in the letter was an introduction to the research team, statements detailing that the purpose of the research was an investigation of the impact of appearance on job effectiveness and job relationships, and what participation in the research involved. After approximately a week, flight attendants were contacted to set up interview times.

Dividing the two sets of interviews was September 11, 2001 when hijackers flew jetliners into each of New York’s World Trade Centers, a third jetliner crashed into the Pentagon in Virginia, and a fourth crashed in Pennsylvania (Schmemann, 2001). The airplane hijackings changed airline industry policies. As a result of heightened security measures, flight attendants could not be interviewed at either the corporate headquarters or the terminal. Most of the flight attendants interviewed after the hijackings refused to allow tape recording of their responses. Instead the first author recorded their responses by hand. These hand-written notes were checked for accuracy with each participant and subsequently typed and saved as text document files. The first author also transcribed all tape-recorded responses and saved them as text document files. Research Instrument The instrument used to collect the data consisted of two parts. The first part consisted of the interview questions, which were designed to investigate participants’ recollections of the perceptions of the impact that wearing casual and formal uniforms had on their behaviors, self-perceptions, and perceived appraisals by others. Also addressed in these questions were relationships with passengers and co-workers and flight attendants’ ability to perform their role. These questions guided the line of inquiry while allowing room to probe for elaboration on certain points. The second part of the instrument contained demographic questions. Participants were asked to indicate their age, ethnic origin, and years of work experience. Data Analysis

The first 20 interviews took place either at corporate headquarters or at the airport terminal. The last 17 interviews took place at various off-site locations such as coffee shops, diners, and restaurants.

3 We were able to locate only one local service organization that had followed the trend during the 1990s of adopting casual workplace dress and later reversing their decision.

92

Clothing

Textiles

After reading over all the interviews, we grouped participants’ responses together by the question number. Because the questions were open-ended and participants were asked if they want to add anything, it was possible for participants to make comments about a topic at a time in the interview other than when a specific question was asked. These responses were grouped with appropriate



questions. Data analysis began with identifying major concepts by underlining each detail of a response to an interview question. Van Manen (1990) refers to this process as the line-by-line approach used to extract thoughts, concepts, and ideas from the data. Once the major concepts were identified from participants’ responses to each question, responses were further analyzed by grouping together similar answers into a category. For example, every response to related questions that indicated something about the body was coded into the same category for the physical body. Once all responses were grouped into categories, each category was examined to determine if there was an underlying broader theme or smaller themes that best reflected the data. For reliability purposes, a second coder read and coded the data to check for consistency in coding responses and for similar interpretation of the data. To calculate intercoder reliability, the following formula was used: Intercoder Reliability = # of agreements – the # of disagreements # of agreements The initial calculation of reliability was .844. After lengthy discussions between the coders concerning breadth of content contained in initial themes, the data were recoded to reconcile inconsistencies in initial interpretations of the data. The second coding resulted in a larger number of themes that reflected the depth and detail of the content of participant’s responses. Intercoder reliability was recalculated and resulted in a reliability of .917.

interacted with. For example, weekend or vacation travelers may have responded more positively to a casual uniform than business travelers. A second limitation was that it had been five years since the airline implemented their short-lived casual dress policy. Our data relied on participants’ ability to recall specific information. It is possible that the information participants’ recalled was significant to them because they were able to recall it. With recalled information, however, there is also potential for the stories to get better over time. It is also possible that there was additional information left out because they were not able to recall it and the information they omitted may have altered our findings. It is important to investigate the impact of changes in dress codes and uniform policies while participants are undergoing the change. Investigating changing dress codes during the process of change may be very possible within schools or other social organizations as they continue to alter dress codes and institute new policies. A final limitation was that data collection occurred before and after the terrorist acts of September 11, 2001. After the attacks, airport security increased, demand for flights decreased (e.g., people stopped using airlines for travel), and flights on the airlines were canceled and reduced in overall number. As a result, many flight attendants were asked to take a leave of absence or were laid off. With a few of the post-attack interviews, responses were brief and it was extremely difficult to get them to elaborate on their answers.

Results Participant Characteristics

Limitations One limitation of our research was that we did not ask participants about the number of times they worked while wearing their casual uniform. After having analyzed the data, it was apparent the number of times a participant worked while wearing the casual uniform would have affected the number of social interactions experienced, the context of interactions, and the variety of individuals


Thirty-seven flight attendants (32 = female, 5 = male) were interviewed. Participants’ ages ranged from 26 to 64 years of age with a mean age of 37. All of the participants indicated their ethnicity was White, except for one participant who indicated that their ethnicity was Vietnamese. All participants indicated that they were with the airline for a minimum of six years and considered themselves experienced flight attendants.

Volume 23


#2

2005

93

Findings

a sense of belonging to both their crew and their profession, and represented the airline.

The findings are presented with first, the questions the participants were asked and then, followed by the analyses of their responses. In the first part of the interview, participants were asked the following questions: How does wearing a formal uniform impact your behavior as a flight attendant? How did wearing a casual uniform impact your behavior as a flight attendant? How does wearing a formal uniform enhance or hinder your job as a flight attendant? How did wearing a casual uniform enhance or hinder your job as a flight attendant? Do you think what you wear impacts your success as a flight attendant? Uniforms Impacted Behavior Participants overwhelmingly responded that their uniform affected their behavior. Analysis of participant responses to the question concerning how a formal uniform impacted their behavior revealed five themes: physical behavior, sentiment, identity, viewpoint, and no impact (see Table 1 for theme descriptors). For example, the behavior and sentiment themes were identified from statements such as the following. I tend to be more reserved in a more formal uniform and I tend to work routinely. I try hard to keep clean and avoid things such as messy food. I modify my behavior to fit the situation. [physical behavior] Yes, this uniform impacts my behavior by giving me a little bit of an important feeling, especially the wings. [sentiment] It is fun to hear, “There goes the crew”. . . being identifiable. [identity] Overall, when wearing the formal uniform, participants noted they changed their posture and engaged in a high level of personal grooming. Participants noted feelings of pride, confidence, importance, and of being in control. According to participants, wearing a formal uniform communicated flight attendants’ identity to others, created

94

Clothing

Textiles

Analysis of participants’ responses to the question concerning the impact of wearing a casual uniform on behavior resulted in parallel themes. The themes were parallel but the content of the themes changed. The participants talked about physical behaviors, sentiment, and identity, but when wearing the casual uniform the physical behaviors described were relaxed, the sentiments were negative, and identities evoked were other than that of a flight attendant (see Table 1). Participants when wearing a casual uniform reported that they acted less refined when working with passengers. They reported feeling self-conscious, unconfident, embarrassed, and unprofessional. They expressed concern that the casual uniform did not communicate their identity as the flight attendant. Casual dress impacted my behavior by being more relaxed and comfortable toward passers. I acted a little less refined. [physical behavior] I felt the shorts and T-shirt reinforced vacation-like behavior and I was insecure about going or doing my job as a flight attendant. [sentiment] People thought we were a professional sports team or Burger King employees who wore the same shirts. [identity] A new theme emerged from this later group of responses. The theme was labeled physiology and contained statements about the body’s ability to function. Participants reported that the casual uniform was physically comfortable to wear while working. A few participants also indicated wearing the casual uniform had no impact on their behavior. It made my body very happy . . . the socks and tennis shoes and shorts were the best idea ever. I just felt much better—no panty hose. [physiology]



Table 1. How the Uniform Affected Actions Type of action

Type of uniform Formal

Casual

physical behavior

Posture: stand straighter, disposition: reserved, maintenance of personal grooming: lipstick is always on (n = 14)

acting less refined, relaxed, less tense, vacation-like behavior, didn’t act as professional (n = 23)

sentiment

pride, confidence, importance, control (n = 8)

lack of respect, self-conscious, not confident, embarrassment, unprofessional (n = 7)

identity

identity as flight attendant; sense of belonging to crew; to profession, represented the company (n = 11)

uniform’s inability to communicate flight attendant role, other identities evoked by the uniform, poor image (n = 6)

viewpoint

professional attitude (n = 17)

no comments in this category

physiology


body’s ability to function, felt much better, comfortable to work in (n = 19)

Uniforms Impacted Job Performance Participants’ responses to the two interview questions concerning a) whether either uniform impacted their ability to perform their job and b) whether they felt restricted in any way in performing their duties as flight attendants were analyzed together. Their responses to the first question were reiterated in their responses to the second. Of those participants who indicated that their formal uniform enhanced their ability, analysis of their responses resulted in four themes: physical behavior, sentiment, identity, and physiology (see Table 2 for theme descriptors).

I feel pride when I put it [the uniform] on—there is something there in a positive way. [sentiment] Uniform dress enhances the job . . . It is easier to spot authority. [identity] I am comfortable working in a uniform. [physiology] Participants reported the formal uniform enhanced their physical ability to help passengers and resulted in feelings of pride, professionalism,

Table 2. How the Uniform Enhanced Ability to Perform Duties Type of response


Casual

physical behavior

ability to assist passengers (n = 8)


sentiment

pride, professionalism, and liking (n = 7)

feeling fun, being free-spirited (n = 7)

identity

communicating to others unity, authority, and respect (n = 4)


physiology

physical comfort of the body (n = 11)

physical comfort of the body (n = 18)

mobility


increased physical stamina (n = 12)


Volume 23


#2

2005

95

and liking. The formal uniform resulted in communicating authority and garnering respect from passengers and peers. Responses of those participants who indicated the formal uniform hindered their ability to perform their job reflected four themes: physical behavior, safety, aesthetics, and mobility (see Table 3 for theme descriptors). A dress is not as convenient as pants, but you manage to pick up trash [and] to check [overhead] bins . . . hoping no ones sees your underpants. [physical behavior] Yes [hinder], if there was a fire, nylons or polyester linings melt to your skin so these fabrics are a safety hazard. [safety] Hinder because when you wear a skirt or dress it is much more difficult to reach up or bend over because you need to be aware of the movement of your attire. [mobility] Participants noted that the formal uniform prevented them from acting inappropriately (e.g., goofy). These participants reported the formal uniform was aesthetically unpleasing and presented physical limitations related to reaching up into the overhead compartments or bending over during service to passengers. There was one participant who indicated that the flight attendants’ formal uniform was a hindrance because of the terrorist hijackings of airplanes on September 11, 2001. Everyone on the plane needs to know where and when to focus their attention on me because I am an airline employee but after September 11th, 2001, I think that can be a bad thing [identity] The content of the responses of the participants who indicated that a formal uniform both enhanced their abilities and hindered their abilities were focused on physiology.

96

Clothing

Textiles

It doesn’t hinder but may affect your work duties because of the materials of which the uniform is made, mostly wool, so at times it . . . gets too warm. [physiology] Responses of those participants who indicated that wearing a casual uniform enhanced their ability to do their job reflected three themes: sentiment, mobility, and physiology (see Table 2). The items I picked to wear are comfortable, loose fitting, and allow me to arm and disarm a door or reach into an overhead bin. I do not feel that I have to be careful with what I am wearing in order to do my job. [mobility] My makeup did not run nor did my hair fall because I was not sweating all the time. So facially I looked kept up and not tired with smeared makeup. [physiological] These participants remarked the casual uniform was fun and free spirited. Participants who liked the casual uniform reported wearing it increased their physical stamina and provided physical comfort. One participant in particular shared there was a therapeutic benefit to wearing a casual uniform. She said she had fewer varicose veins in her legs because there was less pressure exerted on her legs when wearing sneakers. However, there were side effects to the casual uniform. A participant noted she had to shave her legs more often while wearing the casual uniform than the formal uniform; while another participant said she needed to tan to wear the casual uniform. For those participants who indicated wearing a casual uniform hindered their ability to do their job, responses reflected three themes: identity, aesthetics, and sentiment (see Table 3). Comments were made that our appearance looked like a “volleyball team.” [identity] It was tacky and faded. [aesthetic] I did not like it. I felt unprofessional. It is hard to say, but I didn’t act as professional in my shorts, tennis shoes, and t-shirt. [sentiment]



Table 3. How the Uniform Hindered Ability to Perform Duties. Category of response


Casual

physical behavior

restricted behavior (e.g., could not act goofy); altered behavior (e.g., necktie that got in the way during service) (n = 42)


safety

fabric content of uniform (polyester, nylon) was unsafe (e.g., could cause severe burns in the case of a fire) (n = 3)


aesthetics

unattractive material, unattractive design (n = 2)

unattractive design, inability to maintain appearance of uniform (e.g., colors faded) (n = 3)

mobility

restricted body movement, placed physical limitations on the wearer (n = 23)

increased physical stamina beyond regular experience (n = 12)

identity


inability to use uniform to communicate role of flight attendant (e.g., “We looked like a volleyball team”) (n = 6)

feelings


lack of respect, reduced pride, lack of confidence, embarrassment (n = 7)

It did hinder because there was a lack of respect from the passengers. [sentiment] Participants expressed a concern with the inability of the casual uniform to communicate their identity as the flight attendant. Participants were also concerned with the design of the casual uniform and its maintenance over time. Responses were mixed when asked whether what they wore reflected their success as flight attendants. A majority of participants indicated that what they wore was indicative of their success. Themes that emerged from participants’ responses to this question were labeled sentiment, identity, and viewpoint. The sentiment theme reflected thoughts about confidence, professionalism, and respect. The identity theme reflected the use of the uniform as an image builder. The viewpoint theme reflected general thoughts about dress and subsequent treatment by others. If I feel good about what I am wearing I am more likely to be happier as opposed to wearing something unattractive. [sentiment]


When I wear the [formal] uniform, it commands attention, positive attention. [identity] In these participants’ experience, dress impacted their emotions while at work and contributed to building the identity of the airline. Feeling good about what you wore at work resulted in positive emotions. These participants also saw a connection between what they wore at work and feeling able to handle job responsibilities in a proficient manner. Participants who responded that what they wore was not indicative of their success either indicated success of a flight attendant was unrelated to dress or attributed work success to another aspect of self. One participant directly responded about the success of a flight attendant after the September 11th terrorist hijackings on United States’ airplanes: Definitely, it does impact your job. You are viewed as a professional by what you are wearing especially after the September 11th bombing.

Volume 23


#2

2005

97

Uniforms Impacted Relationships with Unknown Others The second set of questions participants answered concerned casual uniforms: Did customers treat you differently when you were dressed in a casual uniform? Did pilots treat you differently? Did other flight attendants treat you differently? Of those participants who indicated the casual uniform affected their relationship with passengers, three themes emerged from their responses: identity, treatment, and the changed nature of social interactions. Some passengers treated me with casual respect [and] some passengers treated me with no respect at all. [treatment] I had more insecurities dealing with customer relations in casual attire . . . It was much harder. [social interaction] These participants expressed a great deal of concern over their experience of not being identified as flight attendants when wearing a casual uniform. Perhaps not being identified as the flight attendant put into action a series of events. As a result of not being identified as flight attendants, passengers did not give participants the respect participants’ thought they deserved, resulting in difficult flight attendant-passenger interactions. Table 4. How the Casual Uniform Affected Relationship with Passengers and Peers Type of response

98

Type of person Passenger

Peer

identity

not a flight attendant (n = 31)

cheap airline (n = 5)

treatment

insolence, lack of respect, harder to deal with passengers, easier to connect with vacation travelers (n = 8)

teased (n = 11)

sentiment

insecure (n = 5)

awkward (n = 3)

Clothing

Textiles

Participants’ responses were overwhelmingly “no” when they were asked if a casual uniform affected their relationship with pilots. Two participants said that they felt differently around pilots but were not treated differently; one participant said that pilots did not treat flight attendants differently because the work relationship was already established. Participants’ responses were somewhat split when asked if flight attendants representing other airlines treated participants differently when wearing a casual uniform: Of the responses of the participants who indicated “yes,” the themes that emerged were labeled treatment and sentiment. We were on a crew bus with a major airline and they asked us if we were all part of a sports team . . . knowing in full that we weren’t! [treatment] Yes, they laughed at us . . . especially from flight attendants outside the United States. [treatment] I felt awkward around them. Air-France was one time getting off in Houston and were all pressed. We [Sun Country] were all in t-shirts. [sentiment] Yes. The looks. They [other flight attendants] looked us up and down. You got the feeling that you were “trash.” [sentiment] Participants reported being teased and laughed at by flight attendants representing other airlines. Participants also experienced feeling self-conscious and awkward while wearing the casual uniform.

Interpretation of Data As we answer our research questions it is clear the type of uniform worn by flight attendants while working did change their behaviors and self-perceptions in a variety of ways. The type of uniform worn affected participants’ deportment, how often they did maintenance to their appearance (e.g., reapplied makeup, combed hair), their perceptions



concerning their identity as flight attendants, their professionalism, and their perceptions concerning how their body functioned. Overall, when participants wore the casual uniform, their work behavior became relaxed. In contrast, when participants wore the formal uniform, their behavior was reserved. When writing about the effects of wearing casual dress, no one directly mentioned how wearing casual dress could alter behavior in the workplace. Previous researchers and authors (Damhorst et al., 1999; Kazakoff, 1996; Littlefield, 1994) speculated that casual dress could break down communication barriers or make an individual feel they were a part of the organization but not that casual dress would actually change behavior. Our findings document that type of dress does impact the behavior and emotions of the individual as well as his or her perceptions concerning ability to perform their job. Documenting this fact, that the dress you wear influences behavior and feelings, provides research support for employers who want to mandate the dress of their employees through dress codes. The experiences of the flight attendants when wearing a formal uniform were different than when wearing a casual uniform. In general, participants reported that the formal uniform enhanced their abilities to perform their role as flight attendants, whereas several participants reported a causal uniform hindered their abilities to carry out their role. Applying Stone’s concepts of program, review, validation, or challenge to participants’ responses indicated that their identities as flight attendants were validated when wearing the formal uniform and challenged when wearing the casual uniform. Stone (1962) commented that when an appearance is challenged, an individual could redefine the identity that the dress was attempting to communicate. An individual could also choose to alter their appearance to successfully communicate the identity or could give up that identity. Perhaps the abrupt change from casual back to formal was fueled to some extent by the challenged appearances experienced by the flight attendants. Participants’ comments suggested that passengers were unable or unwilling to link the identity of a flight attendant with a casual uniform. Since the flight attendants


could not give up the role of flight attendant or redefine their roles, the only option left was to alter their appearance. We know flight attendants did revert to wearing the formal uniform but we cannot state definitively to what extent their experiences with passengers and peers influenced the abrupt change. Although flight attendants did complain to management about their casual uniforms, other reasons existed for making the change. At the time, the airline was also attempting to convert from a charter carrier to a major carrier. No other major carrier at the time had adopted a casual uniform for its flight attendants. In order to appear like other major airlines, management may have decided they needed to go back to requiring formal uniforms regardless of the experiences of their flight attendants. As we uncovered how participants experienced their uniforms in the workplace we were able to compare what we found with Joseph’s (1986) ideas about the functions of a uniform. We found that all of the functions outlined by Joseph were supported by our data. In particular, from responses to several questions throughout the interview, we concluded that participants perceived the formal uniform as effective in communicating their identity as flight attendants and in certifying their authority in this role. The formal uniform suppressed individuality by making all flight attendants appear alike and also served as a status leveler. Expressions of individuality were extremely limited to a few choices such as hairstyle or color of a scarf or necktie. In contrast, when reflecting on wearing a casual uniform, flight attendants commented that their uniform did not communicate their identity or certify their authority. However, like the formal uniform, the casual uniform created uniformity and was a status leveler. The flight attendants were perceived as an athletic team, that is, as equal members of a group when wearing the casual uniform. Wearing a casual uniform did affect the participants’ perceived work-related experiences with passengers and flight attendants from other airlines. Participants noted that passengers at times were disrespectful and interactions were difficult. Casual dress affected flight attendants’

Volume 23


#2

2005

99

work relationships but not in the breaking-down barriers manner suggested by Littlefield (1994) or by Woodard (1999). Rather than breaking-down barriers, wearing a casual uniform created obstacles and limited the effectiveness with which flight attendants could do their jobs. The casual uniform reduced the flight attendant’s authority. We suggest that the management of an organization needs to consider whether casual dress is right for their organization and perhaps even right for specific roles within their organization rather than just assume because other organizations have gone casual they should follow their lead. Suggestions for Future Research It would strengthen our findings if another research project were to take place during the transitional time when a company is changing their dress codes or changing their uniform. This type of research project may be possible as schools and other social organizations continue to consider changes in dress codes or the adoption of uniforms. Being able to understand how and what individuals are thinking and feeling while the transition is occurring could reveal other potential effects of dress on interpersonal relationships and self-perceptions. Also, other researchers might consider whether over time the casual uniform might not have hindered the flight attendants in carrying out their jobs. Would the flight attendants been able to assert their role and the authority associated with this role using other aspects of appearance or non-appearance related techniques? Participants were not given much time to adjust to the uniform change. There are many other professions, nursing as one example, in which change has been made from a uniform that was prescribed to uniforms allowing for greater variety. Studies could be designed to investigate whether nurses have experienced the loss of respect similar to that experienced by these flight attendants in making the change from a formal uniform to a casual uniform. Has the change in uniform for nurses reduced their authority? General observations of individuals in the United States in a variety of situations suggest that a casual

100

Clothing

Textiles

appearance is the norm. Blue jeans, as one example, are worn to church, the theater, school, and work by more than a few individuals. Our research demonstrated that a casual appearance in the context of one industry resulted in an undesired image, misperceptions of job roles, and lack of respect. With casual attire, has dress lost its power to signify certain roles and authority or will organizations be shifting back to noncasual dress codes? Evidence that the trend for business dress is shifting away from casual is the announcement that Target Corporation is adopting a formal dress code (Cummins, 2004). The 20-page memorandum outlining the new dress code states the “ ‘preferred’ attire at its downtown headquarters will become suits for men and women” (p. 1). Although Target personnel did not officially comment on the specific reasons why management was initiating a formal dress code, some workplace experts see the move back to formal business dress code as part of a nationwide trend to “take grooming back up a notch driven in part by employees who want to look extra-good in a time of widespread layoffs. But a bigger reason, they say, is that some employees went overboard on low-cut blouses, high-cut miniskirts, graphic tattoos, and body piercings” (p. 1).

References Agins, T. (2000, February 18). The new office wear. Wall Street Journal, p. W1. Biecher, E., Keaton, P., & Pollman, W. (1999). Casual dress at work. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 64(1), 17. Brown, T. J. (1994). The dress-down debate. Industry Week, 243(16), 43. Cummins, H. (2004, July 14). Target gives ‘business casual’ the boot. Star Tribune. Retrieved July 24, 2004 from http://www.startribune.com/stories/535/4874785.html Damhorst, M. L., Miller, K. A., & Michelman, S. O. (1999). The meanings of dress. New York: Fairchild. The dress-down phenomenon. (1995, December). Marketing Review, pp. 9-11. Fontana, A., & Frey, J. (1994). Interviewing. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.) Handbook of Quali-



tative Research (pp. 220-235). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Haise, C. L., & Rucker, M. (2003). The flight attendant uniform: Effects of selected variables on flight attendant image, uniform preference, and employee satisfaction. Social Behavior and Personality, 31(6), 565-576. Heller, K. (1995, May). T. G. I. F. Working Woman, pp. 85-88. Jones, B. (1996). Unsuitable for the job? Management Review, 85(7), 51. Joseph, N. (1986). Uniforms and nonuniforms: Communication through clothing. New York: Greenwood Press. Joseph, N., & Alex, N. (1972). The uniform: A sociological perspective. American Journal of Sociology, 77(4), 719-730. Kazakoff, L. (1996, February 9). Dress-down Friday. San Francisco Chronicle. Final Edition. Littlefield, Y. (1994, July/August). Dress codes erode. Journal of Business Strategy, pp. 7-8. Marech, R. (2000, March 28). Menswear gets a dressing down: Stores retool as suits fall out of vogue. San Francisco Chronicle. Final Edition. Morse, J. (1994). Designing funded qualitative research. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 220-235). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Rafaeli, A., Dutton, J., Harquail, C. V., & Mackie-


Lewis, S. (1997). Navigating by attire: The use of dress by female administrative employees. Academy of Management Journal, 40(1), 9-45. Rubinstein, R. (1995). Dress codes. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Schmemann, S. (2001, September 12). United Sates attacked: President vows to exact punishment for ‘evil.’ The New York Times, p. A1. Steinhauer, J. (1997, April 9). What vanity and casual Fridays wrought. The New York Times Late Edition (Final), p. A1. Stone, G. P. (1962). Appearance and the self. In A. Rose (Ed.), Human behavior and the social processes (pp. 86-116). New York: Houghton Mifflin. Sun Country Airlines. (1996). Dress code. Sun Country Airlines. (2000). Press kit. Touliatos, J., & Compton, N. (1988). Research methods in human ecology/ home economics. Ames: Iowa State University. Van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. New York: The State University of New York Press. Woodard, G. (1999). Casual apparel in the workplace. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 3(4), 301-310. Yates, D., & Jones, G. (1998). Casual dress days: Are there bottom-line impacts? Organization Development Journal, 16(1), 107-110.

Volume 23


#2

2005

101