Dress Standards at Work: You Are What You Wear, Really? Essay

Clothing is a powerful tool for identity construction and can be recognized as a stamp of self-expression. Simply put, clothes make the man (Mark Twain, 1927). In modern day situations, women are gradually engaging in manipulation of work attire to construct identities and manage impressions as the emphasis on clothes and appearance increases (Guy & Banim, 2000). While there appears to be evidence for the argument that female employees engage with clothing as a means of how they construct their image in the workplace, their attire decisions are often restricted by strict regulatory regime on clothing (Peluchette, Karl & Rust, 2006). Before delving further into the various types of strict regulatory clothing regime involved, it is critical to have a well-defined understanding about the relationship between a woman’s dressing and her identity in corporate work settings (Peluchette, Karl & Rust, 2006). The style in which women dress reflects deeply the gist of who and what they t ruly are in terms of their identity (Findley, Fretwell, Wheatley & Ingram, 2006). It is believed that women use clothing to define as well as communicate her identity to others. According to Davis and Lennon (as cited in Peluchette, Karl & Rust, 2006), women strategically select clothing according to the image they wish to project to others. If this is the case, observers in workplaces should be able to make sense of and show consensus with regards to the information the woman is bringing across in her clothing cues at work, as well as substantially agree between the perceived meaning of clothing cues and the her actual identity. However, that is only valid if the work attire women don on is specifically determined by them to represent themselves in their respective workplaces. Put differently, the ability of women in managing their identities in workplaces through effective dressing depends on the extent of their freedom of choice when it comes to clothing decisions. Therefore, this paper will begin by exploring arguing for the ways in which dressing of women is restricted by external influences, and conclude that their clothing cues may not be related to true identity of women as freedom of dressing is compromised. Company’s desire for professional image In today’s world, many companies enforce strict dress codes on women in orderto gain the merit of a workforce labor with a professional image (Cardon & Okoro, 2009). Knowing that a female employee’s appearance at work has a direct impact on the company’s image, many organizations establish and enforce regulatory regime on work clothing to ensure that the organization is best represented in a professional manner (Findley, Fretwell, Wheatley & Ingram, 2006). From a corporate perspective, it appears that formal dress codes are usually associated with increased professionalism. For example, when women wear white blouses, black blazers and black knee-length skirts, they are said to appear more authoritative, influential, powerful, confident and competent (Cardon & Okoro, 2009). Since work attire of women has a direct impact on their ability to attract clients as well as acquire new business for the company, most companies end up monitoring and dictating dress policies that demand for a regulated attire such as sensible dark suits and A-line skirts (McPherson, 1997; Findley, Fretwell, Wheatley & Ingram, 2006). This effectively restricts the diversity of work attire working women are allowed to don in their workplaces. As a result, women’s ability to demonstrate their true identities through dressing is often restricted by an enforced corporate attire and identity. That is to say, organizations implicitly control office ladies’ work attire by stating clothing policies that mandate a satisfactory level of dress standard. For instance, female employees in especially conservative industries such as banks and law firms are prohibited from wearing sundresses, mini skirts, jeans or shorts during work time (Rafaeli & Pratt, 1993). While employers redefine the parameters of workplace attire and dictate women’s attire to project the desired professional identity the company desires, working women lose their choice of freedom to dress accordingly to how they want themselves to be seen. Hence, they end up succumbing to clothing attire and a prescribed work identity that is determined primarily by organizational rules (Rafaeli & Pratt, 1993). Homogenous work attire On a similar note, women’s ability to communicate their actual identities across to observers may also be constrained by obligatory homogenous dressing in corporate scenes. One classic example would be the white color dress in health service administrations that is made compulsory, as it is believed to communicate the code of cleanliness in the health industry.Likewise, the feminine style of work attire at Mary Kay Cosmetics that strictly dictates only dress and no pants indicates the feminine values that the manager of the organization identifies as fundamental identity to the organization (Rafaeli and Pratt, 1993). It can be observed then, when women in such working places are involved in a common pattern of clothing imposed on them by their employers, their identity is merely the product of their companies’ image and attributions rather then individual choice towards identity construction. In like manner, pink-collared female employees are compelled to wear company uniforms in customer-contact jobs, such as fast food restaurants, for easier identification. For instance, all female employees in the aviation industry were made to conform to a mandatory dress code not only because they were constantly in public contact and directly represent the airline company’s brand image, but also in order for them to be easily recognized in flight. The meaning of clothing cues, in such scenarios, reflects the brand identity of the organizations the women represent, and in this case, the airline industry. Uniformity ordained by strict dress regulations explicitly forbids women from exercising freedom of dress, thereby disallowing them to communicate their identities across effectively in workplaces. As a result, the information present in the clothing cues of women in corporate scenes where dressing is dictated by higher authority may not be demonstrative of their actual identi ties. Governed by societal expectation Women’s choices of dressing in workplaces are not based on essential requirements of their actual identity, but rather on socially constructed norms, which are barriers to their attempts at identity construction through dressing. Governance by societal expectations can be understood in terms of gender norms, as well as workplace roles, both of which attribute certain image to be expected of female workers across work organizations. Socially constructed gender norms forbid certain styles of working attire of women, those of which are deemed to fall outside commonly understood gender norms. For instance, women are expected to conform and dress according to the stereotypical attitudes about women in workplaces (Martucci & Zheng, 2007). Female employees were prohibited from wearing working clothes that were deemed too masculine, and were expected to dress more femininely as well as wear more jewelry (Martucci & Zheng, 2007). Otherwise, they will be prone to sexual discrimination based on society’s sex stereotypes (Martucci & Zheng, 2007). When it comes to gender subordination of dress choices, the socially enforced appearance for work dress standards inevitably construct a subordinated image of working women. In other words, women’s clothing decisions are confined to the subjective qualities of femaleness in workplaces. In this case, women’s ability to manage gender identity according to their psychological preference, or their external demonstration of gender in workplaces is restricted by society’s sexually stereotypical assumption about femininity. Similarly, societal expectations about women’s workplace roles also limit their ability to manage identity through dressing. Put differently, society’s perceptions of women’s workplace roles have a large part to play in influencing their attire at work. Case in point, a female professor dressed in casual style of dress comprising jeans, sports shirt and sneakers was rated as having less status and teaching competency than herself when dressed formally in dark suit and white blouse (Rafaeli & Pratt, 1993). As certain attire project various characteristic, women at work often find themselves adopting patterns of dress that are required to not only be accepted, but rather expected of them in their society’s context. In a way, women in such corporate work settings find themselves having to dress in a way that fulfills workplace roles designated to them by society. Both forms of societal expectations describe situations in which the work attire of women reflects a form of informal regulatory regime on clothing. Such socially enforced regulation on women’s work attire eventually affects the outcome of women’s identity, as they dutifully comply with the obligatory dress standards, and end up being inappropriately identified as products governed by societal expectations. Opposing viewpoints Naysayers claim that the corporate world is changing the way it dresses in such time of increasing acceptance towards dressing down in workplaces (McPherson, 1997; Peluchette, Karl & Rust, 2006). Many corporations are now embracing the new style called â€Å"business casual† as they begin to steer away from mandatory formal workplace attire. According to Cadwell (as cited in McPherson, 1997), a study on 1000 companies reveals that almost half of the companies surveyed implemented regular dress-down days throughout the year. The trend of â€Å"casual dressing† adopted by many corporations today permit female employees to let their hair down without having to worry about the need to conform to strict dress codes (McPherson, 1997). As such, working women, as a matter of fact, have the freedom to engage with clothes to create, reveal or conceal aspects of their identity they want to project at their workplaces (Guy & Banim, 2000). While it is true that there is a trend towards casual dressing at work, it comes with a down side for it causes confusion with regards to what is considered casual yet acceptable. In other words, as companies frown upon the allowance of certain forms of casual outfit women don on at workplaces, it is arguable whether dress codes these days any less restrictive or not (McPherson, 1997). The trend towards casual dressing allows for women at work to dress casually, albeit within reason and observing workplace propriety, which in other words, means that women’s work attire are still within control of the organizations they are associated with. As corporations impose guidelines for casual dressing by forbidding denim clothing, T-shirts, tank tops and cowboy boots for example, female attire wearers still suffer limitations (McPherson, 1997). This comes off as an unspoken rule on work attire that casts casual dressing as a faux freedom. Therefore, even though casual dressing has allowed for women to manage work attire, many companies still intend to control and limit their clothing decisions through casual business wear policies. In addition, regulatory regime on dress attire has long been a workplace mainstay in certain industries to begin with, such as the food industry, aviation or the bank (McPherson, 1997). Hence, it is understood that not all industries, especially the conservative companies, favor casual dressing and dress down days in the corporate scene. Conclusion In conclusion, dress code requirements imposed by corporations interfere with women’s ability to manage identities in workplaces. As women’s freedom of dress at work is compromised, scant regard is given towards the importance of self-presentation and identity construction. Regulatory rules on work attire are merely subordinating standard of appearance imposed on women, identifying them as products of company’s brand identity or societal expectations, effectively diminishing working women’s ability to constantly manage and revise their identities through dressing. REFERENCES Guy, A., & Banim, M. (2000). Personal Collections: women’s clothing use and identity. Journal of Gender Studies, 9(3), 313-327. doi:10.1080/095892300750040512 http://web.ebscohost.com.libproxy.smu.edu.sg/ehost/detail?vid=5&hid=112&sid=5cd5916b-4ab8-4541-9df1-59556e08c386%40sessionmgr113&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=a9h&AN=3889122 Cardon, P. W., & Okoro, E. A. (2009). Professional characteristics communicated by formal versus casual workplace attire. Business Communication Quarterly, 72(3), 355-360. http://ehis.ebscohost.com.libproxy.smu.edu.sg/eds/detail?vid=3&hid=120&sid=9c71b583-73c9-43f4-90b9-92c68bf56683@sessionmgr110&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ==#db=bth&AN=43666664 Peluchette, J. V., Karl, K., & Rust, K. (2006). Dressing to Impress: Beliefs and Attitudes Regarding Workplace Attire. Journal Of Business And Psychology, 21(1), 45-63. http://ehis.ebscohost.com/eds/detail?vid=2&hid=101&sid=1d70c8d0-5feb-4488-ada5-9d4f2ac1018e%40sessionmgr4&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#db=edsjaf&AN=10.2307.25473469 Rafaeli, A., & Pratt, M.J. (1993). TAILORED MEANINGS: ON THE MEANING AND IMPACT OF ORGANIZATIONAL DRESS. Academy Of Management Review, 18(1), 32-55. http://ehis.ebscohost.com/eds/detail?vid=3&hid=115&sid=a2a67364-d589-4b09-a81d-ccf898264642%40sessionmgr4&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#db=bth&AN=3997506 Martucci, W. C., & Zheng, L. (2007). Gender identity and gender expression – Considerations for the national employer. Employment Relations Today (Wiley), 34(2), 79-87. doi:10.1002/ert.20155 http://ehis.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=07fa669d-bf81-4d64-a697