Getting Serious About Going Casual on the Job

David A. Morand

T he workplace is going informal. Ac- counts of innovative, high-performance, high-involvement organizations by such

reputed authors as Peters and Waterman, Kanter, and Lawler repeatedly use the terms “informal-

ity, ” “casualness, ” “spontaneity,” and so on to describe these firms. A climate of informality is viewed as central to their culture; proponents claim that such a climate can boost employee morale, creativity, even overall performance.

Before you ditch the

Informal social relations have long been acknowledged in the workplace. Horseplay ob- served among workers on an assembly line, friendly behavior during a coffee break, sociabil- ity over lunch or at an office party-all illustrate an atmosphere of informality clearly arising to meet workers’ needs for affiliation and belonging. However, in many contemporary firms, instances of situational informality appear to be closely meshed with accomplishing work itself. At Micro- soft, a group of software programmers are seen “wearing bathing suits while discussing software bugs over a game of volleyball in the hallway’ (Rebello and Schwartz 1992). An annual report of Cray Computer states, “People also have fun working at Cray Research. There is laughing in the halls, as well as serious discussion.”

what specific behav- ioral and contextual cues is it demonstrated? What will its specific benefits be for a com- pany? Does greater informality and casual- ness make sense for all types of organizations, or only some? Finally, what practices might a company desiring to “go more casual” implement to facilitate such a transition?

double-breasted suit for jeans and sneakers, make sure this is exact/y what you want your firm’s image to be.

Toward More Casual Dress Codes

That such informality and behavioral “loose- ness” are considered so mainstream to modern organizations is especially intriguing in light of the fact that this deviates so much from the for- mality, protocol, and staidness traditionally asso- ciated with business contexts. Dating back to Max Weber and his notion of bureaucratic imper- sonality, interpersonal and behavioral formality has long been deemed central to the smooth op- eration of large companies. It is important, then, to take a closer look at contemporary constructs of informality, seeking to understand how they may be compatible with traditional preachments regarding propriety and formality in business contexts. What is really meant by informality? By

Perhaps the most common evidence of contem- porary informality is observed in changing modes of dress. Organizations are increasingly “dressing down,” encouraging employees to shed suits for casual wear. Many firms maintain a weekly or monthly “casual day.” In a growing number of companies, casual modes of dress are the norm for all employees ez?ely day. The Bit corporation recently announced a casual corporate dress policy, believing it would foster creativity. IBM, historically regarded as a bastion of formality in the corporate world, recently underwent a major realignment of its organizational culture and an- nounced it would abandon the traditional proto- col of “blue suits,” encouraging employees to come to work dressed casually instead. Other noted companies adopting casual dress policies include General Motors, PepsiCo, and American Express.

In overall terms, companies adopt less re- strictive dress codes because they believe it will enhance employee satisfaction and morale. Yet there are also tangible, concrete effects from casual dress. Loosening one’s tie or rolling up

Getting Serious About Going Casual on the Job 51

one’s shirtsleeves clearly allows easier breathing, comfort, and freedom of movement. Wearing casual shoes in place of high heels or other dress shoes is not only more comfortable but also liber- ating to one’s pace and mode of walking; it facili- tates easier movement across grass, uneven areas, and so forth. Moreover, wearers of casual attire need not worry so much about having clothes perfectly pressed or matching, as they would in more formal attire.

Informality and Formality as Broad Types of Social Situations

Moving beyond codes of dress, however, degrees of formality or informality may be understood in light of a number of specific behavioral and con- textual elements: linguistic cues, conversational patterns, postural and nonverbal cues, types of emotional expression, and modes of decor and architecture. Formality and informality are, in this sense, viewed as two generic types of social situ- ations that are “organized” differently depending on specific communication rules, codes of inter- personal comportment, and contextual markers.

Consider two distinct social scenes. On one hand, a group of individuals dressed in jeans and T-shirts is seated around a table enjoying a so- ciable, casual atmosphere. Their bodily postures are relaxed; some lean back in chairs with arms clasped behind their necks, legs crossed, feet up

on tables. Interruptions among conversants, side exchanges, and multiple changes of topic occur. Intonational animation, conversational levity, and sporadic laughter are observed. A range of emo- tions are expressed. One person is eating a sand- wich, another is drinking a soda, a third stares briefly out the window. This setting and the be- havior in it would be described in broad terms as informal. In contrast, a group of individuals wear- ing formal business attire, seated around a con-

ference table, sitting upright in chairs, exhibiting a common focus of attention, and engaged in serious, deliberate tones of discussion (solemn facial demeanor and so on) would be defined as a relatively formal situation.

Looking more closely, it is possible to iden- tify how specific elements of language can con- tribute to relative informality or formality. Lin- guists define informal language as that which uses “in-group” speech patterns-speech ele- ments that are characteristically found among close friends, social familiars, close-knit work groups. and so on. This includes the use of first names or nicknames. the use of colloquial and slang phrases. phonological slurring (“Hey” in- stead of “Hello.” ” Gimme a hand with this, will ya?’ rather than “Would you please gi\re mc a hand \vith this?“), and so forth. In contrast. for- mal speech is highly standardized. Word choices are more deliberate and include more formal terms (the group is “engaged in deliberations” rather than “having a meeting”; “Would you care for a cup of coffee?’ is used instead of “Wanna cuppa java?“). Sentences in formal speech are also more or less grammatically proper, with the speech fully enunciated and articulated.

Rules for conversational “turn-taking” vary by context. Sociolinguists who study the micrody- namics of conversation find that transitions of turns at speech are highly choreographed, prima- rily at tacit levels. Individuals both give and re- ceive their turns at speaking through coordina- tion using nonverbal cues (subtle head move- ments. slightly raised hands) and minimal verbal cues (“Aah.” changes in intonation). In formal contexts, turns at speech are highly regulated. There are few interruptions; one person speaks. the floor is then explicitly turned over to (or re- quested by) another, who then speaks in turn. Informal conversations show greater leeway in terms of both topic and conversational interrup- tions. Moreover, in formal business contexts, the topic of conversation is serious and always re- lated to work. In informal conversation. the topic may shift back and forth between work and non- work topics, punctuated perhaps with laughter and joking.

Nonverbal and postural cues also differ. In informal situations, as noted, such postures as putting one’s feet on a desk, leaning back in a chair, and clasping one’s hands behind one‘s neck are present. Formal posture is more stiff and attentive. Such distinctions are blatantly found in the armed forces, where “at attention” contrasts with the relaxed “at ease.” Moreover, informality is associated with greater latitude of emotional expression; formality, with the general absence or suppression of emotional expressivity.

Finally, situational elements such as physical decor, furnishings, layout, lighting, and physical

artifacts can contribute to an overall feeling of formality or informality. Formal settings use more spartan, businesslike decor and furnishings. Par- ticipants are usually seated in a symmetric, or- derly pattern; there is often a hushed, subdued atmosphere. In contrast, informal situations are marked by more variation and less orderliness or concern for the status quo. Comfortable living room furniture may be used to deformalize pro- ceedings. Seating arrangements are often decen- tralized so that various centers of attention may emerge.

Informality and Organizational Innovation

Given these building blocks of formality and informality, how is it possible that such elements can contribute to organizational creativity and innovation?

Free-flowing communication networks. One hallmark of successful, organic, innovative, high-performance firms is the existence of dense communication networks that entail multiple and spontaneous communicative ties among person- nel. Such patterns can be engendered by infor- mal conversational norms, making people more likely to initiate spontaneous conversations with others. Contact is not restricted to official report- ing relations or predesignated lines of communi- cation. One feels freer to drop by another‘s office, interrupt a conversation, and so on. The resulting communication networks are important factors enabling companies to adapt successfully to the demands of turbulent, uncertain environments. Business cannot always wait for a formal meeting to be called.

Creativity. Informality in dress and comport- ment can certainly lead to greater creativity. This link may be direct. If in conversation individuals feel free to interrupt, voice spontaneous thoughts, switch topics, or have few constraints on topics, then more creative ideas will likely be generated. Indeed, this is quite similar to rules for brain- storming, a freewheeling mode of interaction with few constraints on what is said. But the link to creativity may also be indirect. For instance, if informal norms regulate organizational members’ selection of potential clothing to be worn on the job, this same norm may symbolize to members that they also have greater freedom of choice and room for individual initiative regarding other aspects of work. Not only can they dress more expressively, they can be creative in other areas as well.

Social familiarity. The “in-group” linguistic and other conversational elements characteristic of informality lead to greater social familiarity and group cohesiveness among individuals. Some might claim that an atmosphere of joking and of conversational and situational laxity is more ap-

propriate for a bar or party atmosphere. This may be a valid caveat, but the fact is that an informal social, even “fun” atmosphere is not antithetical to work. Many companies adopting informality are high-tech or high-involvement firms employ- ing professionals who have strongly internalized professional and organizational goals. Because these companies operate in uncertain environ- ments, they typically rely less on routine, formal- ized mechanisms of control and more on shared cultural norms and the “high involvement” of members. If members have internalized a strong work ethic and sense of occupational devotion, there is no reason to frown on developing affec- tive ties at work. Enjoyment of a work atmo- sphere can be important for these people. More- over, the emergence of social rapport and cama- raderie is essential for developing trust relations around which “clan” organizations revolve.

Status leveling. In bureaucratic organiza- tions, status distinctions are often reinforced by the very trappings of formality. The hushed atmo- sphere, the palatial scope, the formal decor of executive suites can impart a daunting and fore- boding aura. Subordinates use formal terms of address (“Mr., ” “Sir”) and are otherwise cautious and circumspect in language usage (“Excuse me, sorry to bother you, but if you are not too busy. I have a small question”). This formality also ex- tends to other behaviors. Subordinate actors as- sume greater physical interpersonal distance; they stand or sit at respectful attention in the presence of superiors, don’t broach familiar subjects unless asked to. and don’t initiate laughter or joking behavior.

In contrast, the informality present in organic firms dissolves these status symbols. If a superior’s desk is easily accessible and not surrounded by

Getting Serious About Going Casual on the Job

imposing physical trappings, subordinates are freer to approach it. If informal norms of conduct are established, bosses become more approach- able. Superiors and subordinates mingle and interact as equals; “Hey, Jack!” is far more infor- mal than “Good morning, Mr. Dithers.” Thus, whereas the organizational structure of “high- performance” firms is decentralized, the informal atmosphere of such firms also enables the climate of interpersonal relations to be egalitarian and collegial. As Andrew Grove (1985). CEO of Intel, noted, “Status symbols certainly do not promote the flow of ideas, facts, and points of view.”

How Formality Can Play a Positive Role

It must be recognized, however, that behavioral formality also has a place in organizational set- tings. Formality has traditionally been associated with such bureaucratic workplaces as banks, insurance companies, and government agencies. The seriousness and interpersonal protocol en- countered in such firms serve a purpose, for they seek to routinize interaction and cotnmunication patterns. control deviations from a predetermined routine, and depersonalize interaction-in short, they promote many characteristics that are coun- terpoised to flexibility and innovation.

One outcome of formality is the reinforce- ment of legitimate authority and the tnore “cer- emonial” aspects of work. In other words, the trappings of formality can underscore the fact that “work” is a serious undertaking that is physi- cally and psychologically distinct from play. Pay- ing attention to our mode of dress. our enuncia-

tion, our impersonal

“Forma/ii-y may be appropriate and play an organizational/y functional role where the very nature of work calls for regimented, rou tinized, impersonal working relations. ”

emotional demeanor. and whose turn it is to speak signals an entrance into a realm in which psycho- logical energies and be- haviors differ from usual. We do not, for instance, expect judges to act in- formally; rather, we ex- pect them to present a stern, impassive de- tneanor. Such modes of expression reinforce a judge’s legitimacy and authority and the overall

sober aura of court proceedings. as well as elicit the respect people must accord such an occasion.

Similarly, rules constraining interaction in formal settings-not to interrupt, to stick to one topic, not to carry on side conversations, to pay concerted attention-routinize certain business transactions and enable people to carry out their work efficiently while maintaining professional distance and objectivity. A policeman ticketing a

motorist may employ a formal demeanor and speaking style to keep things businesslike. Bank loan officers maintaining personal decorum and protocol tend to create an air of impersonality that is important in such decisions. To act other- wise might create the wrong impression. When a manager appraises the performance of a subordi- nate, behavioral patterns and contextual features can communicate a serious, no-nonsense ap- proach.

Consider how specific linguistic devices come into play: avoiding the pronouns “I” and “you” (“It is necessary that a ticket be issued for this infraction”); using more formal language (“Do you care to submit an application for a home equity loan?” as opposed to “So you wanna bor- row some money?“). Even “Please be seated” communicates something differently than “Grab a seat,” although both ultimately itnpart the same request for action.

Implications for Managers and for Organizational Design

In the course of my work as a consultant, many businesses aware of the contemporary trend to- ward informality, especially regarding dress, have queried whether they should try to move their companies toward greater informality. One of the specific questions asked is whether there are tangible and definable benefits-or possibly even some drawbacks-to greater informality. In re- sponse. I have outlined a rationale as to just why greater informality may prove functional for some businesses.

Formality may be appropriate and play an organizationally functional role where the very nature of work calls for regimented, routinized. impersonal working relations. Informality is. in contrast, likely to be functional where routine procedures or interpersonal discourse is less im- portant-where turbulent environmental contin- gencies require rapid and innovative communica- tion patterns, and where the work force has inter- nalized a strong sense of dedication to organiza- tional goals. Thus, such firtns as banks. insurance agencies, and government bureaucracies might benefit from some degree of formality, whereas high-tech and other innovative companies would more likely benefit from a relatively informal atmosphere. Informality might also prove useful in some service sector organizations-a rapidly growing area-in which the development of emotional ties and an atmosphere of friendliness between employees and clients is viewed as itn- portant.

Of course, formality and informality are ideal types. Not all organizations fit neatly into one of the two extremes. Nevertheless, one sure gener- alization is that there exists a global trend-perti-

nent to almost all contemporary corporations, at least to some degree-toward greater innovation, flexibility, and hence informality.

Organizations desiring to go more informal must first decide whether they wish to use infor- mality for the purpose of creating an occasional “casual day” for employees, or more broadly. In the case of dress, a casual day might be likened to an extra “perk,” something designed to make the work environment more pleasing and per- haps raise morale, yet having a limited impact on the actual performance of work.

Even firms that have instituted casual cloth- ing policies have found they must set guidelines regarding an appropriate definition of “casual.” Even though informality generally implies a loos- ening of prior restrictions, various types and de- grees of informal attire exist-from sleeveless T- shirts, jeans, and Birkenstocks to casual “dressy” attire. Jeans and T-shirts may work for a Silicon Valley firm employing software programmers who set their own hours and often work late into the night. But a company whose employees in- teract frequently with the public may consider such interpretation of informality rather indeco- rous, even anarchic. A very basic definition of casual dress would encompass clothing that en- ables one to feel comfortable at work while still appearing neat and professional. This would include comfortable pieces such as cotton shirts and sweaters, khaki pants, and jeans.

Companies thinking about going casual may consider using a monthly or weekly casual day as an experiment. Those desiring to cultivate infor- mality on a more far-reaching level have addi- tional avenues. For one, statements of corporate culture or philosophy can profoundly shape be- havioral norms and organizational climate. Thus, a company might develop an explicit statement to the effect that its culture is informal, that it values creativity and innovation-much like the statement of corporate philosophy from Cray Computer cited earlier,

Further, CEOs and other top executives serve as symbolic, ceremonial figureheads who influ- ence the setting and modeling of cultural norms. Thus, one should observe the behavioral style and manner of the CEO and other top executives, Do they come to work in shirtsleeves, maintain an informal interactional style, run meetings sit- ting on top of a desk, call impromptu meetings, drop in on people, manage by walking around, and so on? Similarly, what style does the office decor of the CEO and of other managerial areas reflect?

As noted, organizations may also employ architectural configurations and decor to foster an ambiance of informality. At the corporate head- quarters of Mars Inc., the CEO’s desk is located in the middle of the floor, thereby encouraging face-

to-face interaction and instilling a sense of colle- giality. Some firms intentionally design offices with escalators rather than elevators because this encourages greater frequency of informal face-to- face contact among personnel. Others have de- signed buildings with special open rooms (known as “people pockets”) off heavily traveled corri- dors specifically to allow for spontaneous, informal gatherings of employees. IBM, in conjunction with its recently announced policy of casual dress, also announced it was selling its old, palatial headquarters because they were too formal and conducive to old ways of doing busi- ness. The company explicitly used the word “casual” to de- scribe its new digs. In contrast to the former im- posing hilltop headquarters, the new building is purposefully smaller, more intimate, and set in a wooded “campus-like” setting.

Organizations may also-at least to a de- gree-engineer linguistic norms, such as through policies related to forms of address. Formality and hierarchy are typically marked by asymmetric exchanges of naming. Bosses call subordinates by their first names, while subordinates often feel constrained to the title form (Ms., Mr.) in address- ing superiors-especially when the superior is two or more hierarchical levels above. To instill mutual informality, many companies have insti- tuted policies of “universal first naming”: all em- ployees are explicitly on a first-name basis with all others. Examples include General Electric, Hewlett-Packard, Corning Inc., United Parcel Service, and Mars Inc. Even secretaries and blue- collar workers in these firms address the CEO this way. The practice is in many ways revolu- tionary, and can have a profound effect on inter- action patterns and the overall climate.

Finally, it is worth noting that the emphasis placed on interpersonal informality may certainly vary across cultures. In a comparative sense, Americans are notoriously informal. Within Japa- nese culture, for example, formality of posture and overall interpersonal comportment is deemed an essential element in business communications. Other cultures, such as those scoring high on Hofstede’s dimension of “power distance,” em- phasize the use of ceremonial aspects of interac- tion to preserve status distinctions. Thus, Ameri- cans need to be aware of the fact that their “breezy informality” may not transfer easily into the value systems of other cultures.

Getting Serious About Going Casual on the Job 55

I t is vital to emphasize that if it is to succeed, informality must exist in a contrxt in which employees are highly committed to and have

internalized the overall goals of an organization. When such is not the case, inf[~rIl~lity can result in too much laxness or a breakdown of order. Indeed, it can also tend toward chaos and anar- chy. All of us have had the experience of attend- ing a disorderly meeting-too Inany people try- ing to speak at once, too many interruptions or shifts of topic, too mtlny people coming and going. This may bu conducive to productivity in some contexts, such as during a brainstorming session, but not in others. So it is ultimately nec- essary to set bounds in which individuals can get their work done.

I~lf~r~n~lity works Ix~t vdxm it is perceived as being consonant with the overall goals and values of a corporate culture. The tnessage im- parted to employees must he that informal be- havior and ambiance are part of the company’s way of succeeding at its tore competencies and its mission. 2nd certainly not 2s any r&x:ttion of standards for quality ;md excellence. CI

References

F.J. Aguilar, “Gray Research. Inc..” Case No. 385411 (Boston: Harvard Business Case Services. 1984).

David A. Morand is an associate professor of management at Penn State Harrisburg, Middletown, Pennsylvania.