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 1� years; 2.9 % for 2 years; 8.8 % for 3
years; 14.8 % for 4 years; 2.9 % for 4� 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)
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