Judging by this thread in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, the debate concerning body piercings and tattoos in corporate America is a touchy subject with jobseekers.
One comment from a gal working in the legal industry indicated that the 30+ tattoos she sports don’t affect her ability to do her job, nor deter from her professionalism. She stated, “You are pretty narrow-minded and even bigotted to think that just because I have tattoos I could never work in a professional environment.”
How do hiring companies view this subject? Companies are owned and operated by people. To this day, a complete hands-off company is non-existent … and as long as people are calling the shots, there are going to biases, opinions, interpretations, etc.
Employers seem the most concerned about tattoos and piercings that are visible … and prominent. Obviously, the picture to the right is rather extreme and doesn’t depict the quantity of tattoos worn by most. The tattoos and body piercings that potential new hires have, not covered by clothing, does present a sticky situation for employers — especially when hiring managers seek new employees who will have extensive contact with customers or the public.
How businesses are operated has certainly evolved with a younger generation of entrepreneurs at the helm, however. Business executives in jeans and t-shirts were considered unprofessional just a decade or two ago. But today, fewer and fewer execs wear ties and dress shoes to the office, instead opting more for a comfortable, casual approach to attire.
What does all this mean to today’s jobseekers? It may mean that the tight “leash” on visual appearance [to include body art] is loosening. Yet, it’s probably a safe assumption that this transformation is happening faster in some business circles more than others — a little tidbit that jobseekers need to consider when searching for new employment.
As society continues to evolve, jobseekers with visible tattoos and body piercings are facing a challenge. If two candidates are vying for and qualified for one office job, who would land the job? The person who presents the clean-cut image or the one with visible tattoos and earrings decorating his/her body? Are companies willing to reject perfectly qualified candidates with visible tattoos and piercings?
Too many variables, such as the interviewer’s job requirements, the image the company is trying to portray, and the credentials of both candidates, make answering these questions a near impossible task. If the interviewer made a sole decision to hire based on appearance, then yes, the jobseeker with the body art would likely lose the job offer. On the other hand, if the interviewer was a fan of such self-expression and paid an equal amount of time to the person’s academics, skills, and so on, the clean-cut jobseeker would likely be overlooked for the job.
Maybe the more important question should be, what is a jobseeker willing to sacrifice for the ability to self-express through tattoos, piercings, and the like? Even if that person displaying countless earrings and tattoos isn’t discriminated against today, what about next month, next year, or in 10 years?
Related posts:
