Skimming the Internet today, I can’t help but have thoughts about the recent debate concerning body piercings and tattoos in corporate America. Judging by this thread in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, it’s apparent that the debate touches home for people.
One post, in particular, from a person working in the legal industry caught my eye. I agree with her comments about 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.”
I can’t help but look at this topic from a hiring point, too. Companies are owned and operated by people. To this day, a complete hands-off company hasn’t been invented … and as long as people are calling the shots, there are going to biases, opinions, interpretations, etc.
My question to you is this: If two candidates are vying for and qualified for one job opening 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?
The answer is unclear. I don’t even know the answer because there’s too many variables in the mix: the interviewer’s job requirements, the image the company is trying to betray (oops!) portray, the personalities of both candidates, credentials of each, etc. If the interviewer made a sole decision to hire based on appearance, then yes, the jobseeker with the body art would lose to the clean-cut one. On the other hand, if the interviewer was a fan of such self-expression then the clean-cut jobseeker could be overlooked for the job.
Maybe, the more important question is probably, what is a jobseeker willing to sacrifice for the ability to self-express? 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:
