"Tattoo taboos" no longer in the Corporate world

The Tattooed Executive; Body Art Gains Acceptance in Once-Staid Office Settings was written by Mielikki Org and published by Dow Jones & Company Inc. in Wall Street Journal (eastern edition) in August, 2003.

Summary
Tattoos and body art are no longer considered a “subculture urge” (Mielikki Org, 2003).  In fact, they have been gradually finding acceptance in more unlikely environments, including the workplace; everyone from federal judges to a retired corporate vice president is lining up for body art these days.  However, while more office employees are showing up with tattoos and piercings, it may not always be because of the sweeping change in corporate policy -- often, most companies leave it up to the individual managers to set the rules for their employees regarding dress code. In addition, while some executives have admitted to having them, they aren’t always visible to their subordinates and co-workers.

Corporate companies that are more readily accepting of body art say they are “just going with the times”, in an attempt to take advantage of the open-mindedness and innovation young employees are bringing to the workplace (Mielikki Org, 2003).  These shifting attitudes have helped tattooing become one of the faster-growing retail businesses; tattoo artists report that their earnings have doubled within the past decade.  Apparently, “tattoo” is even one of the most popular search words on the Internet. 

Retrieved from needlesandsins.com

Tattoos used to be strictly blue-collar domain (i.e. construction workers, mechanics), but the companies that do have policies against them are mostly service-based corporations:

• Wal-Mart Stores Inc. does not allow any facial piercings and asks employees to cover “offensive” tattoos.
•  Subway Restaurants limit piercings to the ears.
•  McDonald’s does not allow for any visible tattoos.

As the tattoos become more white-collar, the tattoos themselves are becoming more upscale and artistic, and people are looking for more “thoughtful” and “focused” pieces.

Body art can help an employee retain a sense of dignity and independence when they get involved in the corporate workplace. It projects personality in a healthy and interesting way without coming on too strong and possibly damaging relationships with co-workers, bosses and clients.

To go even further, tattoos are even said to enhance a company’s image.  A neuroscientist and professor was teased by his colleagues for getting the Macintosh Apple logo tattooed on his shoulder, but Apple featured this individual and his tattoo on their corporate website.  One employer even sent one of their former employees (who had tattoos covering his back and entire arm, a pierced lip and ear discs) to meet with a staid bank representative -- the employee’s “unusual appearance” helped his business. The bank representative may not have been in his “mode” but he heard what he had to say -- an “unusual but effective” way of doing business (Mielikki Org, 2003).

            Polices at some big companies on body adornment [retrieved from article]

COMPANY	TATTOO POLICY	PIERCING POLICY	COMMENT
Boeing  Chicago (manufactures military aircrafts and commercial jetliners)	"Non-offensive" tattoos permitted	Allowed if they don't pose safety risks	"I've seen people at all levels with tattoos and piercings," says spokeswoman Barbara Murphy.
White & Case  New York City (law firm)	None	None	"There are undoubtedly people who have tattoos (but) it's certainly not conspicuous," says spokesperson Roger Cohen.
Wal-Mart Stores  Bentonville, Ark.	"Non-offensive" tattoos OK to show	Earrings allowed; facial jewelry prohibited	"If they're not offensive, I don't see it as an issue," says spokesman Thomas Williams.
Tenet Healthcare  Santa Barbara, Calif.	None	None	"The key point in our policy is that the appearance must be appropriate to the position," says spokes-person Steven Campanini. "What we do is rely on local hospitals to enforce what is appropriate."
Ford Motor  Dearborn, Mich.	"Non-offensive" tattoos permitted	Allowed if they don't pose safety risks	"It's left up to people to use their own discretion," said spokeswoman Anne Marie Gattari.
Subway Restaurants  Milford, Conn.	Discreet tattoos permitted	Limited to one per ear	Company literature specifies: "Non-dangling earrings in the ears only. Any other visible parts of body may not be adorned with jewelry."

Note: "Non-offensive" generally means no violence or profanity

Opinion
Although this article is quite dated, it still outlines some pretty interesting facts regarding the tattoo craze.  The chart featured above I retrieved from the article in and of itself is extremely interesting.  It displays the policies of tattoos and piercings for a number of different companies, ranging from retail stores and sandwich shops to corporate law firms.  The basic element behind it essentially labels blue-collar service industries (like Mcdonald’s and Wal-Mart) as being the employers who are much more stringent with their workplace policies and rules regarding the employee dress code.

Based on the assumptions I’ve made on tattoos, especially in the regards to the workplace and the hindrance of potential employees’ ability to find employment, I definitely wouldn’t have expected Subway and Wal-Mart to be pickier of body art than a law firm (however, based on my previous blog obviously customers in the service industry aren’t too happy about them…).  You can see this based on the chart provided in the article; the restriction of body adornment is much greater for these businesses than in corporate offices.  Subway even goes so far as to limit the number of piercings per ear... I’d be very interested to know how that’s even regulated. I doubt they are going to send someone home because they have two piercings in each of their ears instead of just one.  I myself work in retail, and my work has a somewhat “strict” policy of tattoos (you can have them, they should just be covered).  Or tried to be covered. No one ever makes any efforts to cover them (myself included), but no one ever says anything about them not being covered, so is it really a problem then?

I have even read somewhere that HMV, the entertainment retailing company, has extremely strict policies regarding tattoos and piercings as they are not “appealing” to customers and do not do much to increase sales.  This shocked me, because the atmosphere in the stores is very cool and “punk” like so to speak… they almost have their own subculture. Most people that I have personally seen who work there are on the more lax side of personal appearance.

I would have thought white-collar corporate businesses would have had much stricter policies regarding body art, as they are more formal in just about everything they do.  I worked as a summer student in a re-insurance company, and I made all efforts possible to cover my tattoos, in fear that if they were seen I would get turfed. I constantly wore my hair down to cover my neck tattoo, and wore only dress pants rather than skirts to cover the tattoo I have on my thigh – but this makes me wonder if my co-workers and possibly even my boss would have actually cared if I showed up sporting one of my tattoos? It definitely gives me hope, that’s for sure.

This article makes me feel extremely confident about tattoos in the workplace and the opportunities to find prospective employment.  If a law firm executive is readily showing off tattoos, it must mean things are changing… especially within the corporate realm of business (and this article was from 2003…the tattoo business has only continued to grow).  Regardless of why it’s changing, it is definitely changing.  Whether it be accepting innovation and independence of employees, endorsing the “hipness” that they may bring to corporate businesses, or just the fact that businesses have no choice but to accept them, things are looking up for those who express themselves through body art.

Citation
Mielikki Org. (2003). The Tattooed Executive; Body Art Gains Acceptance In Once-Staid Office Settings; Corporate Counsel's Yin-Yang. Wall Street Journal. D.1. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/398830227/9E36D7D5691B484EPQ/1?accountid=3455

Questions
Do you think corporate businesses will continue to ease up on the body art policies? Voluntarily or by force of the growing tattoo population?

Do you think the display of tattoos on employees is more helpful or harmful to businesses?

Visible tattoos make for "unprofessional professions"

Consumer perceptions of visible tattoos on service personnel was written by Dwane H. Dean and published by Emerald Group Publishing, Ltd in 2010.

Summary 
Compared to what they are purchasing (the “goods”), it is believed that consumers actually have more difficulty evaluating the service they receive prior to purchase.  Prospective consumers search for “clues” as to the type of service performance and quality they can expect; one of the main clues they use is the physical appearance of employees (Dean, 2010).

Generation Y (those born in 1980 and after) is probably the most tattooed out of any generation thus far.  More than a third of 18- to 25-year-olds have a tattoo, and many of these are in places unlikely to be covered up (Dean, 2010).  Since the percentage of Generation Y employees in the service workforce is growing at a rapid pace, service managers will need to address the issue of visible tattoos, and the possible backlash of consumer perceptions of them.  A study was done which explored these perceptions of visibly tattooed service employees and what it would possibly mean for the perceived service quality the consumers received.  It attempted to determine if these perceptions varied based on: 

• the type of service being provided (a dentist versus a bartender, for example);
• whether or not the customer has a tattoo; and
• the consumer’s age. 

Methods.  Each respondent in the sample study reported their perception of the “appropriateness” of visible tattoos on service workers by occupation as well as to what they believed the personal traits of the service providers were.  The participants of the study were requested to fill out a questionnaire, as well as a blank space for write-in comments of a brief explanation on their selection of answers.  The front page of the questionnaire was related to how they felt about visible tattoos on employees they might meet during business transactions.  They were provided with a list of various occupations, including hair-stylist, mechanic, nurse, accountant and dentist, to name a few; they were also provided with a list of traits/attributes including intelligent, honest, attractive or rebellious. The remainder of the questionnaire consisted of demographics (whether or not they had a tattoo, gender, age group, etc.).  The flip-side of the questionnaire involved comparing people with and without tattoos, outside of business transactions. 

Results.  Both the non-tattooed and tattooed groups felt that visible tattoos on bank loan officers, accountants and stockbrokers are inappropriate.  For all three occupations that dealt with money and finances (the ones listed previously), the words “unprofessional” and “untrustworthy” were common in the written portions of the questionnaire.  Others felt it was a sign of poor judgment and suggested an “inexperienced” employee (Dean, 2010).
In regards to the health care occupations (dentist, nurse) those who said visible tattoos were inappropriate wrote in their explanations that the presence of tattoos would be “dirty” or “unsanitary” in these professions (Dean, 2010).

The two tattoo groups agreed that visible tattoos are appropriate on mechanics and bartenders.  Written explanations suggested that tattoos were acceptable because they are “not office jobs”, mechanics “don’t have to dress up”, and tattoos on a bartender demonstrated “personality” which is seen as a desirable trait for the job.
Looking at age in general, younger respondents held a more favourable view of tattooed employees, while older respondents felt tattooed people to be less intelligent, more rebellious, less attractive and less honest than non-tattooed people.

The author of this article concludes that consumers seem to eagerly judge service quality from the presence of visible tattoos, and managers should be concerned with them on financial service workers, those in health care and possibly other white-collar occupations.  They also suggest that policies should be developed addressing tattoo appearance in these professions.

Opinion
I thought this was a pretty interesting and unique study.  A lot of research has been done on employee appearance in general, but the visibility of tattoos on employees has not been researched or investigated before.  Not only did this look specifically at tattoos (and it looked at tattoos in locations that you can’t cover up, like arms and neck) but it looked at it from a consumer/customer perspective rather than an employer perspective.

I can’t say that I’m completely shocked with the results.  However, I don’t agree with them (this may be because I’m slightly biased in regards to tattoos).

I was quite taken aback with seeing consumer perceptions like “inexperienced” and “untrustworthy” for jobs involving finances and people’s money.  Untrustworthy?  For having a tattoo on your arm?  Come on.  Just because an accountant or a bank teller has a tattoo doesn’t mean they’re going to steal your money.  I can see someone thinking it wouldn’t be AS professional (it still isn’t completely unprofessional in my opinion) to show an entire arm-full of tattoos … but someone being considered “untrustworthy” and having poor judgment because of it seems a little farfetched. 

My mouth dropped for the next one.  Apparently nurses and dentists with tattoos are “unsanitary” and “dirty”… what? It’s not like these people don’t shower, or don’t wash their hands before they put them in your mouth; because that’s probably what I would consider dirty in that type of environment.

But after saying all this, the participants in the study were in complete agreement for bartenders and mechanics to have visible tattoos because “they don’t have to dress up” and it’s part of their uniform. 

If you’re not okay with someone having a visible tattoo in one job it should probably be accepted as the same across the board (of all occupations).  Bartending is still a service job - you’re still being “served”.  What difference does it make whether it’s the person cleaning your teeth, putting your money in the bank, fixing your car or serving you a drink?  When you really think about it, it makes absolutely no difference. I’m not going to think my teeth weren’t cleaned properly, or the wrong amount of money was deposited into my bank account because the person who served me had a tattoo… it’s their job, they got hired because they’re good at what they do.  If everyone thought the way the participants did in the study, no one would go get injections from nurses or get their teeth cleaned professionally (yes, professionally... tattoos or not).  Everyone service industry would be out of business because there's no one willing to be served.

More and more service employees are going to have tattoos as the young generation demands jobs... it’s inevitable.  It’s just disappointing to think that customers, not even employers, stereotype how people decide to express themselves.

Citation 
Dean, Dwane H. (2010).  Consumer perceptions of visible tattoos on service personnel.  Managing Service Quality. 20(1), 294-308. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/198031702/23960620F76B4F35PQ/1?accountid=3455

Questions
Do you think the professionalism of visible tattoos varies from job to job, as the participants in the study felt?

Do you see the consumer/customer perception of service quality (based on visible tattoos) changing as more tattooed people get hired?