Tattoo acceptance in the workplace - Essay Example

Tattoo Acceptance in the Workplace Tattoos once associated with a certain culture or cult like criminal gangs, pirates, drug dealers and sports personalities, are becoming popular and showing up in the work place. Some managers are embracing them while others are fiercely opposing the change in trends terming it unprofessional (Gasper 1). The executives of organizations are addressed in this proposal, trying to look for a solution into the issue of tattoos in the work place. The management is the most appropriate to address as it is the one responsible for hiring employees and the one mostly opposed to the idea of tattoos in the workplace.

The acceptance of tattoos in the workplace mainly depends on the nature of the organization and the mode of contact with its customers. Those firms that have more person-to-person kind of services are very strict on tattoos, especially visible ones. To solve the collisions and crisis in the workplace some measures should be taken to satisfy both those who oppose and those who have endorsed the culture. Business firms must first accept that the society in which they are established is a dynamic one.

The public has rapidly changed and is accepting tattoos as a way of life and as a way of expression. Some people see tattoos as aesthetically viable and should thus be generally accepted the way beauty make-up has been widely accepted. Many business firms are conservative and opposed to change, managers and business associates continue to use the outdated methods of running organizations, some using the medieval business school of thought methodology without taking into consideration the changing times.

Tattoos should not be strictly banned or restricted in the workplace; rather lenient rules and policies should be devised and adopted at the workplace. Restricting tattoos portrays an organization as oppressive, and one that infringes on the rights of individuals. The total restriction of tattoos might also deny an organization resourceful workforce as some of the most qualified and experienced professionals could be having tattoos. The constitution states that all are equal before the law and thus discrimination because of looks is unconstitutional (Wong 2).

Since people have come to endorse tattoos as a way of life and culture, organizations should come up with ways of incorporating personnel with tattoos. It is a shame to require heavily inked employees to cover up their artwork as self-expression in a liberal, culture tolerating and human rights observing world should not be a hidden secret. However, it is better to require an employee to cover up the tattoos instead of refusing to hire someone because of them. Organizations should cooperate and collaborate to harmonize the tattoos issue.

It should be agreed that tattoos do not affect the productivity of employees since intellect or skills are not physical outlook dependant. If the tattoos on the employees were affecting the customer relations, then the solution would be for the organization to set aside funds for engaging in mass education and sensitization agenda. This is to make sure people become aware that tattoos are not harmful or affect the conduct of individuals. People should also be made to understand that tattoos do not necessarily portray the character of the bearer, nor do they mean the bearer is of morally suspicious character.

It should first be found out the level of endorsement of tattoos in the society, which may call for extra costs, but for the better good (The Patriot-News 1). The research-associated cost will mostly fall in the attempt to find out the nature, meaning, and importance of tattoos. There are also the costs incurred in questionnaires to find out the perspective of the customers, their take on the issue and what they would mostly like to see being done, customer involvement avoids haste decisions.

To discover the tattoo culture one needs to venture into the tattooing studios some of which are not readily accessible or are in backstreets, some patrons might be uncooperative or giving misleading information (Sultzer 1). The acceptance of tattoos will ensure that the organization does not infringe on the right of individuals. This will also ensure there will be a wider pool of resourceful workforce to draw from, as none will be discriminated from employment based on tattoos. This will also give an organization a fresh and modern outlook, which will attract more customers.

However, such a solution of acceptance of tattoos in the policies of an organization might be detrimental to a company. Conservative customers who think tattoos are unprofessional might pull out of the company or severe ties with the company, this might in turn result in losses (Dwayer 34). Division in the company among employees might also arise, as some will oppose the move and thus refuse to cooperate with those with tattoos, resulting in inefficiency. If the move of accepting tattoos backfires, the employees with the tattoos should together with the management look for alternative ways of solving the problem.

Involving the affected party makes them readily accept the decision made, as they are contributors of the decision. Works Cited Dwyer, Dennis. God Country and Tattoos. New York: Lockman Foundation, 2011. Print Gasper, Jamie. ‘‘Tattoo Acceptance in the Work Place.’’ The Oakland Post, 6th Oct. 2010. 28 Mar. 2011. The Patriot-News. ‘‘Tattoos in the Workplace no longer a Taboo.’’ Penn live com 20th July 2009. 28 Mar. 2011. Sultzer, Anastasia. “Tattoo Acceptance in the Workplace: Discrimination towards Self-Expression?

” Examiner.com, 25th Apr. 2010. 28 Mar. 2011. Wong, Brad. “Tattoos Getting More Common In the Workplace.” Seattlepi Business, 28 June 2005. 28 Mar. 2011.