Tattoo in the Workplace between Acceptance and Rejection in the Society - Coursework Example

Tattoo in workplace between acceptance and rejection in the society This study aimed at examining the causes to the acceptance or rejectionof tattoos in modern workplaces. In order to suffice this objective, the study was conducted based on qualitative premises of ethnographic approach. Correspondingly, focus group interviews were conducted in order to obtain primary data, as deemed relevant for the research. Besides considering primary data sources, secondary data sources in the form of peer reviewed journals and articles were included in this study. The results thus obtained revealed various aspects related to tattoos being accepted or rejected in workplaces, which was found as strongly associated with its depiction as an informal lifestyle practice. It was owing to this particular factor tattoos are mostly rejected in modern workplaces wherein maintaining formal culture is deemed essential. While on the other hand, in industries and workplaces wherein formal dressing or lifestyle is not quite essential, tattoos are observed to have negligible or no impact on employers or employees. Nevertheless, the study emphasizes a gap still persistent in the domain and demands more intense research in the problem area identified, with due significance to field researches and quantitative evaluative measures. Tattoo in workplace between acceptance and rejection in the society INTRODUCTION Arguments have often centered to the fact that whether tattooing is a form of a modern art or has been a part of the civilized culture since the ancient times. Data obtained in this regard reveal tattooing and piercing as an inherent part of many cultures around that world, which has been into practiced since ancient times (Mayers et al. 2002). In the similar context, information also depict that it has been only in the recent decades of the early 21st century that pierced tattooing has become a global modern culture replicating the values and faiths as well as lifestyle choices of individuals rather than that of a particular community. Tattooing in itself has today emerged as an art form, which is accepted by many but still rejected by a greater number (Jeffreys 2000). Such kind of conflicts in the current era is much visible in workplaces, wherein mixture of different cultures and ethnicities has become a natural phenomenon that further helps to shape the foundation of a truly globalised social dais. Some workplaces, especially those related to the global podium have been mostly indifferent to such individual preferences on the ground of providing their employees with adequate freedom of having their personal preferences in leading their lifestyle (Ramachandran 2007). While on the other hand, in other workplaces, individuals are encouraged to maintain equality in their way of thinking, while sharing and following the same cultural norms with their colleagues and hence, body art, especially tattooing is discouraged or rejected. Hence, acceptance of tattoos is subjected to many variables that might range from social inhibitions to the way it is portrayed within the workplace culture by subordinates, peers or superiors. Studies have also reflected that acceptance or rejection of body art, in the form of tattooing, also depends on the industrial characteristics those influence the cultural domains and operational qualities of any workplace (Ly and Lee 2012). However, it is worth mentioning when emphasizing the acceptance or rejection of tattooing in modern workplaces that only a limited number of studies have been performed with regard to the issue. This negligence in the field of scholarly researches have rather ignited a gap, which requires significant attention in the modern era, when traditions, beliefs and lifestyle choices are mostly outbound, influencing cultures around the world at the premise of rapid globalization. To address this gap in the existing literatures the proposed study has been taken into account. To be precise, this study intends to address the driving forces that either lead to the acceptance or the rejection of tattooing in workplaces wherein personal and individual freedom is delivered much significance. With this objective, the study will draw references from the existing literatures, case scenarios and other secondary data sources reflecting on the issue of accepting or rejecting tattooing in workplaces. Although little scholarly focus has been delivered towards the issue, as already mentioned, examples from the real world scenario will be taken from recent news articles and other peer-reviewed publishing those will be crucial to ground the arguments of this study. In addition, arguments have also been drawn through focus group interviews with randomly selected respondents. METHODOLOGY In order to conduct the study as intended, concentrating on the drivers towards acceptance or rejection of tattoo in workplaces, a qualitative research approach has been considered. In accordance, the research problem was defined with precision that helped in identifying the internal and external validity as well as needs of the study. With due regards to these chosen elements of the intended research study, the ethnographic approach has been selected based on the deductive philosophy of the entire process. Data collection was accordingly conducted through the use of both primary and secondary sources, wherein the primary sources comprised focus group interviews with randomly selected participants and the secondary data sources included scholarly articles and peer-reviewed journals obtainable through online data search procedures. The interview process included both people having a tattoo and those without tattoo, working with different multinational and national companies. Notably, the selected population of respondents was large enough in order to ensure that in the study, due significance shall be provided to the examination of all assumed influences to the acceptance or rejection of tattoo in workplaces. However, it was due to time constraint and lack of resources that the study could only considered taking a focus group interview with a few selected participants who gave their free informed consent to the study procedure. In addition, it is worth mentioning that in order to widen the research scope when obtaining secondary data sources various keywords were used that further linked with relevant scholarly articles related to the research issue. Correspondingly, both Google Scholar and the university online libraries were used to obtain these literatures. LITERATURE REVIEW According to Brabant and Mizer (2009), gender differences and the mindset of prospective employees in deciding for visible body art or tattoos plays a significant role in modern workplaces, as considerable dissimilarities were observed in the acceptance ratio of women and men when considering their future employability. Emphasizing the same issues, Ramachandran (2007) argues with respect to the attitude depicted by employers towards their employees’ visible body arts, such as tattoos or piercing. Correspondingly, Ramachandran (2007) argued that modern firms treat the practice as related to the legal dimension of “freedom of dress” and seldom show dissimilarities in treating individuals with such body art forms. However, the views presented in Ly and Lee (2012) was observed as quite contradictory as the study reveals that the perceptions of a major proportion of employers associated with employees having visible tattoos are negative. This is perhaps because such practices have been associated with people involved in criminal offences – such as pirates in the ancient period and gangsters in the modern phenomenon. The results drawn in Totten, Lipscomb and Jones (2009) were much precise in inferring that management implications towards employees having tattoos differ with regard to the industry type and the type of consumers employees are likely to deal with in their professional career. Mayers et al (2002) and Jeffreys (2000) also revealed a similar viewpoint through the inferences in their studies, although the possibility that gender has a role to play in workplace acceptance or rejection of tattoos were noted as insignificant in the prospect. THE STUDY The objective of this study was to examine the drivers and causes behind the acceptance or rejection of tattoos in workplaces. It was based on a two dimensional qualitative ethnographic approach, which considered both primary (focus group interview) and secondary (case examples, news articles and journals) sources of information. One of the respondents in the focus group considered for this study was a tattoo parlor owner according to whom, tattoos are becoming an expressive form of art and culture in the modern workplaces. Especially, when concerning the American work culture, the number of young adults being tattooed has increased considerably that has further ignited the issue of discrimination against them at various occurrences. According to the other respondents of the focus group, people nowadays opt for tattoos due to various reasons, which commonly include showing respect and value to their loved ones, as their identification in the community they belong but mostly for style. It was thus observed that majority of the respondents withdrew from getting visible tattoos on themselves such as on their faces or neck or other visible parts of their body with the suspicion that they might be secluded from the society. Inferring from these underpinnings it can also be doubted that the same possibility of discrimination might also prevail in workplaces. The study conducted by Koljonen and Kluger (2012) reveals that there are a number of incidences when people ask to remove their tattoos permanently owing to personal motivations such as employment issues. A report published by Foxnews (2006) also exhibit the story of a 27-year-old girl who holds multiple degrees and an impressive portfolio in her academia but is also concerned with the acceptance of her body art in the corporate, indicating a demand to revise dress codes in the modern American workplaces. Nevertheless, the notion that workplaces have been changing rapidly concerning employers becoming more flexible with their employees having visible body arts has been into discussion in the recent years. As Hennessey (2013) reports, it is mostly owing to the fear and the misconceptions related to the tattoos being accepted or rejected in workplaces that restrict individuals from getting a visible tattoo on their body. With organizations implementing their personified tattoo policies, and the number of young adults getting visible body tattoo made, it has become a matter of indifference to many industries. However, the ratio of acceptance, especially when it is concerned with visible body tattoo, industry norms and the tolerance level of its customers play a vital role. Goodman (2008), throwing light on this issue, further revealed that conservative industries, such as construction companies and others wherein formal attire is presented as a virtue to attract customer preferences, visible body art forms are much discouraged and hence, can be negatively associated with employability. In a research by Brallier et al (2011), it was observed that employers not only perceive visible body tattoos as negatively for their restaurant industries, but also deciphered a degree of gender biases in selecting between male and female candidates with body tattoos. In explanation to these findings, the respondents of Brallier et al (2011) asserted that customers tend to be less tolerant to body arts by their young service men in hotels and restaurants, irrespective of cultural contexts. In addition, customers’ likeness towards being served by a tattooed male varied largely from that of a female service provider and hence, forced the industry on practicing conservative practices as concerned with accepting body tattoos. While this is the scenario observed in American workplaces, the situation in Chinese workplaces are also not quite different. As Ly and Lee (2012) reveals, the community members often associate body tattoos with criminals or gangsters. It has been somewhat influenced by such conservative mindsets in the cultural domain of the society that employers often withdraw from recruiting employees with visible body tattoos, being under the impression of a negative stigma. As observable, controversies related with having a visible tattoo in workplaces have been myriad in different countries, cultures, ethnic groups and communities. While the ratio and precise inference to which extent tattoo is accepted or rejected in a workplace is still unclear, the fact that it is considered as a taboo even in the current phenomenon is unignorable. The problem thus centers on a few aspects that indicate towards a high degree of rejection towards visible body tattoos in industry specific contexts, between males and females (Crowe 2012). This confirms the inference that visible tattoos are mostly rejected in the society and hence, in workplaces too. CONCLUSION The study of various information sources, as discussed above, reveals various aspects that can positively and negatively related to the research issue. At the onset, the study findings agree with the notion that body tattoos have become one of the most appreciated and preferred forms of self-replication among young adults. There are various personal motivations those may drive an individual towards getting a body tattoo, such as showing honor to their loved ones or simply as a style or a fashion trend. With the channelization of such trends and values from one person to another, especially among young adults of the western or westernized cultures, the number of individuals having their body tattooed has also increased substantially. Alone in America, the proportion of body tattoos has increased to almost half of the entire adult young population in the nation. Certainly, tattoo has emerged as a part of the modern culture of 21st century, forcing societies and workplaces to accept it openly. While these are the identified positive factors associated with the acceptance of tattoos in workplaces, there are particular negatives as well, which can be apparently related to the causes of rejecting the same. At the onset, rejection of employees having tattoo was observed as depended on the visibility of the art. To be specific, rejection of an individual with a visible body tattoo, perhaps on his/her face or neck or hand, is more likely than individuals having tattoo those are not visible to others when in formal attire. Correspondingly, in customer centric industries, wherein employers need to deal with customers belonging from different community backgrounds and societies, rejection of female individuals having visible body tattoo is more likely than in the case of males. It must be noted in this context that at often instances, individuals are observed to remove their body tattoo under pressure from their prospective employers or with the suspicion that their employability might be reduced owing to their having a visible body tattoo. Societal presumptions rejecting tattoo was also found as a possible cause to the non-acceptance of the same among employers in various instances. The inference that can be drawn from these findings assert that the root cause of employers rejecting the individuals with visible body tattoos or having a negative mindset towards the lifestyle is its replication of being more casual and informal. In other words, tattoos are mostly rejected where individuals are supposed to carry formal attire in order to participate and value the workplace culture, as it is projected as a casual form of dressing or presenting oneself in almost every context. The influences caused by gender differences can therefore be considered insignificant, owing to the fact that the fundamental problem to the rejection of tattoos in workplaces is its depiction of informality. While conducting the study, a noteworthy gap was identified within the existing literatures concerning the stated issue. The obtained studies were observed as more focused on the employers’ attitude towards tattoos in workplaces and thus, lacked a dual perspective with regard to the perceptions carried by employees individually. Contextually, it must be considered that in modern workplaces, acceptance or rejection of tattoos by peers and colleagues might also have substantial impression on individual choices regarding such form of body arts. In addition, industry cultures being observed as a major influencing factor to the aspect also demands comparative analysis between the acceptance ratio of tattoos in workplaces of different industries depending on their firmness towards maintaining a formal or an informal culture. Supposedly, employees having visible tattoo in bars, casinos, beauty parlors or other similar forms of informal workplaces are unlikely to become an issue, which can be rejected in contradiction to industries such as marketing consultants, advertising agencies or others where formal culture plays an intrinsic role. Similar suppositions thus call for a wider research in the field. This study has also been limited due to various constraints, owing to which, it has been lagging in extending the existing literatures. For instance, the study considered only a few participants in the focus group interview, which was insufficient to derive any firm conclusion to the research. In addition, due to time constraint, making a wider research through secondary data sources was also restricted in this study. It can therefore be suggested that a substantial scope to conduct research in the area exists, wherein greater consideration needs to be provided in obtaining data through field research, as the number of secondary sources are found as lagging in the context. Nevertheless, this study proved effective and essential in identifying the gaps persisting within the existing literature and inferring that the root cause to the acceptance or rejection of tattoos in workplaces is mostly related to the perceptions of the society and the employers concerning such body arts as a form of formal or an informal attire. Bibliography Brabant, W. and Mizer, A. 2009. “Visible Body Modifications and Future Employment.” Journal of Student Research 43-58. Brallier, Sara A., Karen A. Maguire, Daniel A. Smith and Linda J. Palm. 2011. “Visible Tattoos and Employment in the Restaurant Service Industry.” International Journal of Business and Social Science 2(6): 72-76. Crowe, M. 2012. “Are Tattoos In The Workplace Still Taboo?” Retrieved April 27, 2015 (http://college.usatoday.com/2012/09/20/are-tattoos-in-the-workplace-still-taboo/). Foxnews. 2006. “Body Art and Tattoos in the Workplace.” Retrieved April 27, 2015 (http://www.foxnews.com/story/2006/10/21/body-art-and-tattoos-in-workplace/). Goodman, Michelle. 2008. “Too Tattooed to Work?” Retrieved April 27, 2015 (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/worklife/06/19/too.tattooed.to.work/). Hennessey, Rachel. 2013. “Tattoos No Longer A Kiss Of Death In The Workplace.” Retrieved April 27, 2015 (http://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelhennessey/2013/02/27/having-a-tattoo-and-a-job/). Jeffreys, S. 2000. “‘Body Art’ and Social Status: Cutting, Tattooing and Piercing from a Feminist Perspective.” Feminism & Psychology 10(4): 409-429. Koljonen, V. and N. Kluger. 2012. “Specifically Requesting Surgical Tattoo Removal: Are Deep Personal Motivations Involved?” Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology 26: 685-689. Ly, T and Lee, S. 2012. “If You Think You Can Safely Ink, Beware Of The Masking Effects Of Tattoos.” Hong Kong J. Dermatol. Venereol. 20:106-110. Mayers, Lester B., Daniel A. Judelson, Barry W. Moriarty and Kenneth W. Rundell. 2002. “Prevalence of Body Art (Body Piercing and Tattooing) in University Undergraduates and Incidence of Medical Complications.” Mayo Clin Proc 77: 29-34. Ramachandran, Gowri. 2007. “Freedom of Dress: State and Private Regulation of Clothing, Hairstyle, Jewelry, Makeup, Tattoos, and Piercing.” Maryland Law Review 66(1): 11-93. Totten, Jeff W., Thomas J. Lipscomb and Michael A. Jones. 2009. “The Marketing Management Implications of Attitudes toward Persons with Body Art.” Proceedings of the Academy of Marketing Studies 14(1): 49-54. Read More