Adrianne Presnell

ADRIANNE PRESNELL

Employees with Visible Tattoos: The Impact of Coverup Policies on Their Feelings of Inclusion

Abstract

A culture of inclusion may be difficult to achieve for organizations with dress code policies requiring employees to hide or cover-up tattoos. Tattoos are often personally meaningful; an organization that projects a message that tattoos are unsightly, inappropriate, or unprofessional can psychologically affect employees’ feelings toward their work. This discussion is particularly relevant now that nearly half of the current United States workforce has one or more tattoos. An organization would be wise to acknowledge the impact and unintended consequences these cover-up policies may have on both the employee and their human resource management goals. This paper is an exploration of a research topic, including a literature review, presentation of a conceptual model, insight from the researcher’s interviews, and a proposal for additional areas of research. Specifically, a larger and more formal case study would help expand the depth and application of knowledge in the area of visible tattoos in the workplace.

A significant challenge that organizations face today is building a culture that embraces the values of diversity and inclusion. While diversity efforts can often be quantified in terms of representation, inclusion is a much more elusive construct. Inclusion is about valuing individuals for their differences, not despite them. Shore et al. (2011) defines inclusion as “the degree to which an employee perceives that he or she is an esteemed member of the workgroup through experiencing treatment that satisfies his or her needs for belongingness and uniqueness.” An exploratory case study is proposed to understand how employed persons with visible tattoos think and feel about having to “cover up” due to organizational policy. This is an important phenomenon to investigate from an inclusion lens in order to understand the employee’s view. Organizations and leaders, however, should take note because the level to which an employee feels included or excluded in company culture affects their commitment and engagement – both constructs that have repeatedly been demonstrated in the literature to be correlated to organizational outcomes (Brimhall, 2019).

Research

There has been substantial research done on the perception of tattoos – including the unconscious bias associated with such perceptions. In addition, there are many research studies in the areas of how organizations, hiring managers, and the general public perceive tattoos in a work setting. This research should be considered foundational context for this study and the studies thoroughly explored prior to moving to a fresh proposition.

Tattoo Stigma

Goffman (1963) defines “stigma” as the socially constructed relationship between a socially undesirable attribute and a stereotype. A person that is different from the social majority due to an attribute is more likely to be stigmatized (Broussard & Harton, 2018). Interestingly, the type of attribute makes a difference. A “controllable stigma” based on an attribute the person can be held responsible for is looked at in a more negative way than an unavoidable or inherent attribute. Since tattoos are a controllable stigma, and represent a choice, the majority public feels more legitimized in their perceptions (Larsen, et al., 2014). Not all tattoos are stigmatized in the same way (Arndt et al., 2017). Generally speaking, the larger the tattoo, the more difficult it is to hide, and

the “darker” it is (for example, a skull and dagger as opposed to Mickey Mouse) are more stigmatized by the general public. Tews et al. (2020) found that in the workplace setting, however, “light” tattoos could be perceived more negatively for being childish or silly – particularly if they were on a male employee or candidate. Additional studies have found (Defelman & Price, 2001) that most people have an association between tattoos and alcohol/drug abuse, dishonesty, and low intelligence. The question should be asked, “If there is such a stigma, why do people get tattoos?” The answer to this question may be different for each person. However, in general, tattoos are personally meaningful (Brimhall, 2019). They may represent anything from military service, to honoring a loved one that has passed, a challenging life experience, resiliency in overcoming trauma, or family connections. Ball & Elsner (2019) found that getting a tattoo improved college students’ self-esteem for this reason. Persons with tattoos often consider the tattoo a part of “who they are” –not just because the ink is physically permanent but also for what the ink stands for.

Tattoo Bias in the Workplace

There are two primary reasons why tattoo bias exists in the workplace according to the literature. The first reason is the perception of the tattooed employee/applicant having less competence or desirable qualities, and the second reason is concern that customers will think poorly of the organization as a whole for employing a tattooed person. To the first reason, Arndt et al. (2017) shares that studies have repeatedly confirmed that managers across many industries have shown a preference for hiring employees without tattoos. This is largely due to negative implicit associations – not even within the manager’s realm of awareness. Curiously, the second reason is a very conscious decision. Arndt et al. (2017) suggest that some managers are not concerned about competence or character deficits, but rather, they are concerned about how a tattooed employee may negatively influence their organization’s brand or image. In fact, Arndt et al. (2017) conducted the first study of its kind – demonstrating evidence of this type of “indirect bias” in hiring. In other words, organizations stereotype their customers by assuming customers are stereotyping the tattooed employees. Tews, et al. (2020) found that negative tattoo effects were very dependent on context, such as:

• Type and size of tattoo. • Generational cohort of the manager. • The employee’s gender.

Finally, other research (Arndt & Glassman, 2010) has shown that customers with tattoos prefer employees with tattoos. This bias with a positive association actively contradicts some of the assumptions leaders have been shown to make.

Literature Gap

There is a gap in the literature. Most studies have sought to understand the impact that other people’s perception had on employees with tattoos. This proposed case study is different. Here, the researcher seeks to understand thoughts and feelings from the tattooed employees’ perspective. What is learned as a result of this case study will advance understanding of how the tattooed employees feel. Questions will not be asked about performance evaluations, perceived discrimination, and interview experiences. Instead, questions will focus on the internal dialogue that happens in the mind of an employee.

Professional Insights Guiding the Research Proposal

This case study will provide new insights into a complex and sometimes taboo situation and provides an opportunity to resolve literature conflicts by providing nuance and context from a novel perspective (the employee’s). In addition, there were two content-expert interviews that guided the decision to pursue this research. Gayla Thomas-Dabney is an expert in the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) space, and she provided guidance and feedback for forming the case study. Having the opportunity to discuss tattoos in the workplace with a DEI expert provided this researcher with the confidence that this was an issue of inclusion and that it had potential for an interesting study. As a result of conversations with her, the research model consequences were established, as she provided excellent information supporting how inclusion and the feeling of “bringing one’s whole self to work” drives both retention and engagement. She also suggested including a question in the final interview guide that has worked well in the past for her DEI research: “Do you feel that your organization promotes inclusion, equity, and diversity?” Industrial-Organizational (IO) Psychologist A. J. Ruiz was also supportive of this research. Her recommendation was not to forget the commitment that an employee makes on hire. Ideally, the dress code policy would have been communicated to the employee in the interviewing and hiring stages, and the employee would have the opportunity to weigh the pros and cons before entering into a working relationship with the organization. This was an important insight because it brought awareness to

many employees who may decide to turn down jobs in workplaces if they feel they are not accepted. These people were not included in this research. While outside the scope of this study, this would be a promising a future research topic.

Project Goal & Impact

The purpose of this case study research is to begin the work of filling a literature gap in understanding the impact of workplace tattoo restrictions from the employee’s point of view. Learnings may assist leaders in thinking of inclusion strategies and retention efforts differently— particularly for this demographic.

Constructs

Three constructs will be explored with the interviewees: perceptions of inclusion, affective organizational commitment, and effects of conspicuity by absence.

Inclusion

Inclusion is a buzzword in the corporate world right now. Often leaders think of inclusion as something to do rather than a climate to nurture. It is of great interest to this researcher which types of words employees use to describe how the “cover-up” policy makes them feel. Capturing these sentiments will help identify whether these policies affect employees’ sense of inclusion. Brewer (1991) introduced the optimal distinctiveness theory. This theory can help us understand why inclusion is important to employees. The optimal distinctiveness theory proposes that people want to be recognized for their unique attributes and that they want these attributes to be recognized as a positive difference (Shore et al., 2011). Brimhall (2019) found that as perceived acceptance increases, so do feelings of inclusion.

Affective Commitment

Affective commitment is related to the employee’s emotional attachment to the organization as related to their values and goals (Meyer & Allen, 1991). Interviewees will be asked about their value congruence within the organization. A thought experiment will be posed: “If you were offered a near-identical job to the one you have now in terms of pay, benefits, hours, work environment, but you did not have to cover your tattoos, how interested would you be?”

Finally, the phenomenon of conspicuity by absence will be explored with the interviewees. Today, tattoos have become a common form of self-expression. A Pew Research Survey conducted in 2010 found that nearly 4 in 10 Millennials have tattoos. The Bureau of Labor Statistics 2014-2024 Employment Projections report that by 2020 Millennials will make up about 50% of the workforce – and this figure will be near 75% by 2030. Societal biases are surfacing, and many businesses no longer care if employee tattoos are visible (as long as they are not offensive). Conspicuity by absence (also called “absent presence”) is a symbolic and intentional erasure of some factor, which results in a glaringly obvious “elephant in the room.” Interviewees will be asked how it feels to work in an environment conspicuously absent of tattoos.

Conceptual Framework

A conceptual model has been created to guide the research (Figure 1) in exploring the constructs mentioned above. The literature review already demonstrated that the type of tattoo, generational cohort of the manager, and type of work has an antecedent effect on how being tattooed impacts the employee.

Figure 1

Conceptual Model for Exploring the Perspective of Tattooed Employees in Conservative Workplaces

Modifiers this researcher would like to explore, with their rationale, can be found in Figure 2. Social identity theory has heavily influenced the modifiers to test. Flanagan & Vance (2019) explain social identity theory as how someone categorizes information in tandem with their identity –specifically “in-group” and “out-group” identities and behaviors. Feeling like one is an outsider in a workplace setting actively works against inclusion. Consequences are primarily related to research demonstrating outcomes of inclusive work environments. Hwang and Hopkins (2012) found inclusion in the workplace to be a factor that increases employee commitment and loyalty. Acquavita et al. (2009) and Cho & Mor Darak (2008) came to similar conclusions – inclusiveness creates better job satisfaction and commitment. The improved attitudes resulting from inclusive environments have also been shown to be correlated with enhanced job performance (Carmeli et al., 2010).

Interview Insights

Using questions formed from the literature review and expert interviews, four interviews were conducted to better understand the research question, guide the development of the research model, and assist in refining the proposed case study’s final interview guide (Appendix A). The interviewees’ occupations were a police officer, job seeker, medical assistant, and operational director. The decision was made to interview people with visible tattoos currently employed in a workplace that requires them to cover up. This is the same target audience that will be interviewed in the proposed case study. See Figure 3 for common themes from the interviews.

Figure 2

Modifiers to Explore in Case Study Interviews with Rationale

Modifier

Personal support system

Self-esteem

Work/life balance

Having colleagues also with tattoos

Rationale

Explore whether having a robust personal support system that celebrates differences helps the employee cope with their more stringent workplace expectations. Explore whether self-esteem affects the employee’s perspective on workplace bias towards tattoos. Explore whether a healthy work/life balance (as defined by the interviewee) moderates how they view work expectations. Explore whether having colleagues with tattoos (and covering them) changes how they feel about their workplace expectations and sense of inclusion.

Ease at which cover-up is possible Explore if there is a relationship between the effort needed to cover up (clothing, makeup, etc.) and the impact on the employee. Some more heavily tattooed employees or those with ink in places like their neck or hands may have to put more financial or time resources into daily cover-ups.

Figure 3

Common Themes among Interviewees

Question Asked

Tell me about your tattoos.

What is it like to work in an environment absent of tattoos?

Do you feel that your personal values and the values of your organization are similar? What types of words would you use to describe how the “coverup” policy makes you think/feel? Do you feel like you are valued in your organization?

If you were offered a nearidentical job to the one you have now in terms of pay, benefits, hours, work environment…but you didn’t have to cover your tattoo, how interested would you be?

Common Themes Across Interviewees

 Enthusiastic in showing/describing tattoos  Consider tattoos a part of “who they are”  Do not regret getting their tattoos  Very meaningful  Confusing (because tattoos are now so commonplace and generally accepted)  Frustrating (outdated policies and mindsets)  Uncomfortable (especially needing to wear extra clothing)

 Yes; most interviewees felt that they matched

 Not good enough  Hidden/ashamed  Not professional enough

 Generally, interviewees said yes. This was due to their work accomplished, though, rather than intrinsic value as a person/employee.

 All stated that they would be very interested.

A few interesting discussions came from the interviews that will inform the proposed case study research. One is related to the difference between compliance with a policy and acceptance of a policy. It was also important for a couple of the interviewees to emphasize that just because they follow the rules (being compliant) does not mean that they accept or agree with the rules. Sowdena’s et al. (2018) research provides definitions to support this sentiment, saying that compliance is present when an individual publicly conforms but does not change their internal attitude or belief, as opposed to acceptance, which occurs when social influence causes an individual to conform based on the internalization of an outside attitude or belief. In no interview did anyone say that their organization’s policy

changed their internal beliefs. All it did was create an inconvenience and value conflict related to acceptance and inclusion of differences. Interviewees said that they sense the leader’s age has a significant impact on how much importance is placed on keeping the tattoos covered and/or enforcing the dress code. They stated that, generally, the younger the leader is the more s/he is accepting of others’ wishes. This was supported in the literature review as well. Finally, there were some very interesting conversations around loyalty to the organization when asking the last question: if they would leave their current job for a similar one in which cover-up policies were not present. Responses varied. One said that if offered more money, she would stay in the current position and keep covered even though she still “wouldn’t like it.” Another reported that he would rather be covered and enjoy his team than be uncovered and not have close bonds. This is an area that will need to be explored with a larger group in the proposed case study.

Research Design

Case study research (CSR) will be the design method used. CSR’s primary objective is to achieve a deep understanding of a participant’s perceptions, thinking processes, intentions, and environmental influences (Woodside, 2017). Neale et al. (2006) share that CSR is appropriate when there is a “story to be told.” As this case study focuses on the employee experience, interviews will be primarily focused on tattooed persons currently employed in a workplace that mandates covering tattoos. A semi-structured interview (SSI) approach should be used with this study. Bearman (2019) shares that SSIs are among the most effective ways to gather rich, experiential data. This collective case study’s method is exploratory. As many interviews as possible will be conducted in a synchronous setting such as a phone call, video call, or in-person interview. To ensure that a wide range of opinions and experiences are gathered, there will also be an electronic form (Appendix B) distributed via various social media platforms, asking for volunteers to share their thoughts. The questions in the form will mirror the interview questions to a reasonable degree. This information will form the initial conceptual framework that will help visualize, identify, and clarify key aspects of the phenomena.

Discussion

Limitations

A limitation of this study is that it does not capture the potential employees who have turned down a job in a conservative workplace because of the policy. This study is only hearing the voice of those that are currently in a workplace requiring them to cover up. There may be certain factors (personality, economic, demographic) that may cause one person to accept a job with a dress code with which they disagree versus declining the job offer to look for another with a progressive-company climate. A second limitation is inherent in the case study methodology. Qualitative data seeks to understand opinions, attitudes, and motivations. There will not be conclusions that can be quantified with numbers or statistics. While the reader will enjoy a robust thematic analysis, objective conclusions cannot be drawn and projected on a population outside of the one being studied in the research sample.

Future Considerations for Research

As mentioned in the Limitations section, there is an opportunity to understand how tattooed persons, who opted not to apply/work to/for an organization which mandates they cover up their tattoos, feel about organizations that retain appearance codes. This study may prompt deeper, philosophical questions about the ethical obligations an organization may or may not feel relative to propagating bias. Future research in understanding the effects of bringing awareness of implicit bias to leaders who uphold the policies would be very interesting. These leaders may not be aware of their own unconscious associations, their own stereotyping of customers (believing that their customers stereotype their employees), or how their employees’ feelings are impacted by the policies. Finally, the interviews brought something interesting to the surface regarding the enforcement of tattoo “cover-up” policies. It seems like it is common for enforcement to be applied unevenly across an organization based on different leadership styles. More understanding is needed related to how this inconsistent application affects the organization.

Conclusion

While it is widely recognized that there are benefits to creating inclusive workplaces where employees feel valued and included, not many leaders know how to do it (Brimhall, 2019). Organizations can feel a conflict between balancing diversity, allowing individual expression, and managing customer perceptions (Flanagan & Lewis, 2019). As the demographics of an “average American employee” shift, it would be naïve to think that approaches to inclusivity do not also need to

broaden. Zestcott et al. (2018) share that significant interpersonal and professional consequences arise due to the stigma toward tattoos in the workplace. With such a widely researched stigma and generally acknowledged bias, exploring its impact on the tattooed employee’s psyche will provide insight into their relationship with the organization. Understanding how tattooed employees in conservative workplaces view themselves and their organization can provide unique insights currently not found in the literature and opportunities to learn how to foster inclusive organizations.

Arndt, A. D., McCombs, G., Tolle, S. L., & Cox, C. (2017). Why are healthcare managers biased against hiring service providers with tattoos? Services Marketing Quarterly, 38(2), 88–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332969.2017.1289789

Arndt, A. D., & Glassman, M. (2012). What tattoos tell customers about salespeople: The role of gender norms. Marketing Management Journal, 22(1), 50–65. http://www.mmaglobal.org/publications/MMJ/MMJIssues/2012-Spring/MMJ-2012-Spring-Vol22-Issue1-ArndtGlassman-pp50-65.pdf

Acquavita, S. P., Pittman, J., Gibbons, M., & Castellanos-Brown, K. (2009). Personal and organizational diversity factors’ impact on social workers’ job satisfaction: Results from a national Internet-based survey. Administration in Social Work, 33(2), 151-166. https://doi.org/10.1080/03643100902768824

Ball, J., & Elsner, R. (2019). Tattoos increase self-esteem among college students. College Student Journal, 53(3), 293–300. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A603511047/AONE?u=anon~4 11f0ad8&sid=googleScholar&xid=63da6672

Bearman, M. (2019). Focus on methodology: Eliciting rich data: A practical approach to writing semi-structured interview schedules. Focus on Health Professional Education, 20(3), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.11157/fohpe.v20i3.387

Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(5), 475-482. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0146167291175001

Brimhall, K. (2019). Inclusion is important . . . but how do I include? Examining the effects of leader engagement on inclusion, innovation, job satisfaction, and perceived quality of care in a diverse nonprofit health care organization. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 48(4), 716-737. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0899764019829834

Brimhall, K. (2019). Inclusion and commitment as key pathways between leadership and nonprofit performance. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 30(1), 31–49. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21368

Broussard, K.A., & Harton, H.C. (2018). Tattoo or taboo? Tattoo stigma and negative attitudes toward tattooed individuals. The Journal of Social Psychology, 158(5), 521 - 540. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2017.1373622

Carmeli, A., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Ziv, E. (2010). Inclusive leadership and employee involvement in creative tasks in the workplace: The mediating role of psychological safety. Pscyhology Faculty Publications, 30. DigitalCommons@UNO. https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/psychfacpub/30?utm_sourc e=digitalcommons.unomaha.edu%2Fpsychfacpub%2F30&utm_m edium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

Cho, S., & Mor Barak, M. (2008). Understanding of diversity and inclusion in a perceived homogeneous culture: A study of organizational commitment and job performance among Korean employees. Administration in Social Work, 32(4), 100-126. https://doi.org/10.1080/03643100802293865

Flanagan, J., & Vance, J. (2019). Marked inside and out: an exploration of perceived stigma of the tattooed in the workplace. Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion: An International Journal, 38(5), 87-106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EDI-06-2018-0101

Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: notes on the management of spoiled identities. Touchstone.

Hwang, J., & Hopkins, K. (2012). Organizational inclusion, commitment, and turnover among child welfare workers: A multilevel mediation analysis. Administration in Social Work, 36(1), 23-39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03643107.2010.537439

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), 61–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/1053-4822(91)90011-Z

Larsen, G., Patterson, M., & Markham, L. (2014). A deviant art: Tattoorelated stigma in an era of commodification [Special issue].

Psychology & Marketing, 31(8), 670–681. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20727

Neale, P., Thapa, S., & Boyce, C. (2006). A Guide for designing and conducting a case study for evaluation input. Pathfinder International. https://eoue.org/15-23-11.pdf

Pew Research Center. (2010). Millennials: Confident. Connected. Open to change. https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2010/02/24/millennialsconfident-connected-open-to-change/

Shore, L. M., Randel, A. E., Chung, B. G., Dean, M. A., Holcombe Ehrhart, K., & Singh, G. (2011). Inclusion and diversity in work groups: a review and model for future research. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1262-1289. https://ideas.wharton.upenn.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2018/07/Shore-Randel-Chung-Dean-HolcombeEhrhart-Singh-2011.pdf

Sowden, S., Koletsi, S., Lymberopoulos, E., Militaru, E., Catmur, C., & Bird, G. (2018). Quantifying compliance and acceptance through public and private social conformity. Consciousness and Cognition: An International Journal, 65, 359-367. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/j.concog.2018.08.009

Tews, M. J., Stafford, K., & Kudler, E. P. (2020). The influence of tattoo content on perceptions of employment suitability across the generational divide. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 19(1), 4–13. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1027/1866-5888/a000234

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2015). Projections of the labor force, 2014–24. Career Outlook. https://www.bls.gov/careeroutlook/2015/article/projectionslaborforce.htm

Woodside, A. (2017). Case study research: Core skills in using 15 genres. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Zestcott, C. A., Tompkins, T. L., Kozak Williams, M., Livesay, K., & Chan, K. L. (2018). What do you think about ink? An examination of implicit and explicit attitudes toward tattooed individuals. The Journal of Social Psychology, 158(1), 7–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2017.1297286