Search results

What is the impact of workers' tattoos and piercings on hospitality work? While body-art is prohibited in some hotels, it is encouraged in others. Also, an even more ambiguous situation arises when body-art is neither accepted nor prohibited, depending on labour market conditions and managers' individualistic preferences. In this chapter, we explore how this ambiguity imposes challenges on employment and career planning. We first seek to understand how managers' perceptions and decisions concerning worker body-art change in different hotel categories. To do so, we draw on interviews with 25 General and Human Resource Managers in 18 upper market hotels, three lifestyle boutique-hotels and four luxury hotels. Then, we offer pragmatic suggestions on career planning.

Diversity and inclusion initiatives are normally centred on legally protected traits such as race and gender. As the legal framework expands to ensure that underrepresented workers are protected, there exists a subset of the workforce who have diversity characteristics that are legally unprotected. For example, individuals who have visible tattoos can face employment discrimination when they are looking for work or looking to progress their careers. To add to the challenge, the perception of stigma is fluid and expectations related to the appearance of employees are determined by managers' perceptions of consumers' preferences. Drawing theoretically from self-categorisation theory and information processing theory, we discuss how the creation of a marketing and brand proposition framework can help to build an organisational identity that can benefit consumers and the organisation simultaneously. We also discuss the practical implications and strategies that organisations can consider to reduce such workplace discrimination.

Appearance has two meanings. On the one hand, appearance is about the physical qualities of a person being of certain height, weight, complexion and having a particular hair, eye and skin colour as well as choice and style of dress and attire. On the other hand, appearance has a social dimension, as those physical qualities of a person are interpreted, rated and judged, and attributed varied meanings and values across different settings. Appearances can influence the experiences of individuals in the workplace in both positive and negative ways: Positive, when they are mobilised as a resource that increases the influence and advantage of individuals on others; and negative, when individuals are discriminated or disadvantaged on the basis of their appearance. Drawing on a Bourdieusian conceptual repertoire, this chapter delves into this duality of appearance and frames appearance both as a resource (a form of carnal capital) and a source of symbolic violence. As appearance is an aspect of an individual's self-identity in the workplace, this chapter explores appearance and intersectionality across gender, ethnicity, class and sexual orientation at work. Appearance is examined as a cross cutting category of diversity as both privilege (carnal capital) and disadvantage (symbolic violence).

This chapter investigates the issue of tattoos and examines whether the presence of visible tattoos still influences front line workers' employment chances. It finds that irrespective of a general societal shift towards greater tattoo acceptance and integration into modern society, negative stereotypes about tattoos still exist. Acceptance of tattoos in the workplace was dependent on the nature, size and location of the tattoo, as well as the occupation in question, and individual customer characteristics. Respondents were generally more accepting of tattoos on people nowadays. However, there was concern that employees with visible tattoos may still face stigma in the workplace. The findings revealed that most people will cover up a tattoo during an interview out of fear of negative discrimination by the interviewer.

Criminal history has been conceptualised as a socially stigmatised identity. From this perspective, we can understand criminal history as invisible, concealable and ‘not readily apparent to others’ (Chaudoir & Fisher, 2010, p. 236). Although previous periods of incarceration cannot be detected per se, during this chapter, we present several elements, such as embodiment, appearance-based inferences (i.e. assumptions of what a criminal history looks like), and information as proxy (e.g. résumé gaps, credit history), which may contribute to individual assessments and interpretations of the appearance of a criminal history. Once perceived, these elements may contribute an array of unique career experiences as individuals with a criminal history seek to navigate their employment experience. Therefore, this chapter offers insight into how the appearance of criminal history information, particularly when presented without a thorough explanation, may be left to interpretation and bias throughout the employment experience.