In the article “Body art as branded labor: At the intersection of employee selection and relationship marketing, how body art, like tattoos and piercings, affects the selection process for employees is one of these aspects underlined in this article. Their study is directed at the “branded labor” that body art entails and how this allows people to be viewed and selected for employment.
The main point of relationship marketing is long-term customer relationships, which require human skills designated for storytelling and brand presentation to customers. According to (Cutcher & Achtel,2017), the body art factor will emerge as a significant determinant in this instance, as it may either magnify or damage the brand image and customers’ perception.
This study examines the dilemma faced by employers who are obligated to find employment for authentic and unique people who may use the adornment body element to express themselves but still maintain the professional image of a company that is associated with its brand(Timming, 2017). It examines the various ways that organizations might appreciate the role of body art, portraying it as a platform for building relations with customers and an outlet for bold expression, albeit other parties may deem it unprofessional and a barrier to overall brand value.
The article deals with the issue of a much more complicated selection process for relationship marketing personnel, during which decision-makers assess both the pros and cons of being able to express themselves freely and in a diverse community, as well as the necessity of some consistency and professionalism of the employees(Miller et al., 2009). Finally, these two facts help comprehend organizations’ work as they look for desired job candidates based on aligning company image with their branding and maintaining good customer relationships.
Recommendation
In the body art declaration during selection for an organization, there is the need to consider factors like brand identity, customer perceptions, and legal point of view, which are the most vital.
Organizations should create a behavioral framework or policy that would imply the regulations regarding body art in the office space as a first measure. To manage expectations properly, these guidelines must be communicated regularly and openly to employees and applicants (Efthymiou,2018). The policy should make it clear whether some types of tattoos are allowed or not in order to fit the organization’s culture, standards of the industry, and brand image.
Then, during the selection, hiring managers and recruiters should have a checklist of the required things that a candidate should possess, like skills, qualifications, and personality, to see whether it matches the organization’s culture (Dvorscak,2007). Though body art is one of the factors to be considered underemployment, it should not be the main reason leading to an employee’s employment or dismissal from the company(Timming,2011). Otherwise, employers will have to see how the body art of the candidate lines up with the image of the organization’s brand, and in case it lets it down, they will have to judge the impact of the art on the brand image, either it enhances or detracts from it.
Combining empathy, objectivity, and appreciation of individuality in body art is the third step needed in the process. The artwork is a medium of expression for people, and it has to be taken with tolerance. Employers should not jump to conclusions because judgments may be based solely on the context of body art and not any meanings(Efthymiou et al., 2023). Further, the necessary steps should involve legality, keeping the discriminatory prohibition operating, and base decisions on employment-based factors.
In conclusion, through explicit rules formulation, paying attention to technical factors, discussing body art in a broad meaning, and contributing to the process of diversification, the experts will know better how to make the right corporate decisions in the setting of selection procedures proper, playing a significant role in the company’s image building and creating a favorable atmosphere at work.
References
Cutcher, L., & Achtel, P. (2017). ‘Doing the brand’: aesthetic labor as situated, relational performance in fashion retail. Work, employment and society, 31(4), 675-691.
Dvorscak, M. L. (2007). The Influence of Body Art on Personnel Selection (Doctoral dissertation).
Efthymiou, L. (2018). Worker body art in upper-market hotels: Neither accepted nor prohibited. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 74, 99-108.
Efthymiou, L., Orphanidou, Y., & Karayiannis, A. (2023). The Impact of Workers’ Tattoos and Piercings on Employment: Suggestions for Pragmatic Career Planning. In The Emerald Handbook of Appearance in the Workplace (pp. 301–316). Emerald Publishing Limited.
Miller, B. K., Nicols, K. M., & Eure, J. (2009). Body art in the workplace: Piercing the prejudice? Personnel Review, 38(6), 621-640.
Timming, A. R. (2011). What do tattoo artists know about HRM? Recruitment and selection in the body art sector. Employee Relations, 33(5), 570-584.
Timming, A. R. (2017). Body art as branded labor: At the intersection of employee selection and relationship marketing. Human Relations, 70(9), 1041-1063.
write