Photo: Sheetz
How much say should retailers have over an associate’s appearance?
Sheetz is reviewing its “smile policy” that forbids associates from having “missing, broken, or badly discolored teeth (unrelated to a disability)” following an exposé by Business Insider.
Sheetz’s spokesperson Nick Ruffner told the Philadelphia Inquirer, “Throughout our history to date we have embraced an appearance policy, because we know how important a smile is to the customer experience when serving hospitality. However, we are always reviewing our standing policies to make sure they best deliver on our values and our commitment to our customers and employees.”
According to the Business Insider article, employees showing dental problems are expected to resolve the issues within 90 days.
“In the event a current employee develops a dental problem that would limit their ability to display a pleasant, full, and complete smile, we cannot permit this situation to go on indefinitely,” the policy states, according to Business Insider. “In cases such as this, the employee and store management, to include the District Manager and Employee Relations as necessary, will work to come up with a mutually agreed upon resolution.”
Offering a warm smile to welcome customers entering a store is among the first lessons in training retail associates. A Barclays survey of UK consumers from 2013 found a smile and a friendly hello to be the most common reason (59 percent) why consumers feel loyal towards small and independent retailers.
Stores and other business establishments have relaxed their dress code requirements in recent years, including Walmart, which began allowing associates to wear jeans in 2018. Many have been more accepting of tattoos and piercings on frontline employees, as well as unique hair styles.
UPS, for instance, in late 2020 for the first time began permitting its drivers to wear beards and mustaches “worn in a businesslike manner,” as well as several “natural hairstyles.” Employees are expected to maintain a neat and clean appearance “appropriate for their job and workplace” and hair or beard length can’t be a safety concern.
In early 2021, UPS began allowing employees to show their tattoos, provided they don’t contain offensive words or images and weren’t on their hands, head, neck or face.
- Sheetz is reviewing its controversial ‘smile policy’ that prohibits employees from having ‘missing, broken, or badly discolored teeth’ – Business Insider
- Sheetz’s ‘smile policy’ for convenience store workers may not have teeth – The Philadelphia Inquirer
- What is the Significance of a Smile? – RetailWire
- How to Greet Customers in Retail Stores – Retail Doctor
- Express Yourself: Walmart Introduces Relaxed Dress Guidelines in Stores – Walmart
- UPS to Allow Natural Black Hairstyles and Facial Hair – The New York Times
- UPS drivers can now display their tattoos in another major shake-up to the company’s historically strict appearance policy – Business Insider
Discussion Questions
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS: Do you see some rationalization for Sheetz’s smile policy? What advice would you have about adopting and managing policies guiding the physical appearance and hygiene of store employees?
Poll
Loading …BrainTrust
Lee Peterson
EVP Thought Leadership, Marketing, WD Partners
David Slavick
Co-Founder & Partner, Ascendant Loyalty
Employers have the right to set and expect standards for staff appearance, but those standards are and must be evolve with the times. It’s a fine balance between allowing employees to express their personalities and maintaining a corporate standards. I do understand Sheetz’s approach with the smile policy, and workers should not be too offended by it. But I would advise all employers to be clear in their expectations for appearance by staff, but to also be flexible and adjust to the times that we’re living. If standards are too formal, you’ll have a hard time attracting and retaining workers; if your standards are too loose, you run the risk of alienating customers.
Are they paying for dental treatment then? Isn’t that a little like saying, “no physical deformities on the job please”? Appearance, as in what you wear, makes sense, but when you start to dig into body conditions, that’s crossing a line to me.
When we had mask mandates a little while ago, how did they gauge whether a staffer was smiling then?
If they have an employee who wears a face covering for religious reasons, what then?
If what they are really looking for is kind and friendly behavior and a consistent customer experience, that’s easier to measure. (“You smile with the eyes” as the saying goes.) Otherwise, the rule is discriminatory on its face….
Front-line employees are indeed a huge part of delivering on the brand promise. So sure, employers have a lot of latitude in setting the standards for appearance and behavior. But that has to come with the appropriate guidance and training and support. That might even include financial support sometimes. Dental work is a little more expensive than a haircut. I’m reminded about all the conversation regarding “essential” front line employees. And then keep it a level playing field. If somebody who is not front facing needs the same kind of support, be there for them.
Nice way to start a Monday! 🙂 Yes, I see a reason for the policy, but yes, there is plenty of room for interpretation here. I would like to think the intent of the smile is what customers pick up on, not the quality of the teeth in the smile. I think managers should focus more on the behavior of the employee and observe the customers’ reactions before taking any action.
I suppose if the chain is willing to fix the broken or stained teeth on its dime, then it’s fine. Otherwise, it’s rather discriminatory and rude.
It is up to every retailer to set their own standards and policies for appearance, especially those that relate to basic hygiene. The only real considerations are that the policies must be enforced consistently and fairly, and they mustn’t discriminate against those with disabilities. Retailers also need to consider paying for the policies they enforce – want a good uniform, you provide it; want perfectly straight teeth, provide dental insurance, etc. All that said, attitude and personality are just as important as appearance and those things should be more of a focus.
Flair? Fifteen pieces of flair! For those who haven’t seen the 1999 film OFFICE SPACE, think required number of “personalized” buttons the Jennifer Aniston character is supposed to wear at a TGIF-like restaurant. Spoiler alert: she rebels.
This is a very slippery slope, and I think Sheetz is on shaky ground if they don’t offer dental insurance. I have experienced this issue earlier in my retail career and I worked with HR to counsel the employee. Giving feedback like this is extraordinarily hard for everyone involved. This is also part of the bigger story: when will retailers start hiring people with the goal of helping them develop a career in retail?
As usual, such policies will depend on customer acceptance. The Walmart and UPS modifications appear to have no adverse impact. Sheetz is a terrific C-store operator. Assuming they have specific customer feedback on this issue, their policy of a 90 day fix appears rational.
A warm and friendly greeting with a smile is worth gold in retail. Just this morning, after a tough workout, I went to my local coffee house and ordered my favorite tea and was greeted with the best smile and hello. It was wonderful and so infectious. Can you imagine if there was no smile, no hello, no “have a great day”? Talk about sterile, uninviting, boring. Who wants that’s type of experience? Sheetz’s policy is spot-on.
While I can get behind asking employees to adhere to a dress code, I can’t get behind forcing them to smile, or hiring based on having a specific physical appearance. Employees who are well trained and feel valued will know how to make a customer feel welcome. And I’ve seen countless sales made because a shopper could relate to a staffer with similar physical traits like wearing braces, or having an arm in a cast, or a birthmark on their face.
Shoppers who come to stores want a human experience, and that includes being served competently, not prettily. While a genuine smile is always appreciated, a forced one can have the opposite effect.
Setting standards of appearance for employees is not new. Front-line employees are representing the brand they work for to the customer. While they have relaxed over time, they have not and are not likely to change. In stores that provide freshly prepared foods like Sheetz, employee appearance is likely to be viewed by customers as indicative of store cleanliness and food safety. This is especially true of bad hygiene. I understand Sheetz’s position.
Team members reflect the company’s brand. That makes sense. But what is reasonable for employers to require in terms of appearance? Very difficult to define what’s ok to mandate and what’s not. It feels like requiring dental work as a condition of employment is going out of bounds, and I expect this will be challenged in court. So what is open to an employers discretion? That gets difficult pretty fast.
Recently, African American hairstyles have become the subject of this same discussion, and discrimination based on hair is now protected in some states. Tattoos are another great example. There has been a substantial societal shift in the acceptance of tattoos. But at the same time, while a full-sleeve floral tattoo is probably fine now, facial tattoos will be a problem for most companies.
I would suggest retailers stick to those employees have full control over and contribute to the brand perception—uniforms, ties, no beer t-shirts, ok. Requiring certain standards of personal hygiene, being well groomed, for example, seems fine.
But disqualifying employment based on certain physical characteristics, especially those not covered by the ADA? Not everyone has access to dental care, especially in retail’s low-wage, customer-facing ranks. Is Sheetz going to pay for any work that an employee may need to stay employed? I suspect Sheetz is going to be forced to revisit this decision.
I’d sue in a heartbeat. Worse, anyone not hired could claim it’s because of their appearance. So bad.
Exactly. This is a VERY slippery slope.
Actually, I honestly don’t see the rationale for Sheetz’s smile policy unless their insurance policy fully covers extensive cosmetic dentistry. I’m willing to bet that many Sheetz associates don’t have the considerable discretionary resources on hand to “fix” their teeth, so the policy discriminates against employees who grew up and/or are poor. For folks with limited resources, extractions are cheaper than repairs and the result … well it isn’t pretty, at least as conventionally defined. So, what are the poor to do? Not apply for low paying retail work because they don’t meet some arbitrary aesthetic metric?
Yes, employers have the right to set standards, but those standards should not discriminate against whole classes of people, in this case lower income individuals with bad dentition. Now, if Sheetz wanted to underwrite dental care and repair and employees refused that would be a different issue.
Well, I spilled my coffee when I read this. Do I see rationalization for the policy? Absolutely! And I think it would be admirable to offer financial help to correct associates’ issues. First impressions are everything.
Missing, broken, or badly discolored teeth? This seems an easy one to me. If Sheetz doesn’t like it, pay for the fix.
I wonder, however, how that person gets hired in the first place. Is it an interview without smiles?
Basic appearance standards should be a standard for specific retailers. It is no different than the logo on the front or the store’s appearance. It is a message to the shopper.
Before one takes too hard of a line on this, they should look up the prices of teeth replacement from a reputable/capable dentist. Hint: it’s more than many Sheetz employees make in a year.
Brand ambassadors and store associates’ appearance matters, as they are extensions of the brand experience. While basic hygiene expectations are appropriate, Sheetz’s smile policy clearly violates workers’ rights and discriminates. Unless Sheetz is going to invest significantly in their associates dental plans, then the company has no right to enforce these policies in the age of inclusivity and empowerment.
I’m having a hard time with this one. I am all for dress codes because associates represent the brand, however, I draw the line at the physical.
What gives any company the right to tell people their teeth are bad? And what happens if that associate does not have the funds or access to fix their teeth within 90 days? You want my teeth to be perfect? Cool. Pay for it.
It is reasonable to require standards in appearance for customer-facing associates. Yet, such policies cannot be discriminatory or subjective. In the case of Sheetz’s smile policy, the company needs to provide financial support to make it happen as dental work is expensive, and when available, dental insurance is inadequate. If the smile is core to the company’s success, then Sheetz needs to step up.
Did the American Dental Association influence this new policy? Asking for a friend. Let’s see, you are hired and your smile isn’t quite perfect or you simply are missing teeth and can’t afford dentures or other procedures — yet now you are shamed into either addressing it within 90 days (assuming you can get an appointment let alone afford it) otherwise what, you are banished to the back of store and no longer welcome at the cash register? So in the case of Sheetz who I love having lived in PA for many years, this is highly disappointing. At retail, you should absolutely have standards and this is why many apparel and department store brands offer deep discounts to employees — wear the clothes we sell and ideally your personal hygiene is up to your own standards of personal care. Many challenges here especially in a tough environment in finding workers to fill schedules, especially c-store and grocery with 7 day service models.
I don’t think anyone has trouble rationalizing the policy: Sheetz wants everyone to look as perfect as possible (or really a certain idea of what “perfect” looks like). But this has little, if anything, to do with appearance and next-to-nothing to do with hygiene (at least directly: there may of course be reasons for toothlessness if we subscribe to stereotypes of meth addicts.) Frankly the idea sounds like something from the ’50s — whether more 1850s than 1950s, I’m pondering — and I think Sheetz would be better off directing its efforts elsewhere. I won’t discuss the (even worse IMHO) dark truth that seems to be lurking in background: Sheetz forces its employees to smile … ugh. 🙁
Every employer has a responsibility to ensure staff appearance is guided by operational needs, and most importantly, is within brand. Customers should expect to see a standard that fits each company, whether defined as loose or more structured.
Enforcement of dental issues or other bodily-based care is over the line unless an employer intends to pay for it under their health care plan. Even then, legal risks abound.
I think Sheetz and any other retailer is right in giving hygiene guidance depending of course on the role. If one has not bathed in weeks (ew!) that is a problem if they are customer facing. If all of their teeth are dirty and they have horrible breath (double ew!) and they are customer facing that is a problem too.
If one never bathes and has horrible teeth/breath to boot but their job involves writing code in a dark room with no physical contact, fine. But please bath and brush before the office outing!
From reading some of the other responses, I might be in the minority here, however, I think there are all sorts of biases present with this one. Someone with bad teeth or body odor is going to be remembered negatively, unless of course the entire organization has bad teeth and body odor. To pretend otherwise in the name of employee and workplace freedom is akin to putting one’s head in the sand and hoping the problem goes away.