Most employers in the corporate world would say, as long as our clients, customers, and colleagues can’t see them, tattoos are perfectly fine in the workplace. Still, a growing number of tattoo fans feel that body art won’t affect their chances of getting a job, whether they it be seen or not. Although tattoos are as mainstream as ever, unfortunately, they can be a detriment in the workplace. According to a recent msnbc.com report:

Employment experts, like Pam Vizer from the Polaris Career Center in Middleburg Heights, say the growing popularity of tattoos doesn’t mean they are accepted in the workplace.  “If it’s distracting to the interviewer, then they’re not going to learn who you are and why you might be a good hire for them,” Vizer said.

Vizer also urged all employees to be aware of company dress codes. “There are different grooming and dress codes — and grooming and dress codes are completely legal,” she said.

In the end, whether it is a lifestyle choice or not, freedom of expression, or whatever the point is, in the conservative white collar world (and many professions in the blue collar world), you will be judged if you waltz into a job interview covered in tattoos, but even worse is, you probably won’t get the job.

It’s getting tough out there. Employers are realizing that the old ways of screening out job candidates, particularly candidates for executive positions, are insufficient in today’s competitive world. Employers are employing much more thorough tactics, such as psychological scrutiny and rigorous simulations. Some are calling it “extreme hiring.”

It’s Andrew Noon’s first day on the job, and already he has had to discipline a worker, thwart a departmental turf war, cajole two recalcitrant employees, convince an irate customer not to cancel a contract and present his strategic plan for the next three years to the company’s chief executive, complete with flip charts. But the boss, the employees and the customers are actors. The company is fictitious. The office space is an assessment center outside Pittsburgh. At least three trained observers are listening to Noon’s every voice mail, reading his every e-mail and watching his every move. The whole exercise is a simulation designed to determine his readiness for the executive suite at Mutual of Omaha.

To prepare, Noon, 35, spent the weeks leading up to his assessment poring over reams of fictitious financials and memorizing fake org charts, employee bios, product descriptions, company histories and global sales breakdowns. He also took three personality tests, each consisting of 200 to 300 questions designed to uncover his levels of sociability, creativity and ambition and to identify any “derailers”–talent-management-speak for the dark side.

Psychological scrutiny and rigorous simulations are fast becoming a requisite part of the interview process. Gone are the days when a clutch golf swing or well-schmoozed dinner might score you a spot in the C-suite. The downturn has shed a decidedly unflattering light on subjective hiring practices. Even the standard application-interview-résumé-and-reference-check formula has come under fire for being too soft and unreliable.

In many ways this makes sense, but it would make even more sense if the results are compared to feedback given by that candidates former co-workers and superiors.