The Official-ish DC Thread

[smittycl]

you guys are more uptight than I thought, I can't imagine not hiring someone because pink jacket, though if he didn't get hired we would probably be joking about the pink jacket guy for a long time..., now on the other hand if he was hired, he would probably be the pink jacket guy...

I could easily see it from the normative comment Clags made. At work I’m known as the dandyish guy but it took me a while to work my way there. Nothing but navy or gray suits for a while until I felt established. Clearly depends on where you work of course.

 

[Claghorn]

you guys are more uptight than I thought, I can't imagine not hiring someone because pink jacket, though if he didn't get hired we would probably be joking about the pink jacket guy for a long time..., now on the other hand if he was hired, he would probably be the pink jacket guy...

It could their school’s loss, but at the final stage, the quality of the candidates is often indistinguishable, and things start mattering on the margins.

They made the right call in considering the norm-breaking of a candidate in that context. Norms make people’s behavior predictable, and so my friend essentially signaled that he was a wild card, even when the stakes are highest and there is nothing to gain.

 

[TheSuitBurnsBetter]

you guys are more uptight than I thought, I can't imagine not hiring someone because pink jacket, though if he didn't get hired we would probably be joking about the pink jacket guy for a long time..., now on the other hand if he was hired, he would probably be the pink jacket guy...

 

[Claghorn]

I could easily see it from the normative comment Clags made. At work I’m know as the dandyish guy but it took me a while to work my way there. Nothing but navy or gray suits for a while until I felt established. Clearly depends on where you work of course.

As people get to know you, your adherence to norms becomes less important. There is less uncertainty, so the signals like norm-adherence aren’t as influential.

 

[smittycl]

View attachment 1532506

It’s like you have a six-shooter loaded with Simpson memes!

 

[smittycl]

As people get to know you, your adherence to norms becomes less important. There is less uncertainty, so the signals like norm-adherence aren’t as influential.

The #menswear frog in boiling water?

 

[TheSuitBurnsBetter]

It’s like you have a six-shooter loaded with Simpson memes!

It's basically my superpower.

 

[Claghorn]

The #menswear frog in boiling water?

That, too. But this is more about the importance of norms under conditions of information asymmetry.

 

[TheShetlandSweater]

It could their school’s loss, but at the final stage, the quality of the candidates is often indistinguishable, and things start mattering on the margins.

They made the right call in considering the norm-breaking of a candidate in that context. Norms make people’s behavior predictable, and so my friend essentially signaled that he was a wild card, even when the stakes are highest and there is nothing to gain.

Is this academia you are talking about or the FBI?

 

[Claghorn]

Is this academia you are talking about or the FBI?

Academia, but business school.

The only real dress norm we have (if you’re a guy) is: dress conservatively at your job interview. That’s it. As a norm in this context, it makes sense. In engineering or liberal arts, that norm probably isn’t significant or even present.

Outside of that, we can wear whatever we want whenever we want, though if you’re teaching M.B.A.’s you probably should at least be wearing a collared shirt if not a jacket.

 

[TheShetlandSweater]

Academia, but business school

I don't think it was about predictability or job performance then. Seems hard to make the argument that wearing a pink jacket would indicate something about someone's potential as an academic.

 

[smittycl]

I don't think it was about predictability or job performance then. Seems hard to make the argument that wearing a pink jacket would indicate something about someone's potential as an academic.

Introduces doubt I guess. Hiring the right person is critical especially in government where there are many protections that make it hard to fire bad actors.

 

[TheShetlandSweater]

Introduces doubt I guess. Hiring the right person is critical especially in government where there are many protections that make it hard to fire bad actors.

But this is academia. Your job is basically to do your own research and teach, not to follow orders. Maybe things are different in business school, though.

 

[Claghorn]

I don't think it was about predictability or job performance then. Seems hard to make the argument that wearing a pink jacket would indicate something about someone's potential as an academic.

It was not at all about job performance. It's about predicting with extremely limited information how well someone will work with others, how collegial they'll be. When he broke that norm, the search committee members could no longer infer that he would adhere to important social norms. The other candidates, equally good researchers, demonstrated they know how to be normal if they absolutely have to be. Nobody in academia likes norms (except for me, but that's only because they are a part of my research), that's why we're academics. I know multiple academics--myself included--for whom freedom from norms was the primary draw for this career.

 

[Claghorn]

Introduces doubt I guess. Hiring the right person is critical especially in government where there are many protections that make it hard to fire bad actors.

Yeah. You do NOT want to hire an asshole for a tenure track position. They are all but impossible to fire for the first six years, and if they do good research and being just a low-key asshole, they can get tenure which means they can't be fired for being an asshole, and then they stop being low-key about it.

Ask me how I know.