The Official-ish DC Thread

[scurvyfreedman]

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.

Except hiring frequently follows inherent bias.

 

[smittycl]

Except hiring frequently follows inherent bias.

Yes, far from a perfect system. It’s why military guys, close to retirement, try to get assigned to govt agencies they want to get hired into. They prove themselves worthy then got a job offer as a known quantity, err, umm, so I am told...

 

[Joffrey]

Cheers (though that ain’t me; there are other torsos out there). And awesome that what you wore made an impression!

On the other end of the spectrum, a good friend of mine is on the search committee for a position that another friend had applied to. He made it to the last round of interviews, so final three, but he wore a pink jacket for his job talk (basically a two hour presentation of your research). My friend on the committee said this basically tanked him in the eyes of the chair and dean. Dress norms are very weak in academia, but they are there and that too strongly signaled counter-normative tendencies (and given the information asymmetry, signaling norm-adherence understandably reduces uncertainty). I heard from my friend on the committee that it cost him the job.

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'm all for stretching your legs style wise but wearing a pink jacket to an interview is simply a sign of poor judgement. A job interview should be about your ideas or the substance of what you can bring to the job. You should not attract any other attention or distract. I almost always wear a white pocket square to work and non-traditional colored socks (red or dark green) but wouldn't fathom doing so to an interview. What's the point? I can only see a creative field as a reasonable venue for a pink jacket but the context is still important.

 

[CollingsD2H]

Cheers (though that ain’t me; there are other torsos out there). And awesome that what you wore made an impression!

On the other end of the spectrum, a good friend of mine is on the search committee for a position that another friend had applied to. He made it to the last round of interviews, so final three, but he wore a pink jacket for his job talk (basically a two hour presentation of your research). My friend on the committee said this basically tanked him in the eyes of the chair and dean. Dress norms are very weak in academia, but they are there and that too strongly signaled counter-normative tendencies (and given the information asymmetry, signaling norm-adherence understandably reduces uncertainty). I heard from my friend on the committee that it cost him the job.

@nfld_rm55 wearing a blue and gray block stripe tie; find a similar one here

Oops. My bad. That is your pose, the beard, and the style so I got confused.

A pink jacket anywhere, unfortunately, is bad in a professional environment.

But I do owe you a big thank you. :~)

 

[TheShetlandSweater]

This whole pink jacket thing is bothering me. If you are worried about working with jerks, I would be much more worried about the guys who refuse to hire someone because he wears a pink jacket, than the guy who wears a pink jacket. Also I think it is worth pointing out that we are talking about an academic environment, albeit a business school. Academics don't adhere to a dress code. Some wear sweatpants and hoodies, some wear suits, some wear bold patterned dresses, many wear jeans and a t-shirt. If you were interviewing for a job at bank, and you wore a pink jacket, they'd have reason to question your judgment, but if you wear a pink jacket to an academic job interview and they don't hire you, it is they who are the problem.

 

[Idesofmarch17]

This whole pink jacket thing is bothering me. If you are worried about working with jerks, I would be much more worried about the guys who refuse to hire someone because he wears a pink jacket, than the guy who wears a pink jacket. Also I think it is worth pointing out that we are talking about an academic environment, albeit a business school. Academics don't adhere to a dress code. Some wear sweatpants and hoodies, some wear suits, some wear bold patterned dresses, many wear jeans and a t-shirt. If you were interviewing for a job at bank, and you wore a pink jacket, they'd have reason to question your judgment, but if you wear a pink jacket to an academic job interview and they don't hire you, it is they who are the problem.

I disagree. I was involved in academic hiring at a top 10 law school not too long ago and if a prospective hire wore something like a pink jacket, that is a total failure on the potential hire’s fault. Business school and law school are the two most “conservative” professional schools - i.e both industries are still governed by conservative leaning norms within menswear. Now, this is changing due to Silicon Valley norms on the business side and more law firms following as well - you don’t see lots of younger folks in full suits anymore, just collars and pants. But, if you are so close to the finish line at being hired in academia and show such a lack of judgment like wearing a pink jacket - you sabotaged yourself. I don’t necessarily think this is normatively right - but it’s the atmosphere at these sorts of places. Maybe if he was looking at a humanities program or something it might be more okay, but business and law school hiring, absolutely not. Once you get hired, wear whatever you want. I had law school professors who taught in sweatshirts and others in 3 piece suits. My two cents.

Edit - to just add, once you get into the final prospective hiring round, academics are looking for any reason to bounce someone. Usually there are 2-4 folks being considered for each job and the scrutiny is intense. Any reason to bounce someone to make the decision easier is absolutely what happens all the time.

 

[Claghorn]

This whole pink jacket thing is bothering me. If you are worried about working with jerks, I would be much more worried about the guys who refuse to hire someone because he wears a pink jacket, than the guy who wears a pink jacket. Also I think it is worth pointing out that we are talking about an academic environment, albeit a business school. Academics don't adhere to a dress code. Some wear sweatpants and hoodies, some wear suits, some wear bold patterned dresses, many wear jeans and a t-shirt. If you were interviewing for a job at bank, and you wore a pink jacket, they'd have reason to question your judgment, but if you wear a pink jacket to an academic job interview and they don't hire you, it is they who are the problem.

Y'all are missing the point, which is on me for doing a poor job of explaining it. To use your example:

Why is wearing a pink suit to a bank interview questionable? Because in that context--both the specific interview and general bank employment--there is a norm to dress conservatively. In this specific context--a business school faculty interview--there is a norm to dress conservatively, even if that norm does not exist in its broader context (day-to-day academia). Now, whether this norm should be valid in this context is a different question. In this situation (making a decision with limited information), all that matters is that the norm is valid in this context.

A more generalized explanation:
Norms reduce uncertainty. Norms are generally understood, generally adhered to patterns of behavior. They are context specific; that is, what is a norm in one context may not be a norm in another. Norms reduce uncertainty because they allow the behavior or activity of some entity (a person, an organization, a group, an institution, etc.) to be more easily predicted. Where there is little uncertainty, norms cease to to have this function. Past activity (what an entity has done in the past) is a far better predictor of future activity than are relevant norms (what the entity is supposed to do in that context). Without access to information on past activity, however, norms become important in this regard.

In an ideal world, when choosing between Option A and Option B, we'd have all relevant information about both options. Because we don't have all that information, we use various heuristics and proxies to fill in the gaps. It makes sense to do so, because "second-best" information is better than no information.

Further points of clarification:
1) Keep in mind that there were three equally qualified candidates who all did a solid job in their interviews. They all have a track record of successful research, so predicting their job performance (and any positive influence of counter-normative thinking) is accounted for. At this point, you have two candidates that you know recognize that social norms are sometimes important and another who does not signal that they know social norms are sometimes important.

One candidate comes with greater uncertainty, and there is no real benefit with that uncertainty (as opposed to a candidate doing risky, outside-the-box research, where there is an upside). The others don't.

2) If he had showed up on the first day of work in a pink jacket, it would not have been a problem in the slightest. As others have pointed out, there are generally no real dress norms in academia, so his wearing a pink jacket in that context doesn't signal that he will ignore social norms when it is inappropriate to do so.

3) If he had been interviewing with me, and he wore the pink jacket to lunch with me, it would not have been an issue in the slightest. I know him well, so there is no real need for him to signal that he understands the appropriate norm for that context.

(you did say the whole pink jacket thing was bothering you).

 

[CollingsD2H]

Let the interviewers/potential future employers focus on you and don't let them be distracted by a pink jacket. They're looking at the entire package. I have interviewed lots of candidates but I didn't judge on fit but I looked at whether they took the interview seriously enough to dress appropriately. I can remember one candidate coming with the top button on his dress shirt unbuttoned and the tie was a freaking mess. From an employer's point of view, if he can't even dress properly how the hell am I going to trust him with debits and credits?! I am in Washington, DC and I am working in an accounting field so hope that puts this post into some context.

 

[TheShetlandSweater]

Y'all are missing the point, which is on me for doing a poor job of explaining it. To use your example:

Why is wearing a pink suit to a bank interview questionable? Because in that context--both the specific interview and general bank employment--there is a norm to dress conservatively. In this specific context--a business school faculty interview--there is a norm to dress conservatively, even if that norm does not exist in its broader context (day-to-day academia). Now, whether this norm should be valid in this context is a different question. In this situation (making a decision with limited information), all that matters is that the norm is valid in this context.

A more generalized explanation:
Norms reduce uncertainty. Norms are generally understood, generally adhered to patterns of behavior. They are context specific; that is, what is a norm in one context may not be a norm in another. Norms reduce uncertainty because they allow the behavior or activity of some entity (a person, an organization, a group, an institution, etc.) to be more easily predicted. Where there is little uncertainty, norms cease to to have this function. Past activity (what an entity has done in the past) is a far better predictor of future activity than are relevant norms (what the entity is supposed to do in that context). Without access to information on past activity, however, norms become important in this regard.

In an ideal world, when choosing between Option A and Option B, we'd have all relevant information about both options. Because we don't have all that information, we use various heuristics and proxies to fill in the gaps. It makes sense to do so, because "second-best" information is better than no information.

Further points of clarification:
1) Keep in mind that there were three equally qualified candidates who all did a solid job in their interviews. They all have a track record of successful research, so predicting their job performance (and any positive influence of counter-normative thinking) is accounted for. At this point, you have two candidates that you know recognize that social norms are sometimes important and another who does not signal that they know social norms are sometimes important.

One candidate comes with greater uncertainty, and there is no real benefit with that uncertainty (as opposed to a candidate doing risky, outside-the-box research, where there is an upside). The others don't.

2) If he had showed up on the first day of work in a pink jacket, it would not have been a problem in the slightest. As others have pointed out, there are generally no real dress norms in academia, so his wearing a pink jacket in that context doesn't signal that he will ignore social norms when it is inappropriate to do so.

3) If he had been interviewing with me, and he wore the pink jacket to lunch with me, it would not have been an issue in the slightest. I know him well, so there is no real need for him to signal that he understands the appropriate norm for that context.

(you did say the whole pink jacket thing was bothering you).

Yeah, I just question that that norm is either (1) remotely helpful, or (2) ethically reasonable. You mention uncertainty and predictability, for instance, but uncertainty and predictability for what? If it's about predictability with regards to how one presents to others and how one understands social cues, I could see that mattering for certain types of jobs, but not this one. I don't see how wearing a pink jacket tells us anything about how he will complete his core job functions. What, for example, does wearing a pink jacket tell us about the sort of research he will do? I assume it tells us nothing (and you said his research abilities were good) but maybe I am wrong.

I also worry about a hiring committee's ability to separate between things they consider secondary (e.g. wearing a pink jacket) and primary (e.g. research ability). It seems like judgments regarding the former may not always be weighed properly. This might result not only in unfairness, but also worse hiring.

I don't have to continue this back-and-forth, things like this just bother.

 

[TheShetlandSweater]

I disagree. I was involved in academic hiring at a top 10 law school not too long ago and if a prospective hire wore something like a pink jacket, that is a total failure on the potential hire’s fault. Business school and law school are the two most “conservative” professional schools - i.e both industries are still governed by conservative leaning norms within menswear. Now, this is changing due to Silicon Valley norms on the business side and more law firms following as well - you don’t see lots of younger folks in full suits anymore, just collars and pants. But, if you are so close to the finish line at being hired in academia and show such a lack of judgment like wearing a pink jacket - you sabotaged yourself. I don’t necessarily think this is normatively right - but it’s the atmosphere at these sorts of places. Maybe if he was looking at a humanities program or something it might be more okay, but business and law school hiring, absolutely not. Once you get hired, wear whatever you want. I had law school professors who taught in sweatshirts and others in 3 piece suits. My two cents.

Edit - to just add, once you get into the final prospective hiring round, academics are looking for any reason to bounce someone. Usually there are 2-4 folks being considered for each job and the scrutiny is intense. Any reason to bounce someone to make the decision easier is absolutely what happens all the time.

To be clear, I don't think it was wise for the guy to wear pink. I just think it is unfair and unreasonable that something like this was treated as important. Maybe I just don't understand business schools.

 

[TheSuitBurnsBetter]

Natty Boh and a shot of Old Overholt at Dew Drop Inn.

 

[smittycl]

Wifey called an audible and wanted to go to Georgetown. Crab Cakes at Martin’s tonight! Did a little shopping. RL store had Polo, RRL and a few Purple Label items. Also hit Barbour, Billy Reid, and COS (too synthetic for me).

 

[brokencycle]

Wifey called an audible and wanted to go to Georgetown. Crab Cakes at Martin’s tonight! Did a little shopping. RL store had Polo, RRL and a few Purple Label items. Also hit Barbour, Billy Reid, and COS (too synthetic for me).

View attachment 1532991 View attachment 1532992

I may be way too conservative, but I haven't eaten out or done any kind of in store shopping since March.

 

[Ambulance Chaser]

I may be way too conservative, but I haven't eaten out or done any kind of in store shopping since March.

Not even grocery shopping? I'm pretty risk averse, but I'm not good enough of a planner to order grocery delivery for once a week.

 

[Kevin24]

Not even grocery shopping? I'm pretty risk averse, but I'm not good enough of a planner to order grocery delivery for once a week.

My older parents haven't even left the house since the onset of COVID except to go something needed like a doctor's appointment.

I ate out often with friends etc. doing the summer, but I'm seriously cutting back now since everyone I know now seems to be getting the Rona.