Slashdot Mirror
The Power of the Hoodie-Wearing C.E.O.
New submitter silverjacket writes "New research (JSTOR sub required / paywalled) shows that we see nonconformity as a sign of both status and competence — under the right conditions. From the article: 'Next, the researchers asked students at American universities to imagine a professor who is clean-shaven and wears a tie, or one who is bearded and wears T-shirts. Students were slightly more inclined to judge the dapper professor as a better teacher and researcher. But some students were given another piece of information: that the professor works at a top-tier school, where the dress code is presumably more formal. For them, the slouchy scholar earned more points. Deviance can signal status, but only when there are clear norms from which to deviate.'"
I know why researchers at universities use students as test subjects -- like rats, they're all around and they're cheap. And for some studies, using students is perfectly fine.
But can we stop the practice, at least in news stories, of assuming that the attitudes of American university students apply to anyone other than American university students? Most students are stupid as rocks. They think a "slouchy scholar" is cooler? So what?
I haven't read all the featured articles because the kinds of institutions that have access to JSTOR are closed for weeks around Christmas. But what the article in The New Yorker calls the "red sneakers effect" is the same as what a popular literary analysis wiki calls the bunny-ears lawyer effect. I guess the idea is that if someone can keep her job despite not conforming, she must be really good at it.
everyone rocks a neck tattoo now cuz it makes them look like a rich guy who doesn't need a job and just works for "self-actualization".
And like all symbols of perceived status, it is as useless as the hoodie or tie.
When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
... when making judgments. News at 11.
Seriously?
Based on the summary, this study seemingly shows little about competence. It shows that students will recognize that a teacher who dresses poorly probably cares less about teaching than about other things.
At a top university, those "other things" are likely to be research, or else the prof wouldn't be there. At a lesser college, the prof may just be a slacker in general.
I don't see how this has much to do with perceptions of "conformity" at all.
In a similar vein, I knew a prof who researched "Methods of getting out of having to do research" (I used quotes but this is really a paraphrase.)
I don't find anything wrong with such researchers. They are playing a game and earning a living.
My question is: How does such seemingly-ridiculous research get approved for funding? Can we not spend that money on greater good?
I don't have access to TFA; but it strikes me that it might be slightly more complex than the 'deviance can signal status if there are norms from which to deviate' thesis provided by TFS.
There are 'norms' for basically every situation a human might find itself in. You might no know them (which can be awkward), and the 'norm' may be along the lines of 'maximize the probability that you won't be dressed even slightly like anybody else, or naked+LEDs'; but they are there.
I'd (purely off the cuff, of course, this is the comments section), be inclined to hypothesize that norm-compliance (while many extremely competent people also do it, either because they approve of the norm or just don't much care and are in the habit, or recognize the value of being perceived in a certain way) would be most valuable to relatively mediocre people, both in-organization(if I'm not overtly worth firing; but definitely replaceable, do I really want to upset the boss over office dress code?) and when interacting with people outside of it (you wouldn't recognize me personally; but you can tell that I 'look professional' or 'professorial' or whatever).
If, on the other hand, you are just a total fucking rockstar, your ability to buck even theoretically binding institutional conventions is maximized (see also: 'what would it take to get the school's star quarterback expelled?') and your need to obtain validation by identifying yourself with a uniform and institution(either an actual, issued, uniform as with a cop, soldier, etc. or a given profession/status' normally expected attire) is weaker because you have greater access to validation on your own.
Obviously, this doesn't exclude people who are fucking rockstars; but still dress absolutely as would be expected of the unpromising-junior-guy in their position, either out of habit, because they don't have some overriding preference, or because they positively identify with what they are dressing as, nor does it exclude unimpressive candidates who affect rockstardom (nonconformity, itself, is a fairly well developed role. There are even specialist retailers to assist you with all your nonconformist lifestyle requirements!) and either through luck, through successful mimicry, or just because nobody cares nearly as much as expected about the dress code, if it even exists.
My question is: How does such seemingly-ridiculous research get approved for funding? Can we not spend that money on greater good?
For the same reason we have "zero tolerance policies" in schools... We do not trust the people making decisions to make them well. So we set up an arbitrary set of standards that can be gamed, and remove the capability of intervention from the people we do not trust, but decide to give the job anyway...
The article is, after all, about image.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I wholeheartedly agree. The fact that dressing casually is seen as non-conformist is from the perspective of people who value appearance over substance.
When people ask whether I would cut my hair for a job I tell them "maybe so, but I wouldn't want to work for anyone who asked me to".
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
When you make a profit it is accepted.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
There aren't many people in a position to fire a CEO. More or less the same is true for a tenured professor. So lets conduct this survey in some Fortune 500 companies and see if this phenomenon holds true.
I'd also like to see this study conducted across a number of companies with differing reputations of competence in their field. I'm guessing that the acceptance of deviance is probably related to the reputation of the organization as much as that of the individuals.
Have gnu, will travel.
The more interesting question is whoch one would you (or a venture capitalist) be more willing to lend $10 mil to, if they both submitted the same proposal and had the same business track record. Non-conformity might be trendy in academia, where all the students think they're special and unique - just like everyone else does [ thanks despair.com ] but I'd be more willing to trust my life savings to someone who was predictable and appeared "solid" than a non-conformist with possibly "alternative" ideas about diligence, fiscal responsibility and commercial success. Whether that transltaes to a specific dress-code is an interesting question - but not one answered by the study.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
First impressions when you first see someone can have an effect on how you perceive them. There is titles, i.e. professor at Caltech but many are bankrupt these days, i.e. there's lots of presidents of one man companies that are struggling or account executive (salesman). It seems it all comes down to the person. Some people when you hear the name or see them, you pay attention to what they say or write. And others are regarded as gasbags. It gets difficult at times, someone dressed like a slob but you may want to listen when they talk (you may learn something you cannot find in a book). Others dressed impeccably but are basically dufus. Then it can be the other way around. Or they may appear fantastically brilliant (or idiot) but has time goes on you may learn they are not that smart (or on the verge of innovative breakthrough).
mfwright@batnet.com
+ Admiral Hyman Rickover, Chief of Naval Reactors
daring and told all the fools around them to f
heh, I heard from someone who served in the sub service that in the early years of nuclear subs, Rickover personally interviewed all prospective sub officers. One candidate he said "go inside the closet and close the door." Hours later, Rickover opens the door, "why in the hell are you still in this closet?" Another candidate Rickover said, "piss me off." So the candidate takes a model ship on Rickover's desk and tosses it out the window. I'm sure Rickover had more insightful questions for potential sub officers but these two stories sound like good ones and just had to post, maybe for some laughs this holiday season.
Interesting listing of people, all have interesting stories.
mfwright@batnet.com
That's why you always see politicians, CEOs and such wearing suits. Nobody would take them seriously without those.
(There are very few politicians that look normal even by its country's standards, without the suit they usually look chubby, weak, unkept, and at times downright ugly. No one would trust them like that.)
If it's the new norm.
It is sad that Jonathan Schwartz of Sun had problems too, as they were the one that pushed SEC to allow blogging material information for example.
There's an old saying: 'The rich are eccentric, the poor are crazy.' This is just another variant of that trope. How oddity is perceived is dependent not on the attributes of the oddity, but on the attributes of the person displaying it.
Well, that's better than the celibate faggots, no?
I'm surprised that "tie wearing" is trotted out as one of the key dividing lines in these articles. At least in the software industry, "tie wearing" hasn't been required at any level for about 15 years. For example, I was a software engineer for 18 years and and then switched to being a patent lawyer. I basically wear the same t-shirt and jeans outfit. Maybe it's my West Coast bias, but I haven't met with anyone on the business or tech side of things who wears a tie. Frankly, if I has been enough of a "rock star" programmer, maybe I would have worn a suit and tie to work just to be the sort of iconoclast that hoodie-wearing CEO's deign to be,
get pierced and tattooed. The freedom to deviate from "norms" is earned. Any idiot can go get pierced and tatted like a 19th century sailor, but keeping/finding a job while being pierced and tatted is a different story. Once you've established your brilliance you are sometimes granted more freedom. Here's the thing a lot of you will find hard to accept: not many of you are ever going to be so good at what you do that you'll be granted the freedom to look like a sideshow attraction, and that if you look like one before you've demonstrated your value, you may never be given the chance to do so. Get over it. As brilliant as you are, I am certain that you can come up with ways to express your in-duh-viduality without body modifications. I have great confidence in your abilities. Now get out there and express yourselves without turning your bodies into something that resembles every box-car that passes through south-central LA!
Why are hoodies useless? I'm going to assume it never goes below 65F where you live.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...