
Dress codes: Suitable disruption - wyclif
http://www.economist.com/node/21610781
======
Brushfire
The amusing part about not doing business with people wearing suits is that
it's the exact same attitude as those who only do business with suits.

This is really age old - people want to work/invest/befriend people similar to
themselves.

What someone wears or looks like should be a bad predictor for anything over
any meaningful stretch of time. Whether that becomes reality is up to us.

~~~
humanrebar
> not doing business with people wearing suits is that it's the exact same
> attitude as those who only do business with suits

If you mean it's prejudicial, then yes. Thiel said as much.

But it's not exactly the same. The brand that goes along with a suit is, "I
want to impress you by doing things excellently in the traditional way." I can
see how that would be off-putting for someone trying to invest in disruptive
start-ups.

> What someone wears or looks like should be a bad predictor for anything

There are entire fields of study that disagree with you, including
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_theory](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_theory)

~~~
kannanvijayan
It's debatable whether Signalling Theory really applies to creatures who have
enough coginitive ability to model thought processes in their peers.

As soon as you make it publicly known that a particular selection criteria is
in effect, the same salespeople you are trying to avoid will learn the new
behaviour they need to adopt to meet those criteria.

So now slick salesguys know not to wear suits when they pitch to Thiel.

I realize the desire to develop "clever hacks" to arrive at truths, but in
reality they are heuristics, and heuristics can and will be defeated by
interested parties.

In the long term, there is simply no substitute for doing the work of honest,
stringent evaluation on the actual qualities you are looking for. This "don't
take pitches from suits" is limited, temporary advice at best.

~~~
SilasX
It still has value as a "brown M&M" filter [1] where you're testing for
whether they were thorough enough to follow your stated criteria, regardless
of whether it has any other predictive power.

Of course, even then, it's not the (non)suit per se but the fact of having
done your research.

[1] from the story about the band that checked whether the venue manager
followed such detailed specs as not having brown M&Ms in the bowl

~~~
dllthomas
An interesting point. Then there's the question of whether people who research
their potential funding sources to such a level are more or less likely to be
good investments. That's a lot less clear than in the Van Halen case - here, I
see plenty of arguments in both directions.

~~~
SilasX
What would be an argument for dis-correlation? I have a hard time seeing how
someone better at startups would be _less_ likely to do their homework on a
potential investor, given that they'd think ahead in numerous other ways. It
would have to be a situation in which think ahead for everything _but_ this,
or in which their happy-go-lucky style is miraculously good at making the
right choices everywhere but here.

~~~
dllthomas
It's not that they would be less likely to be good relative to themselves-but-
did-research. It's that someone focused on _the sale_ is what Thiel is
purportedly trying to avoid in dismissing those in suits. Someone focused on
the sale of the company to investors _more than_ on the company might be _even
more_ likely to do that research than the best bets, and that _might_ cause
dis-correlation.

------
soneca
The "red sneakers effect" itself is a much more interesting reading to
understand this new dress code.

[http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/The%20Red%20S...](http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/The%20Red%20Sneakers%20Effect%202014_4657b733-84f0-4ed6-a441-d401bbbac19d.pdf)

The title pretty much sums up the conclusion: "The Red Sneakers Effect:
Inferring Status and Competence from Signals of Nonconformity". One important
point is that is important to realize that the individual _is aware_ of the
dress code and decide to nonconformity.

I wonder... if I ever have a meeting with Peter Thiel, I might appear in a
suit, but opening with the line "I am aware that you disregard suits, but I
just prefer to use it, i like to be elegant, sorry". Just to check if
nonconformity to the nonconfirmity causes the same effect.

------
ignostic
What the article pointed out that I think a lot of people are missing here is
the potential value of being perceived as unique.

To use an analogy that a lot of people here might understand, unique design
works. Whether you're designing a product page or an ad, you can get by with
standard and unsurprising design (the suit), especially with a great product,
but you'll catch attention more quickly with something different.

We found that intro videos worked, so we implemented them. Then we found that
the effectiveness was declining as absolutely everyone used them. We were no
longer cutting through the clutter.

Fashion is very similar. If you cut through the clutter of what everyone else
is doing, you look innovative. It won't help if you're dull and boring, but it
could help you get someone's attention so that you'll at least be considered.

That's not to say that all different is good. I could design a very
"different" page, but that's not to say it would work. The idea is to look
different in a way that isn't completely crazy.

------
rayiner
> The evidence suggests that Thiel’s bias worked: the fund was an early
> investor in companies like Napster, Facebook and Spotify. 'Maybe we still
> would have avoided these bad investments if we had taken the time to
> evaluate each company’s technology in detail,' he writes. 'But the team
> insight—never invest in a tech CEO that wears a suit—got us to the truth a
> lot faster.'

Or, maybe Peter Thiel just has a good intuition for investments and could tell
the potential success of these companies without digging too deep into the
technology? Go back a generation: do you think the founders of Microsoft,
Oracle, Amazon, Apple, etc, went into pitches looking like hipsters? Heck,
Jeff Bezos still wears a suit.[1] What kind of results would this filter have
had when the prevailing fashion trend wasn't to dress down?

[1] And frankly, I think he styles all over most tech CEO's:
[http://images.politico.com/global/2013/09/04/130904_jeff_bez...](http://images.politico.com/global/2013/09/04/130904_jeff_bezos_reuters_605.jpg)

~~~
jimbokun
For Apple, quite possibly.

[https://www.google.com/search?q=woz+jobs&espv=2&tbm=isch&tbo...](https://www.google.com/search?q=woz+jobs&espv=2&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=RGbiU4_ED86zyATK1YKgDQ&ved=0CBwQsAQ&biw=1920&bih=995)

Was going to say definitely, but there are actually some pictures in there
with Woz in a tie. Jobs bow tie, though, in those pictures, is definitely a
sartorial mark of non-conformity for that era.

~~~
rayiner
This guy in the vest? [http://snakkle.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-
content/uploads/20...](http://snakkle.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-
content/uploads/2011/10/steve-jobs-steve-wozniak-1977-GC..jpg).

I don't know about that B&W bowtie pic, but that color pic is from the Apple
IIc launch in 1984. Apple IPO'ed in 1980, and was already making over a
billion dollars in revenue by 1984. And the bowtie is a bit non-conformist,
but Jobs wasn't exactly dressed like a hipster even in 1984:
[http://everystevejobsvideo.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/02/St...](http://everystevejobsvideo.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/02/Steve-Jobs-and-John-Sculley.jpg). And I don't know how
non-conformist that bow-tie really is. Here's Justice John Paul Stevens at his
Senate confirmation hearing in 1975:
[http://media.npr.org/assets/news/2010/04/09/stevens1-3a512da...](http://media.npr.org/assets/news/2010/04/09/stevens1-3a512da4a4a29f778cbc310df51fb336bb9e4186-s6-c30.jpg).

------
incision
I'm going to add this to my list of coin flip 'rules' I don't really care
about. Coin flip in the sense that you might as well flip a coin, or perhaps a
roll a die to determine the 'correct' answer for any given person you meet.

One person doesn't do business with suits. Another is a self-styled
fashionista who reads all sorts of things into whatever your choice of
clothes. A third is ready to show you the door because you you took your
jacket off.

One person thinks saying 'I don't know.' is sign of humility and intelligence.
Another wants to hear you try to triangulate a solution based on what you do
know. A third thinks either of the first two answers is pure garbage and wants
you to be able to recite tricky code by rote.

In general, I find these these sort of 'rules' to be lazy bullshit.

Therefore, I can only imagine that this is merely a catchy side note among the
actual strategies of someone as successful and by all accounts as smart as
Peter Thiel.

------
zcdziura
Even in a business setting, there are ways to "stand out" in how you dress. As
I'm typing this now, working at my 9-5 business casual job, I'm wearing a
bright pink collared shirt with a striped bow tie. Why? Because I look damn
good in it, and people notice. Just because I'm not wearing a tee-shirt and
jeans doesn't mean I'm "conforming". Absolutely stupid.

~~~
msandford
Right? In another couple of years it'll be "disruptive" to wear a suit instead
of looking like a slob. Congrats! You're ahead of the curve, not behind it.

This is the very definition of fashion: it has to do with trends and
popularity rather than utility or fundamental reasoning.

~~~
jimbokun
"Right? In another couple of years it'll be "disruptive" to wear a suit
instead of looking like a slob."

This might be true already.

------
pkteison
I've never understood valuing the choice of costume... if this is really an
important signal, doesn't the hoodie just become the new suit?

~~~
ak217
Hoodie: $20-$40

Suit: $200-$2000

~~~
alialkhatib
I'm pretty sure you can find a suit for $40 and a hoodie for $200. Put the
hoodie on a pedestal as the symbol of "hacker cred" and you'll inevitably see
hoodies for far more than even that as designers capitalize on founders with
more money than sense.

~~~
DanBC
[http://www.bbcicecream.eu/billionaireboysclub/billionaire+bo...](http://www.bbcicecream.eu/billionaireboysclub/billionaire+boys+club+eu+exclusive+diamond++dollar+arch+logo+pullover/black)

£135, or $227.

~~~
ics
[http://store.y-3.com/us/y3store/cardigan_cod39402247tg.html](http://store.y-3.com/us/y3store/cardigan_cod39402247tg.html)

Same price, now that it's "50% off".

------
PaulHoule
It's not necessarily a step forwards.

If you want to look good in a suit you can go get a $200 suit at any menswear
store and if you want to look really good in a suit go spend $1500 for a
tailored suit.

You can do either of these and get something acceptable without knowing
anything about fashion.

If you want to look like a cultivated hipster, however, you have to work hard
at it.

~~~
logfromblammo
Point of fact: if I want to look good in a suit, I _also_ have to spend at
least six months strictly following a diet and exercise regime.

Other forms of apparel are much more forgiving.

~~~
jghn
I'm about as anti-suit as they come but this is patently false. A well
tailored suit is about as forgiving as they come.

~~~
logfromblammo
Adding "well-tailored" as a qualifying adjective is effectively begging the
question. A well-tailored anything will make you look better than its off-the-
shelf equivalent.

If we're just throwing free tailoring around, I'll also have my polo and
khakis tailored, and then we can compare between them on the runway. It may
well be that no style of clothing makes me look better than a suit, and that I
_still_ don't look good in one.

------
dllthomas
[http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/Vint_Cerf...](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/Vint_Cerf_-_2010.jpg)

------
jasonkester
Indeed. At least on the West Coast, the better your job, the less likely you
are to be wearing a suit. Your CEO will wear a turtleneck and sneakers around
the office. The guy who tears your movie ticket in half? He's wearing a suit.

I had a fun job interview experience early in my dev career. I rocked up to
the first interview in my "Developer" costume, and was shocked to find
everybody dressed like bankers in crisp new suits. Yikes! Thinking about it, I
guess these guys do do a bunch of work for banking clients. Better suit up for
interview number two.

But no. It just happened that that was the day the client happened to be in
town, so the entire company had done its Serious Business impression for the
day. Thus leading to the day later that week where Jason showed up for an
interview in his best suit, and walked into a room full of guys in shorts and
t-shirts.

"Meet the team."

Somehow, I still landed the gig.

~~~
jacques_chester
I always ask what I should wear.

------
ademarre
Good tech founders need to be innovative, not encumbered by "the way things
ought to be." It's reasonable that dress would be a valid signal of that
quality, but I don't know if I'd make a rule around it.

------
nsxwolf
Men's Warehouse needs their PR firm to inject one of those "suits are back"
stories to counteract this one.

~~~
kyllo
Nice.
[http://paulgraham.com/submarine.html](http://paulgraham.com/submarine.html)

------
jbooth
If I ever pitch something someplace that's known to follow that rule, I'm
showing up in a tuxedo.

~~~
dllthomas
Only if it's evening, please...

~~~
kyllo
Correct, if it's a daytime interview he should wear a morning coat with a
matching waistcoat, striped trousers, and a long tie or optionally an Ascot.

~~~
dllthomas
And a top hat!

That's daytime formal, but it's arguably closer to white tie (tailcoat).
Another option is the stroller - charcoal coat with peak lapels, waist coat,
striped or check trousers.

Also, just a 1980s power suit could be a fun approach.

~~~
kyllo
_Also, just a 1980s power suit could be a fun approach._

The bigger the shoulder pads, the better!

~~~
dllthomas
Not a real 1980s suit otherwise!

------
robert_tweed
I've previously summarised this as "never trust a techie in a suit."

Another way to look at this has nothing to do with conformism. Whereas a suit
says "I feel the need to dress to impress you", casual wear says "I don't need
to dress to impress you, that's not why you're going to hire me".

I have noticed a recent trend towards a sort of hipster dress code, but I'm
hoping that's just a transient thing that doesn't catch on. Traditionally, the
hacker dress code has been more about not caring what anyone thinks than
either trying to stand out, or to fit in.

I tend to follow that principle, and will perhaps go with smart jeans and a
jacket for more formal meetings. There are however, environments where you're
just expected to wear a suit. You have a choice of either avoiding those
environments altogether, or just bite the bullet and wear a suit. Unless you
are specifically trying to be non-conformist.

The book "The Bluffer's Guide to Consultancy" advises that a consultant should
always wear the opposite of the established dress code, so people will fear
and respect you. Therefore if you are going to an office where everyone wears
suits, you should dress casually. If you are going somewhere casual, you
should wear a suit. It further suggests that if you are going to both types of
office on the same day, you should dress as a farmer :)

~~~
dragonwriter
> Another way to look at this has nothing to do with conformism. Whereas a
> suit says "I feel the need to dress to impress you", casual wear says "I
> don't need to dress to impress you, that's not why you're going to hire me".

Except that, in any community where the maxim you state is broadly known to be
applied, the actual meaning is reversed, since anyone who is aware of the
maxim and wishes to dress to impress will wear casual clothes, wherease anyone
aware of the maxim who continues to wear business clothes will be doing flying
in the face of the maxim in the same way that someone wearing casual clothes
to an interview in a more traditional environment would be.

------
zokier
I think this comment from articles comments is worth discussing more:

> I am one of the few people in my office that wears a suit to work (because I
> like the simplicity of it and I think they are comfortable and look nice). I
> just wonder if I'm the conformist or non-conformist in my company?

Wearing suit doesn't necessarily imply conformism or that the wearer is trying
to signal wealthiness. Sure, there might be correlation, but maybe the guy
just likes wearing a suit?

------
graham1776
One piece I think was missing from this article is how dressing in a suit vs
dressing casually affects the culture within a company.

I have to wear a full suit every day to work, and I hate it. In offline
conversations with co-workers, they hate it too. The formal business
requirement came straight from the CEO who is of the traditional belief that
our suits set us apart (whatever that means). What has resulted (along with
our open office plan) is a culture that is artificially stilted, both in
conversation and relationally between employees. The reason I believe this to
be true is comparing "normal" formal business days with the random, once a
year day where we all go on a team building exercise or have to do some
physical "outside" activity and we can wear jeans and shirts. The office
moral, attitude, and conversation are completely different. I don't know if
there is a way to quantify exactly what I am talking about, but have noticed a
distinct change in our behaviors that seem directly tied to how we dress.

~~~
logfromblammo
I once worked at a place where the dress code mandated that all employees wear
clothing bearing the company logo every day. This, of course, was widely
reviled by anyone that did any actual work. The software developers analyzed a
loophole and published the exploit to the local branch office. From then on,
people wore whatever they liked, and just kept a logo-embroidered fleece
jacket draped over their work chairs. A few bolder individuals purchased a
company-logo lab coat and wore it around the office.

The branch manager never reported any violation of the dress code--because
technically there were no violations--but did take care to inform everyone
ahead of time whenever employees from headquarters were scheduled to visit.

At another job, the dress code was to wear clothing _when customers were in
the office_.

The actual median daily apparel worn in those two different offices were
virtually identical. The latter simply showed greater variance in styles of
dress.

If I had to maintain an entire closet filled with garments that I would never
want to wear anywhere outside of work, that would severely irritate me, to the
extent that I would almost certainly become well acquainted with a pearl
wholesaler, despite the apparent physical impossibilities involved.

But it is a perfect indicator that management is willing to impose arbitrary,
capricious, top-down working requirements on employees, without respect to
consequences, intended or otherwise.

So not only do I endorse the prejudicial maxim to not do business with suits,
I extend it to teams whose dress appears suspiciously homogenous, uniform-
like, or logo-emblazoned. I want to deal with people, not mooks, peons,
toadies, or serfs. If I see one person on a team in a t-shirt, and another in
a pinstriped dress shirt with polka-dotted bow tie, I can be reasonably
certain that no one told either of those two what to wear. Especially their
mothers.

------
padobson
The last, and best paragraph:

 _At the end of the day, the trend toward informality doesn’t actually get
away from the traditional business emphasis on appearance and presentation. It
just replaces one standard with another that is, in its own way, just as
obsessed with appearance. Still, insofar as this new bias emphasises—at least
for some time—originality, independence, and substance over style, it serves a
purpose, as Mr Thiel 's anecdote highlights. The irony is that it still has to
go through style to get there._

When it comes to dress code, slide deck preparation, demo length vs. pitch
length, and what questions to expect, the answer is always the same: know who
you are pitching to.

The best entrepreneur isn't the one who always wears a hoodie or always wears
a suit. The best entrepreneur is the one who picks one or the other out based
on who they're going to meet that day.

------
doctorstupid
> __ "...by stripping away the artificial appearances of showmanship, you can
> get to the truth about a product, person, or business." __

Hah! In this case we have formality being replaced with yet a more juvenile
form of showmanship.

------
ww520
I learned this at the interview of my first programmer job as a summer intern
back in school. I wore full suit into an outdoor interview on a hot summer
day. The interviewer laughed and said you don't have to be this formal, who
happened to be the president of the development studio. The interview was
short, which felt uncomfortable. I went back to dorm and changed into T-shirt
and jeans, and then went back to meet him again to show some sample code I
wrote. This apparently had impressed him and he decided to hire me.

~~~
jiggy2011
Wearing T shirts and jeans impressed him, or the code you wrote? I would hope
it was the latter.

~~~
ww520
Later in his words, it's the enthusiasm he saw in me to take the initiative to
rectify a problem.

------
rdl
Everyone having uniforms (and then as contractors, having effectively a
similar uniform of basically a company polo shirt or a long-sleeved safari
shirt) was a huge time/effort/thought saver when working with the military.
Even better, having name and organization clearly marked on the clothing, near
the face, and strong indicators of levels of seniority/authority (not strictly
rank/grade, but rank in specific contexts).

------
imsofuture
> "you’re showing you can afford to spend your social capital… You’re saying,
> I’m so autonomous and successful that I can afford to dress in a non-
> conforming way."

That's the most interesting take-away for me. Obviously the pendulum of
fashion swings back and forth -- but the nonconformist signaling is an
interesting phenomenon that spans it.

~~~
danielweber
I am going to bring my peacock with a 30 foot plume. I hope Peter Thiel can
handle my attitude, dude. Cowabunga!

------
jchonphoenix
Napster died long before founders fund existed. Perhaps they're just referring
to Seans presence

------
zacharycohn
Meta: Another good example of a title change being less descriptive. Original
title was much better.

------
Fuzzwah
On the red sneaker effect:

I'm a sys admin by trade. Every new job that I've started I've made a
concerted effort to hunt down the other tech people around the company who are
the most obviously "non-conformist". I have a near 100% success rate of
quickly finding out who the most knowledgeable staff members are.

