Michael B. Duignan – the Olympic Researcher

Mike's research and teaching blog | @michaelbduignan |


November 2014

Does How You Dress and Look Impact Your Career? Sadly, Yes –> Can this apply to academics? Would like to think not but..

Interesting article, wonder if this applies to academia? I would hope not, but you never know?

Years ago I worked on the shop floor of a manufacturing plant. I had worked my way through school at another plant so I definitely identified more with the hourly workers than the “suits.” (Even though most of the guys referred to me as “college boy.”)

One day the department manager stopped by. He asked about my background. He asked about my education. He asked about my career aspirations.

“I’d like to be a supervisor,” I answered, “and then someday I’d like your job.”

He smiled and said, “Good for you. I like a guy with dreams.” Then he paused.

“But if that’s what you really want,” he said, looking me in the eyes, “first you need to start looking the part.”

I knew what he was saying but decided to play dumb. “What do you mean?” I asked.

“Look around,” he said. “How do supervisors dress? How does their hair look? How do they act? No one will think of you as supervisor material until they can actually see you as a supervisor — aprofessor-300x248nd right now you look nothing like a supervisor.”

He was right. I was wearing ratty jeans with a couple of holes. (Why wouldn’t I? I worked around oil and grease all day.) I was wearing a cut-off t-shirt. (Why wouldn’t I? It was the middle of the summer and the air wheezing through the overhead vents was far from conditioned.) And my hair was pretty long, even for the day. (No excuse for that one, as is obvious from the photo above.)

“But shouldn’t how well I do my job matter more than how I look?” I asked.

“In a perfect world your performance is all that would matter,” he said. “But we don’t live in a perfect world. Take my advice: if you want to be promoted into a certain position… make sure you look like the people in that position.

I’ve thought about that conversation a lot over the years.

I’ve hired and promoted people who looked the part… and they turned out to be all show and no go. I’ve hired and promoted people who didn’t look the part at all… and they turned out to be superstars. I’m convinced that how you look and, at least to a large degree how you act, has nothing to do with your skill and talent and fit for a job.

Still, he’s right: the world isn’t perfect. People still make assumptions about us based on irrelevant things like clothing and mannerisms… and height and weight and age and gender and ethnicity and tons of other qualities and attributes that have absolutely no bearing on a person’s performance.

So are you better off trying to conform?

Unfortunately, probably so. The people doing the hiring and promoting are people — and people tend to be biased towards the comfortable and the familiar. People tend to hire and promote people who are much like themselves. (If you remind me of me… then you must be awesome, right?)

Besides, highly diverse teams are like unicorns — we all know what one should look like, but unless you’re NPH you rarely encounter one in the wild.

And don’t forget that hiring or promoting someone who conforms, even if only in dress and deportment, makes a high percentage of the people making those decisions feel like they’re taking a little bit less of a risk. I know I was viewed — admittedly with good reason — as a wild card, and I’m sure that impacted my promotability.

But still: are you better off being yourself and trusting that people will value your skills, experience, talent… and uniqueness?

Sadly I think that’s a move fraught with professional peril. If your goal is to get hired or promoted then expressing your individuality could make that goal much harder to accomplish. (Of course if being yourself in all ways is what is most important to you, by all means let your freak flag fly. Seriously.)

I have no way of knowing for sure, but changing how I dressed — and in a larger sense, tempering some of the attitude I displayed — would likely have helped me get promoted sooner. For a long time I didn’t look the part, didn’t act the part… and I’m sure that made me a less attractive candidate.

But that’s just what I think; what’s more interesting is what you think a fitting in and conforming.

Thanks to Jeff Haden for posting this interesting article. Original –


Hoi Polloi meets hoity toity — its language use in history, political economy

Hoi polloi is an English word that derives from a Greek phrase meaning “the many” or “the majority [of citizens].” Its English meaning is “the masses” or “the general public.” It’s often used in the pejorative sense of “the vulgar, unthinking masses.”

The error the reader has in mind is the spreading tendency of many speakers (including intelligent ones) to use hoi polloi as if it means, “the social elite” or “influential rich people.” For example,untitled
So it’s official: Hollywood’s hoi polloi (e.g. Miramax movie mogul Harvey Weinstein) are coming out against firearms ownership and swearing off movies that rely heavily on gunplay.

As Harvey Weinstein has a net worth of $200 million, the writer apparently believes that hoi polloi means “influential rich people.”
In ancient Greek, hoi polloi meant “the many.” Its complementary term was hoi oligoi, “the few.” The term reflected a fact of social and political division. From the Greek word oligoi, we get the English word oligarchy, “government by a small group of people.”

Classical scholar John Dryden introduced the expression into English in 1668. For him, the hoi polloi were people who lacked literary discernment. The expression quickly became a useful way for speakers to distinguish “Us” from “Them.” Because “Us” is always more educated and informed than “Them,” hoi polloi came to mean “the uneducated majority” or “the great unwashed, vulgar, unthinking public.”
Nowadays, although political power still belongs to the hoi oligoi, the hoi polloi are better educated than they were in Dryden’s time, and they don’t like being called hoi polloi. They also possess a power that earlier generations lacked: the power to redefine words.

One factor contributing to the association of hoi polloi with “snooty rich people” could be the similarity with “hoity toity,” an expression that conveys contempt for someone seen as “putting on airs.” The two expressions are often juxtaposed for humorous effect, as in the title of the Roseanne episode called “Hoi Polloi Meets Hoiti Toiti” (Roseanne, Season 9, Episode 8). In this episode, Roseanne and her family visit “uppity-high-society people” on Martha’s Vineyard. Although wealthier and more refined in manners and speech than the Conners, the wealthy Wentworths are clearly their moral inferiors.
Note: Roseanne is a television comedy series featuring a working class family, the Conners, who are portrayed as being vulgar in speech and manners, but morally superior to better-educated, more affluent characters they encounter.

Another factor contributing to the shift in meaning of hoi polloi may be that the referent is not always clear from context.

For example, in a Three Stooges episode called “Hoi Polloi,” a well-dressed man bets a colleague that he can take a man from “the lowest strata of society” and turn him into a gentleman. He experiments with the Stooges. He fails to civilize them, but the fancy people descend to the Stooges’ brutish behavior. At episode end, Moe looks disdainfully at the crowd of elegantly dressed men and women who are slapping, punching, and gouging one another and says, “This is our punishment for associating with the hoi polloi.”

New meanings of hoi polloi include, “people who are not like us,” “people we don’t like,” and simply, “people who don’t know what we know.” For example, in a forum for equestrians, a member referred to people who are ignorant of the rules of dressage as “the hoi polloi.”

The definition of hoi polloi in The Urban Dictionary indicates the aversion in which this word is held:
hoi polloi: A stupid term used by pseudo intellectuals with unjustified superiority complexes.

Many bloggers ridicule speakers who precede hoi polloi with the definite article:
Clearly Lois is using words though ignorant of their meaning. “Hoi” is the definite article, meaning “the”. When the uneducated Lois says “the hoi polloi” she is saying “the the many”. She makes a fool of herself on many levels.

Dryden knew that “hoi” means “the” in Greek. He even wrote the expression in Greek letters, confident that his target audience could read it. However, because he was using the word in an English sentence, he introduced it with the English definite article: “If by the people you understand the multitude, the οἱ πολλοὶ.” Suggesting that English speakers who say “the hoi polloi” are “ignorant” may bathe critics in feelings of superiority, but the criticism is itself a sign of absurd pedantry and, dare I say, ignorance of how language works.

Many English words incorporate a foreign element that means the without raising questions of tautology. For example, the al in algebra, alchemist, and Alcatraz “mean” the in Arabic. No one suggests that writing “the alchemist” is the same thing as writing “the the chemist.”  As far as I know, no one ridicules people who refer to the La Brea tar pits in Los Angeles for “really” saying “the the tar tar pits.” (La and Brea are Spanish for the and tar.)  Hoi polloi is an English word in transition. English speakers will determine whether the word retains the meaning of “the masses,” morphs into a term for “snooty rich people,” or falls to the wayside along with other words that usage has voted out as being culturally offensive.

Originially written at

Blog at

Up ↑