Can you be both interesting while being professional? Will humor always offend someone?

Signalling theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_(economics) Countersignalling: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countersignaling

For more information on Aleph Insights visit our website https://alephinsights.com or to get in touch about our podcast email [email protected]

Hello and welcome to the Cognitive Engineering Podcast produced by me, Fraser McGruer for Aleph Insights. In this series of podcasts we take a look at interesting topics and discuss what we think they tell us about analysis and decision making. I'm here with Nick Hare and Chris Wragg of Aleph Insights and this week we're discussing whether being professional means being boring. Chris, go for it. Why are we talking about this?

So yeah, we had a contact from a long-time listener of ours to discuss this topic about why professionalism seems to be synonymous with humorlessness and it kind of rang a chord with us so we thought we would discuss it because we constantly have debates with quite a small organisation ourselves about, you know, whether doing something is professional or not and often it does mean being a bit more boring than we would have done and taking fewer risks. So yeah, it was just a topic that we thought was worth discussing.

Okay, I mean one thing that immediately springs to mind is I think as a professional I'm probably a less interesting person than I am as an individual in my private life in which I'm obviously fascinating. Yeah and there's an element we all kind of curtail our behaviour a little let's say or it's another version of ourselves. Yeah. But I mean where do we see this going? So there's the question does being professional mean being boring? Yes? Yeah, yeah and I think

ultimately we're trying to work out how you can be both professional and interesting is where we're going. Chris hasn't cracked it yet but he's getting there. But it does, I mean, at the heart of it there seems to be, you know, or a particular facet of this problem seems to be around humour, right? Humour is the one that gets people into trouble. It's making an inappropriate joke at work that is the thing that is deemed unprofessional usually. I mean there are other examples like, you know, lateness and kind of erratic behaviour and so on. Having ketchup on your suit. Having ketchup on your suit, yeah exactly. So other eccentricities but one of the key ones seems to be like in order to maintain professionalism it is probably safest to just be humourless and I wonder why that is? Isn't that a sad thing that that is?

Yeah, so I guess it's sort of, you know, any behaviour that is non- it's kind of, it's risk mitigation isn't it? It is and humour is all about

pushing and taking risks and, you know, it's been said that, well, you know, I mean my personal sort of view on this is that humour is subversive generally and so organisations and organisational structures that are trying to get us to conform to a particular set of standards and so on are concerned by humour that this might undermine the structure a little bit. I think there's also some valid reasons why, you know, risky jokes are not a good idea in the workplace.

But don't you think often that, you know, I feel like when someone does slightly step over the mark there is, it's not like anyone's offended. What's happening is that people are worried that other people are offended. It's almost like, you know, people think, well, that this person doesn't know how you're meant to behave and people are on edge because of that. Yeah. Rather than- They could drop a grenade at any moment. Yeah, but it's not so much that people, I'd say that 99% of people in that situation who feel awkward don't feel awkward because that person has done something which bothers them. They feel awkward because they're witnessing some kind of, you

That's right. But that boils down to this idea of subversion of- Yeah, possibly. I mean, so I was

looking, I was interested in this and obviously once you start looking at things like what professionalism is, you're into the whole world of LinkedIn think pieces and top 10 ways to impress your boss and all that kind of thing. But the actual, I mean, you know, what is professionalism is essentially doing things that are going to accomplish what your job is. I mean, that's what it boils down to is, you know, there are standards in a particular profession which are geared around the successful accomplishment of what that profession is there for. So, you know, the professional standards of medicine has to do with delivering successful health outcomes for people, for example. And then, you know, the unprofessional behavior falls below those standards. Now, those standards are obviously going to be different for every profession. If it's a very front facing people oriented profession, then there's going to be a lot more concern about the impression you give and the kind of way you interact with people. If you're a, you know, a computer programmer, there's going to be a whole different set of standards which are going to be much less focused on whether you're wearing the right shoes and much more focused on whether your documentation is up to scratch and whether you're, you know, using efficient code and all of that sort of thing. So, I think, you know, let's start there, that professionalism is intimately linked to the performance of some kind of role. And then we can start to examine whether or not the things we think of intuitively as, you know, professional behavior actually support that or do it also or potentially only look like they're supporting that.

Okay. One of the things that you mentioned there, I don't know, I don't want to take us off on one, but reminds me of, wasn't there some kind of, some sort of space mission with a probe to Mars or something? And there was a bloke who, an English bloke who became really famous in the media because he was, he was a scientist. You mean Colin Pillinger? Is that who it is? And he had

like the Hawaiian shirts and stuff. Well, he had long sort of shaggy hair and big sideburns. Yeah, he was the guy in, what was the Beagle? Beagle, there we go. Yeah, it was the one that was going to go to Mars and land, it was basically inside a giant balloon. Instead of doing what the massively well-funded U.S. did, which is basically have this incredible multi-stage landing process with lots of jets and shielding and stuff. We just basically put Beagle inside a load of balloons and we assumed that if, when it bounced, it would be okay. And it wasn't okay. But the point is,

the interesting thing about it. But I'm sure that wasn't because he had long sideburns. Oh, maybe it was. No, but I think, interestingly, you say, you know, you talked about the programmers and not being, you know, not being concerned about what kind of shoes they wear. But actually, I think these subcultures, so like, you know, kind of either, you know, whether it's a programmer wearing their Airbird trainers, or whether it's a nutty British scientist looking eccentric in Hawaiian shirts with sideburns. Sideburns is okay. I think you can call me that. It's been a while since I heard that. That was a bit of a flashback to the 90s. But yeah, so I think those kinds of conformities become just as much a signature of professionalism in those particular subcultures as wearing a suit and tie is in, you know, I don't know, in finance. Sales. Yeah, exactly. Pick a really boring sounding thing. So yeah, there's probably, you know, there are some programmers out there who deeply want to turn up to work in a suit every day, but have to, you know, wear

scruffy jeans and crap t-shirts. Well, we're veered again, as we often do, into the world of signalling. It's clear that this is, we're talking about this issue of things that, say, making jokes has got nothing to do with whether or not you can accomplish your job as a doctor or a lawyer, right? More or less. But does it indicate something? Is it important information that does shed light on that? And so just actually something I think it's worth saying, slight detour into signalling. I think a lot of, signalling has become very popular. It's discussed a lot now. I think people are sort of become more interested in cognitive psychology recently. But signalling isn't, it's not a psychological phenomenon. It's not something that we just sort of realise humans do. Signalling is a rational, optimal, strategic response to certain situations where there's hidden information. So you can, you know, signalling falls out of game theory analysis, of strategic interactions. It's not, it's not like, well, we're humans and we've evolved to signal. And that's an interesting fact about humans. It's the other way round. It's that signalling is a completely optimal way to behave under certain circumstances. And, you know, we have evolved to understand that and to behave accordingly, even if it's not like cognitively transparent to us, that that's why we're doing it. And this is a classic situation where you have things, the idea, you know, the worth of a signal, whether a signal works, is always based on, you know, there are two types of people, say, there could be lots of types, but let's just say there's two, there's good people and there's bad people. And we want to be able to tell the good people from the bad people, but we can't see how good they are directly, let's say. So we're hiring someone, you know, we're hiring someone to be a coder or to be a, you know, a receptionist or something. And we want to know whether they're good in advance. Now we don't, we can't monitor them for six months and assess how good they are at their job. So we have to use signals. And the idea of the kinds of signals that are effective are the ones that are harder for bad people to pull off. So punctuality isn't a bad one because, you know, actually someone who's generally pretty disorganized, who comes to for a job as a receptionist and turns up late to the interview or, you know, well, it's basically, sorry, it's harder for someone who's disorganized to be on time than it is for someone who's organized. It's just, it's more expensive all around, not financially necessarily, but in terms of, you know, the amount of effort they have to put in, it's more expensive for someone who's disorganized to turn up to an interview on time. So actually punctuality is a good signal in that situation. I think it's fair to infer that someone who's late to an interview is less likely to be organized. So, you know, whereas signals that don't work and aren't into this category, I will put things like, you know, wearing a tie. It's just as easy for someone to

put a tie on whether they're crap or whether they're good. Yeah. Except if the signal, if what you're trying to determine is somebody's willingness to conform to a totally arbitrary set of standards, in which case putting a tie on is quite a good one. If you want yes people, then ask them to constrict the blood flow to their head for no apparent reason. And you'll find out,

you know. Yeah, well, sorry, I was just thinking this through. So essentially we're talking about two things here, it sounds like, which is a question of signaling. And I guess connected is a question of conformity as well. You want someone who's not going to, you can kind of trust and they're not going to go off and do something weird. Right. Yeah. In a sense there, the signal

is direct, is what you're after. It's like you're effectively saying, I want someone who understands signals and is easy and is able to make themselves, you know, look like a different kind of

person to however they might be. Right. Now, bringing it back to this question, what does that mean being boring? If we think of professions or sectors where we consider it most important, you signal that you're trustworthy, then those do seem to be the more boring professions, let's say, or more rigid ones. So let's think, for example, the law, for example, where it's very important that you appear trustworthy. And I know. Weren't you, didn't you train to be a lawyer or something? No, no, no, no. Didn't you do a law degree? Your brother did the law degree, didn't he?

His more successful brother. Yeah. He's better looking. That rich, good looking guy. Yeah.

So, yeah. And it's really important that you wear a tie. And I have a friend who's a lawyer and he says, yeah, and they all have to, they have to wear jackets at work. You're not allowed to put it on the back of your seat, etc. And so that's a one end of the scale. And similar with, let's say, banking as well. And if we go right to the other end of the scale, let's say, for example, something like IT, where you exist, and it could even indeed be within a law firm. It's quite kind of acceptable for those guys to wander around in Hawaiian shirts and shorts. Yeah, well, this is where we... And just to finish it off, I probably, those guys, those IT guys, once you get under the geekiness of it, they're quite groovy. They're quite interesting. They're quite fun. They do seem less boring. So being professional does mean being boring. Well, my definition... It feels like you're hiding your personality. Sorry, I interrupted.

Yeah, well, no, I was just going to say my definition of boring is probably slightly different in that I would find these startup battery farms that you get nowadays with exposed brick everywhere and multicolored chaise lounge and people lounging around and eating little bowls of nuts. I find all of that boring, right? Just as in the 80s, having a ponytail and braces and all of that kind of stuff was boring. And what I find most boring of all is manufactured eccentricity or eccentricity to a predefined model. It's kind of affectations. Yeah, exactly. So I think the definition of boring is the uniformity of the cultural milieu. But so what I think is interesting, therefore, is the ability of a organization to accept, you know, eclectic ideas and styles and, you know, to have that disparity and heterogeneous difference within it. So yes, to me, professionalism should be able to incorporate that range of different views.

So I think what you're talking about there is being is unoriginalness and kind of a fakeness. Yes. Basic. Yeah. And just what's the word I'm looking for? I just not actually really letting people be themselves. So I think it's different. Well, here we go. I don't think it's necessary.

There's a key. There's an issue here, which I think is worth thinking about, which is it's so it's the two related questions, firstly, or you to conform in some sense. Right now, there's sort of two arguments. One is, well, you know, yes, because you've got to be realistic about the way the world works. You know, you've got to you've got to dress smartly because people will take you more seriously. And whether we like that or not, that's just true. Right. The alternative is to say, well, no, that's just perpetuating kind of mendacity. It's perpetuating the fact that we're all going around, you know, put with using facades. But the issue is, I mean, our facades part of our true nature. I mean, I mean, so you've got someone like Robin Hanson, who's the who's really one of the big champions of sort of explaining a lot of human behavior with signaling would say the signaling is really fundamental to the way we've evolved. If you take something really, you know, something like dating and, you know, having children with people, I mean, we're presenting a certain image of ourselves, which we've we have evolved to care about things which are not the thing that evolutionarily, you know, is the thing we're looking for, which is, let's say, genetic fitness. We want genetic fitness. What we have ended up looking for is signals which are to do with physical attractiveness and other kinds of, you know, things that are not directly related to genetic fitness, but are sort of, as it turns out, you know, it's harder if you're, for example, if you've got a genetic disease, it's harder for you to, to sort of do the same things as, you know, someone who hasn't, for example, say that those the kinds of physical things that we think of as, as attractiveness are themselves signals. And, you know, we is very hard for us to not signal what if your, you know, true personality is someone who likes conforming, you know, that then what's being yourself in a work context, you know, is being yourself, you know, is there is there such a thing as yourself, which doesn't involve essentially

putting on a suit? Got you. We're close to wrapping up before we, I've got a question I want to ask, but before we do, anything you want to finish off on, Chris? Well, I think,

this idea about, you know, good and bad signals, you know, being in, are they true indicators of, of productivity? And, you know, it seems to me having worked in a range of work environments, that most of the signals related to professionalism aren't very good indicators of how good somebody is at their job. And yet they still survive. Why aren't they, why haven't they been eroded as signals of any, any use? I mean, technology does,

does remove signals quite easily. I mean, anything which changes the cost of that signal erodes it. So, you know, you have tanning, for example, it's a great example, often cited, you know, that in the, you know, a few hundred years ago, only poor people were tanned because they had to be outside. And then, you know, 50 years ago, only rich people were tanned because poor people were all in factories and rich people could afford to go to the Costa del Sol. And now there are tanning shops on every street corner. And it's basically got zero value because anyone who wants to be tanned can be tanned. So, I mean, technology does eventually get round to changing signals. And I think, I think there are, you know, you look at, certainly if you think about being able to measure performance of individuals and being able to track, you know, how good someone is at their job, jobs where that's easier, but for whatever reason, should, there should be less signalling involved. You know, you, it just, it's not necessary if you can tell exactly how good someone is.

There's a direct performance.

Yeah. So, and I think that might help explain some of the things like, you know, if you're a coder, does your code work? You know, that's something everyone will know. So it doesn't, you don't have to, if you're good, you don't need to, you know, dress, dress like a certain thing. But you know, it's how good is someone at sales or marketing? Probably much harder to tell because there's a lot more randomness in there, which is, which might explain why those, those things are still there. But yeah, I mean, I, but I, I mean, I, one of the things that I've told my son is you shouldn't ever trust anyone with a full Windsor knot. And I think that's, that's still, that whenever I meet anyone with a full Windsor, I know, I know what they're going to be like, and they are always like that.

These are pearls of wisdom.

Yeah. You look, four in hand knot. If they're not, if they don't have a four in hand knot on their tie, then they're trying too hard. Yeah. I like that. They're trying to signal.

So I want to move just to finish off with a quick question. Can you give me an example of the least professional bit of behavior you've ever witnessed in the workplace? Okay. I'm going to kick us off. So you have a think. I can think of a couple. I once worked at this place where every Friday afternoon, there was this lady with whom I worked. She would be completely drunk every, every Friday afternoon. And she was almost literally like a loose cannon in the office in as much as she would be careening, careering, careening around the place, bouncing from one more to another and veering between laughing and screaming and crying. And this was a number of years ago and she still works there. So she's managed to sort of keep going. So I always thought, I just, I thought that was not terribly professional and I don't know how she got away with it.

Well, it's an interesting fact about boozing. I say this as someone who does like a drink, that it turns out that people who, let's say you go to the, if you're in a social situation with a colleague, people who actually like approve of drinking still say that they have more respect for someone who doesn't, when they're in a social situation. So when he isn't drinking, still garners, you know, more respect, even from people who themselves would, you know, prefer the company of people who don't drink. So that's a good example of, you know, something which I think we all, I mean, I'd love it if every Friday, everyone got pissed. If it was like Mad Men, you know, and it was perfectly acceptable, I think it'd be great. I think we'd all be a lot happier. But you know, given that it isn't, I think someone who is sort of drunk at work is signaling that they have a self-control issue. She definitely had self-control issues. Yeah,

alcoholism and professionalism are not easy bedfellows. Quite. Chris? Yeah, so mine relates to, and I mentioned that this was a story about a workplace before I worked at it, but it was a legend that came through to me. And you'll know why I mentioned that as I go through the story. But yeah, so basically about a year before I started in a particular office, there were a series of events in this office where somebody, the cleaners turned up in the morning and somebody had defecated in a corridor or part of the office. This wasn't a school, this was a part of the civil service. This was a proper place of work, yes. And they never got to the bottom. It was like the Zodiac Kill. They never got to the bottom. They never got to the bottom of who the serial defecator was. Oh, it happened regularly? Well, I believe it happened sort of four or five times and some notices went round about, you know, sort of coded messages about, you know, inappropriate behaviour. Don't do poos in the corridor. Don't do poos in the corridor, yeah. It's not an unreasonable thing to ask. But, you know, I'd started at this workplace, I'd been told about this story and I would look around and think, is the serial defecator still here? And could they strike again at any moment? Might there be copycat incidents or anything? So, yeah, that was probably the least professional, but kind of most intriguing, really.

God, that's, I'd love to know. Yeah, I'm sure, yeah, it'd be great to know who that was,

if you were working there. Nick? Well, I've done lots of unprofessional things, I think, looking back. Including defecating? Yeah, there's this place, this guy I really didn't like, so I used to do a poo outside his office. It's funny, what are the chances there's two of them on the floor? Anyway, so, but yeah, things like, I remember being told off because I thought it'd be funny in my really boring place that I worked in, in the civil service, to make posters that were sort of making out that we were like a dot com. So I made all these cheesy sort of marketing style posters with, you know, sort of saying, we're here to service all your solution needs and stuff, you know, and, and the boss told me to stop using, stop using civil service computers for personal reasons. But yeah, I'm not, because I think that the problem is, yeah, I've got a bit of a problem about conformism, is that I don't, I don't like, I'm actively suspicious of it. So, so I'm, I've, yeah, it's probably me who's done most of the unprofessional things.

Humour is the weapon of the unarmed people.

Right, there we go. Nice, nice sort of, nice one to finish it off on. Okay, we'll stop there. Thank you very much, as always, to listening to the Cognitive Engineering Podcast. I'm Fraser McGruer. I've been here with Nick Hare and Chris Wragg of Aleph Insights. Until next time, goodbye.