Comments on: Incompetence as a Signalling Device

By: skidmarx

skidmarx — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 13:38:18 +0000

I recently did some work in a parks and gardens department of a council where there was much speculation as to why one manager acted in such an arbritrary and de-motivating manner. It was suggested that he would be thus prepared to implement cutbacks when senior management demanded them, that he would flush out those resistant to management, and that his loyalty to mangement would endear him to similar employers elsewhere (perhaps the above definition of loyalty is incomplete).
Amongst drug-dealers there may sometimes be a fear that intelligence is sometimes linked to a tendency to talk too openly, and thus increase the risk to others.

By: Doctor Science

Doctor Science — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 23:01:57 +0000

Henri:

On the other hand, if incompetence (or rather the loyalty it generates) is in such a high demand, then I probably don’t have to be loyal to the institution in the first place: I am in demand, I can easily find another, better hierarchy willing to adopt me.

No, because that is by definition not loyalty. If you are capable of shifting your allegiance like that, then you are—by definition—not loyal. That’s why incompetence is a signal more than a desirable trait in itself—incompetence is cheap and can be found anywhere, but loyalty by definition does not move.

By: urgs

urgs — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 21:37:07 +0000

Maybe thats just a case of specialisation? Some specialice in University politics some in science, some in teaching.

By: Perezoso

Perezoso — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 19:43:26 +0000

For lifers, collecting tats might symbolize fatalism of a sort, but for professional criminals and gang members (even ones who bounce in and out of pens), they are a mark of distinction, a tag, totems of a particular group. Gangs use specific tats, or numbers, acronyms : it’s not just sh*ts and giggles. You see a swazi—or scrawling in espanol, or a WSPP, 187—on somebody’s neck or arm, other perps have a good idea what he’s about—as do the cops.

Most gangs require that youngsters enact some type of serious crime, successfully—including murder (the Hells Angels formerly required an aspirant to kill a policeman)—before one is “verified”; and the ink indicates that Jr has been verified. So it’s a sign usually that the gang member has succeeded, in a sense. (Ink on a female—like on her buttocks—usually means a pimp put it there as a sign of uh, ownership). Youngsters who get a gang tat when they have not been verified have made a grave error, however .

By: Henri Vieuxtemps

Henri Vieuxtemps — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 19:40:07 +0000

I don’t know, it gets confusing.

On one hand I can see how my incompetence forces me to be loyal to the institution (to work through the ranks), though not necessarily to be loyal to any individual, since, presumably, I’m at least competent enough to stick a knife into your back. That seems kind of weak.

A bit of a paradox here, no?

By: Doctor Science

Doctor Science — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 18:57:30 +0000

Henri, I think the point is that incompetance is a truthful signal of loyalty. The incompetant must be loyal, they have no alternative.

If the boss is your uncle you’ll probably get promoted even if you convincingly manifest your genius at every opportunity

Not necessarily at all—in that case you’re a threat to Uncle himself, even more than to the people lower down.

By: JoB

JoB — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 16:42:37 +0000

Well, Henri, yes, loyalty is rewarded because it is a group phenomenon (but Italy & the maffia and incompetence sell better and are farther from home).

By: lemuel pitkin

lemuel pitkin — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 16:39:30 +0000

Is there evidence that the output of Italian universities is in fact worse, by whatever metric, than in other comparable countries?

By: otto

otto — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 15:52:01 +0000

The institutional arrangements though – can’t fire the Professors etc – dont seem too different from Anglophone countries, but at least in my experience these can coexist with meritocratic-enough hiring. So there must be a bit more to it…

By: Henri Vieuxtemps

Henri Vieuxtemps — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 15:43:57 +0000

Well, sound like in this case the manifestation of incompetence is a signal for loyalty, so, in fact, loyalty is what’s rewarded, not incompetence per se. If the boss is your uncle you’ll probably get promoted even if you convincingly manifest your genius at every opportunity.

By: Lurb

Lurb — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 15:07:50 +0000

Hi otto
I don’t know about Italian universities, but happen to know about Spanish ones, and suspect that the issue must be quite similar.

Full tenured proffessors in Spain are in fact public servants. Once they earn their position they cannot be practically ever fired, as every other public servant here. Being such an all or nothing proposition, there must be an objective and fair proccess that all public servants must go through to earn this plum life. This is called “oposicion” which consists in competitive written and oral testing of all candidates by a jury.
Decades ago those juries were formed by tenured staff from the department where the new position was opening, which almost assuredly resulted in any “local” candidate getting the position, no matter how good the “foreign” intruders might be. If more than one local candidate existed, the one with a most powerful godfather within the department invariably won.
Lately this proccess has been complicated, trying to avoid this effect: The jury is no longer appointed, but the result of a random draw, and must include two members from other institutions.
But little has changed: the randomness just makes the civil wars within the departments a bit more convoluted and interesting, but ultimately the biggest&baddest warlords still manage to win, and the inclusion of “foreigners” has just extended those clan wars in scope: The outsiders must tread very carefully and learn who to support, lest they anger someone that might strike back when he sends one of their lackeys to their own “oposiciones”.
In tune with some of the ideas in the article, in fact avoiding militancy on one of those “gangs” and thinking your academic excellence will triumph is a sure recipe for failure. Neutrality is the worst position, as no one will vouch for such an unreliable ally. Even if your “gang” is weaker, at least you can rely on someone.
I must disclose that bitter as all that may sound, I’m not a proffessor, haven’t ever tried nor intend to ever try, and admit the whole thing is enormously fun to watch from the sidelines, though I understand that it does little service to the quality of our research and higher education.

By: El Cid

El Cid — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 13:07:23 +0000

I agree as commented early on—this really spoke to me about why so many Republicans of the Bush Jr. era went out of their way to emphasize their proud ignorance and their gleeful incompetence.

By: JoB

JoB — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 08:10:25 +0000

rea-29, where do you deliver our prize?

By: otto

otto — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 07:30:07 +0000

Working in a meritocratic-enough institution, I not infrequently hear these sort of stories of how badly Italian universities are run. Does anyone have a link or two to suggest for a New Yorker article length description of the situation?

By: Punditus Maximus

Punditus Maximus — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 04:47:11 +0000

If the whole point of a market economy is that institutions can and must fail, then by definition, it must eventually be true that in order to succeed at something, you must join up to a different institution.

That is, if the selection is at the institutional level, that means that there will be institutions in death spirals. You can’t fix them, only get value from them and leave them.

See also: why it would have been immoral for UAW to try to help save GM.