A @Helpful_S1 once said, if you’re going to die on this hill, you’d better get to know every inch of it.
Here is my hill:
If you’re judging your subordinates based on anything other than performance and potential, you’re a shit leader, lack character, and need to get out. https://twitter.com/josephmlapointe/status/1289683755913764864

Before the following I must say, this is not directed @mikejason73 or @josephmlapointe who are just reading the terrain from their foxholes, not advocating for biased heuristics.
Back to Angry Voice:

That includes snap judgements about appearance. There is a reason why the DA Photo is gone and photos for boards across the DoD have been banned. It’s not because standards are slippin’.
It’s because values are actually being examined.
(Shameless plug ) https://warroom.armywarcollege.edu/articles/da-photo/

Also, we don’t work at TGI-Fri. 31 pieces of flair are not required. Awards and badges are a means of signaling expertise in a situation of information asymmetry. I.E. Please ask me about (special skill X), because I’ve gone beyond normal activities and certified in said skill.

Signaling is important in situations of information asymmetry like in hiring decisions,

By performing an act (X, say a grad degree) which is DIFFERENTIALLY costly between people who are Y (good students) and people who are Z(bad students)...

This allows a separating equilibrium to form such that you can be assured if you see someone with an X, then they are Y. If no X, then Z.
So you can reliably say a person with a graduate degree is much more likely than not to be a good student.

That signal becomes credible because it "costs" more for a bad student to earn a degree. Time, energy, hours studying, tutors, etc make it more "costly" for a bad student to get a degree than a good one.

https://msu.edu/~conlinmi/teaching/EC860/signallingscreening/SpenceQJE1973.pdf

This all adds up to a point where a signal is useful because a separating equilibrium forms and good students get degrees, and bad students (seeing the higher costs) chose not to. And hiring managers can reliably point out the good vs bad by using the degree as a credible signal

Bullion Rank isn't a signal.
Glitter does not signal commitment, it signals “I had an extra $40.”
It fails the definition of a signal because there isn’t a cost difference for a committed person vice a less-committed person. Both can hand over their cash to Marlow White.

Whether you got nylon shoulder boards or bullion, you performed the same act (probably clicking "add to cart" or walking into a store)... the only difference was the price of the item. It's not indicative of your level of commitment.

Optional purchases are just that: optional. If you start conflating optional purchases with someone’s potential and therefore allow it to affect an evaluation, you’re accepting a bribe or selling an indulgence.

I’ve served in several CAV Squadrons. Stetsons are optional purchases. If your attitude is “if you don't buy a Stetson, you must not care about the unit history” just resign. Your thinking is so antiquated that Martin Luther should hammer something into your forehead.

Bonus Example: 2 CAV Troop Commanders sitting together at a BDE Ball (wearing ASUs, a uniform worn once per month at most in an operational unit). One has bullion rank, the other nylon. One has a high-quality MW uniform, the others an AAFES. Which is the better officer?

Trick Question: I'm in the MW uniform, bought while single, the bullion shoulder boards were a gift from a mentor. The AAFES-special is worn by one of the hardest-working officers I’ve met, who forgoes most unnecessary purchases because he has 6 children to provide for.

If our senior rater even “noted” the difference between the two of us, he should put his fancy rank on his boss's desk and walk right the hell out of my Army and we’d be better off for it. Do not pass go, collect DD-214.

Because their evaluation can be bought, in part, by a $40 bribe that he/she doesn't even pocket themselves.

For the senior leaders on Twitter, police your peers. This attitude is toxic and is a betrayal of the Army Values. It perpetuates a system of aristocratic officership, where "paying to play" is just "how the game is played."

It's wrong and it needs to stop.

These are the easy, low-hanging fruit to build an Army with inclusivity and diversity. Identify silly norms and practices without merit that affect promotion and selection... and then burn them down.

@PatDonahoeArmy @DogFaceSoldier @MG_SmithT @CG_ArmyROTC @Bayonet6X @JimRainey10 @DruRho @TradocDCG @NatSecGirlSquad @MaggieCaroline1