Apparently, if there is a "we" acting on some sort of grand plan, the plan needs to address the workplace and workplace ethics:
It doesn’t even matter is the boss or manager has chosen a glass of Merlot or beer, then offered it to the job-seeker or that the job-seeker shows no effect of alcohol. The negative association is so strong that, despite evidence to the contrary, there is a perception of impaired reasoning. “Prospective job candidates largely fail to anticipate the imbibing-idiot bias,” writes Rick from the University of Michigan and Schweitzer from the University of Pennsylvania. “Candidates in informal interview settings follow the boss’s lead, even when the boss chooses to consume alcohol. Our demonstration of a robust imbibing-idiot bias suggests that this form of mimicry is a mistake.” Why a mistake? “Consuming, or merely holding, an alcoholic beverage reduced perceived intelligence [even] in the absence of any actual reduction in cognitive performance,” they say.
"Imbibing-idiot bias"? How odd. Personally, I find T-totalers a bit weak in the rafters if you get my drift. But it is not really about who is wise and who is not. It is about who has control and what delusions they are acting under.
So, if I was a clever beer advocacy conspirator, I would get beer into the hands of the bosses (or, rather, if we are honest... middle management) to make sure that even if they were imbibing then they need to be viewing craft beer appreciation as an exception to the imbibing-idiot bias. How? A complex and overwhelming volume of knowledge making the middle manager uncomfortable, giving a clear impression that the job prospect has one up. We need scripts, people. Web pages filled with scripts for the job seeking beer fan. And then, sooner or later, we become the hiring classes. It could happen.