The Flaming Cave
In which we update Dante's legendary Inferno
A commenter observes that there is an observable distinction between an honest question and a deceptive challenge:
The SSH Gamma definition was particularly helpful in crystallizing my understanding of the actions of certain individuals. It has become much easier to recognize the difference between a Delta question and a Gamma challenge usually posed as a question. The craftier gamma hides this better.
When in my former managerial role, I looked for the tone and premise of questions from subordinates. The framing of the question as well. "So what you're saying..."
The Delta honest question gets a straight answer. The gammas I dealt with were not asking the question to get a straight answer, they (appeared) to be asking it so as to create a dynamic where they challenge and I justify. Innocent and well-intentioned managers can be lured into this trap by virtue of their own assumption that everyone is as direct and honest as they might be.
The honest question <---> veiled challenge is a scale, not binary and requires some emotional IQ to draw out.
Maybe it’s all a love of talk - If the gamma switches between explaining himself and trying to get you to do the same. Too bad we can't harness it like the Bistromath thing from Hitchhiker's Guide.
There's a picture of hell... A flaming cave full of gammas explaining how you got there.
This isn’t just behavior that is limited to the office environment. As a blogger, I saw it literally every day in the comments until the site grew to the point that I was spending more time moderating the comments than writing the posts, which is when I terminated the comments and directed the discussion to social media.
Ironically, one of the chief indicators of a veiled challenge was a comment that would begin with: “Honest question…”
If your question is so obviously a rhetorical challenge that you have to falsely advertise it as an honest question, it isn’t honest. As a tell, it was reliable with around 95 percent accuracy.
Which is why we can be certain that the veiled challenge in the form of a question, rhetorical or material, isn’t just about a love of talk or even simple attention-seeking. It’s an attempt to score points in public, to elevate the questioner’s status at the expense of the person being asked the question. Think about the dream scenario of the low-status male, which generally involves the public dismantling of the hated Alpha through verbal pyrotechnics.
And yes, the veiled challenge is predominantly, though not exclusively, a tactic utilized by Gammas. Here are a few more ways to usefully distinguish a genuine question from a veiled challenge:
Does the question implicitly assume a position of relative authority on the part of the questioner? Gammas, in particular, love to invert the hierarchy and force their superiors to answer to them.
Does the question direct the discourse toward the questioner? “In my experience…”
Is the question necessary or is it forced?
Does the inquiry somehow call the competence or the authority of the individual being addressed into question? Counterintuitively, the more indirectly or passive-aggressively this is done, the more likely the question is a challenge of the individual per se.
Does the question imply that both sides are peers even when they are not?
Does the question ignore everyone else involved or in the room and reduce the discourse to two parties?
Sartre once said that “Hell is other people” but I think we all know that it’s actually being subjected to a Gamma with a microphone. After all, what was Lucifer if not the original would-be inverter of hierarchical authority?
We had a dining room assistant that constantly would ask questions during our pre-service "stand-up" meetings that served no purpose other than to question authority and to score "attention" from the other 30 team members in attendance. The "stand-up" meeting is leadership's final opportunity to communicate important details before doors open and guests are seated. Some of these are: estimated guest counts, special occasions, VIPs, chef's specials, 86'd items, guests with allergies-- items truly crucial to the night's success.
One night he attempted to "steal the spotlight" over and over again and I had had enough. The following night I pulled him to the side 30 minutes before stand-up and let him know that he would be leading the stand-up meeting that evening. He crumbled. Worse-- he crumbled publicly in front of the people that he craved admiration from. After service, I told him never to challenge us again in that manner and he got the message. He piped down from that point on publicly and instead would try to spread dissent more covertly. Luckily--most of the other team members from then on understood that his opinion of anything was more or less useless.
Delta: Extremely long winded and detailed explanations about subjects you do not know much about, possibly initiated from a random point in the thought process, followed by "Could It Work?".
- Hard to distinguish ground from the sky afterwards. I wonder if there is a method to gracefully escape these situations.
Gamma: Long winded explanations about subjects you and possibly no one else has ever heard about for a good reason, with multiple rationalizations along the way to justify who is the True Dark Lord, followed by "Am I Smart?".
- The Pits of Mount Doom are not too far off indeed.