OK, this is great because I actually need help with this subject. I am the kind of person who does not feel comfortable doing a task if I do not understand it. Many times in the past, my compulsive need to understand the task at hand has led people to think I am challenging them about it in some way. This leaves me baffled and dealing with an argument I didn't intend to start... because I'm not TRYING to argue!
I know my place as a cog in the works. I want to give my bosses what they want, but I really need to feel I know what that IS or I get nervous and I spend more time 2nd guessing myself than getting the task done.
I have tried saying "But I'm not arguing with you" but that phrase doesn't seem to disarm the situation.
Is there a certain way I can phrase my need for understanding without creating needless drama?
Ask them for help in private. Never in front of a group where you could perhaps be perceived as challenging the leader. If you know there’s a chance it’ll be taken that way, don’t risk it. They’ll appreciate that most times unless you’re just not a fit for the job. In that case, move on it’ll be better for you and for them.
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.
Explanations regarding explanations. Conversations about conversations...
I knew Sigmas do not appreciate such, but was unaware that they are the literal conception of the 13th level of the Mount Doom's Flaming Pit. This may be worthwhile to consider when asking for thoughts about someone reacting to Owen's new ideas regarding the exact shape of the Earth and whatnot.
Don't forget to ruthlessly bully any gamma who tries this. It makes the members of the hierarchy pleased and feel taken care of.
"So what you're saying is that you don't care about all the work I did? In my experience bosses who don't support their employees tend to get in big trouble with the ceos. Honest question, did you ignore my suggestion completely before doing something completely random?
"Ok so gamma gets the night shift for the month and will not be invited to the company holiday party. Dismissed"
When developing AI, the Metasphere and eventually the holodeck, I could see a strong argument for Gamma Containment modules being the most socially acceptable first applications.
Or maybe a sort of "Minority Report" halo thingy that mesmerizes the gamma and turns them into productive deltas.
"Sir, the precogs have picked up a redball that a Gamma is about to interrupt the meeting."
"Alert Sigma Team"
"They don't want to deal with it, not their circus, not their Gammas. Besides, they all are out on individual mercenary work"
"Crap, Bravo Team?"
"Too busy, and last time the Gamma sulked for a month"
"DeltaForce it is then - those guys need a vacation."
"Don't forget to bring along a halo for our secret king."
How do you distinguish a Gamma challenge vs an Alpha challenge? Hierarchies will eventually have some alphas not at the top. Those will eventually challenge their leaders, sometimes publicly, like wolves do. How do you tell the difference?
An Alpha's challenge reminds you of times when you fought with the cool kids or were about to start swinging. When people started to talk about what He would do. When you ask if he needs or wants something from you.
The police are loud and clear when they challenge you. And even though bosses are disliked, people still look to be hired and praised and promoted by them. We like protection. We like to be part of The Alpha's team. On his side. The Alpha's challenge is the rule of law and is popular with both sexes.
Is there anyone who is or wants to be described as a gamma's girl or guy? Does he lead or care for anyone in that way? His challenge is sneaky, indirect, and never part of the game.
The alpha challenge will be unmistakable and direct. It will really be more of a calling to account than a challenge. Alphas challenge other Alphas. Lions don't "challenge" antelope. Or hyenas.
Format will be:
Why did you do this? Or in an HR context: Tell me what happened. Explain your reasoning. There will be ZERO ornamental fluff that the gamma uses to try and gaslight some position.
The gamma challenge will be posed as a question, or framed as an accusation. If the tone of voice is sassy, sarcastic, or there is dramatic body language or eye rolling, etc.
The Whole World is a Classroom
The best SSH training is as a fly-on-the-wall observer, not a participant. Esp if no one notices you at all. A lot of people tend to mind their own business and not pick up on the subtle interplays.
Imagine you are scoring a contest, and mentally assign points. Categorize behavior, not just status or authority. I remained very silent for most of the meetings I was in, and served as the authoritative tie breaker when the functional-level people could not come to terms.
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.
Exactly this. It’s disingenuous & self-indulgent. There’s no desire or need for information, so it’s a time waster for everyone else. It’s why it flows so easily into that more pointedly deceitful variant - the “so what you’re saying”, but with the summary reworded to mean something the speaker didn’t say.
It’s repulsive. And it points to a dishonesty/attractiveness/status relationship.
1: Not necessarily; much of litigation can involve cross examining experts, and the lawyer is almost certainly not a peer or superior in the expert's field. 2: It's a passive aggressive way of hedging and it's meaningless; it reflects someone who either doesn't have confidence in what they're saying or at best doing it habitually to fill space.
I think you are replying to my question to you below, so thanks.
Experts should be challenged, especially in appropriate legal settings. That is the lawyer's job after all, the testimony being given must stand up to rigorous scrutiny.
Just as the comment that inspired today's post pointed out there are two types of questions, there are two forms of cross-examination. Not Daredevil seems to be referring to the weasel-lawyer form.
1. An "honest" cross focuses on yes or no questions and never leaves anything open-ended. The purpose is straightforward: back the witness into a corner where they are forced to directly admit something they would not otherwise say.
2. A "veiled challenge" cross, as Not Daredevil points out, focuses on twisting definitions and emotions. The purpose is subversive: use word spells to manipulate the outcome.
The former chases Truth, resulting in Justice. The latter seeks to invert the Truth, thereby causing injustice in our system.
Lawyer Jokes exist for a reason. The Legal Legion of Evil also exists for a reason.
There was a time I tried the couching and the veiled challenges, but I never liked it any more than the challenged. To my mild surprise, people have responded very well to honest challenges.
"I hate to ask, but someone should: have we accounted for X in this plan?"
"I haven't heard anyone mention Y yet. Is that going to cause a problem for us?"
"Reminder that Z is coming up. Do we have the resources to handle both?"
Not only do I rarely see anyone get angry, but I've almost always gotten something useful out of the answer. Either they've accounted for it, in which case there's nothing to worry about for now, or they realize that they've missed something.
Probably a couple reasons. First, most people appreciate directness as long as it is non-confrontational. Second, a lot of people see right through the sly challenge and feel insulted that the crafty gamma thinks they are getting one over on them.
I answered one gamma with "what is this weird hangup you have on this issue?"
A total gamma response (from me). Sometimes you gotta fight gamma with gamma.
You get back from me the integrity you give. Smart off and I slam the door.
I think a lot of people do not like directness. They see it as confrontational and entrapment. They think whatever they do or say should be taken at face value. They think anyone who is direct is an autist or something. Keep communication direct and to the point is not an artform for them.
The gamma reminds me of Cassius from Julius Caesar.
“Such men as he be never at heart’s ease whiles they behold a greater than themselves; And therefore are they very dangerous.”
OK, this is great because I actually need help with this subject. I am the kind of person who does not feel comfortable doing a task if I do not understand it. Many times in the past, my compulsive need to understand the task at hand has led people to think I am challenging them about it in some way. This leaves me baffled and dealing with an argument I didn't intend to start... because I'm not TRYING to argue!
I know my place as a cog in the works. I want to give my bosses what they want, but I really need to feel I know what that IS or I get nervous and I spend more time 2nd guessing myself than getting the task done.
I have tried saying "But I'm not arguing with you" but that phrase doesn't seem to disarm the situation.
Is there a certain way I can phrase my need for understanding without creating needless drama?
Ask them for help in private. Never in front of a group where you could perhaps be perceived as challenging the leader. If you know there’s a chance it’ll be taken that way, don’t risk it. They’ll appreciate that most times unless you’re just not a fit for the job. In that case, move on it’ll be better for you and for them.
That image at the end got a legit LOL out of me.
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.
Explanations regarding explanations. Conversations about conversations...
I knew Sigmas do not appreciate such, but was unaware that they are the literal conception of the 13th level of the Mount Doom's Flaming Pit. This may be worthwhile to consider when asking for thoughts about someone reacting to Owen's new ideas regarding the exact shape of the Earth and whatnot.
(nods)
Also, I don't care what Heidi said about Suzi.
Ours is not to question why.
Our is but to do or die.
Why ask a question if the answer is plain.
To do otherwise is just a pain.
Asking needless questions waste your time.
When I could get the job over with and get back to mine.
I see your Mena.
Don't forget to ruthlessly bully any gamma who tries this. It makes the members of the hierarchy pleased and feel taken care of.
"So what you're saying is that you don't care about all the work I did? In my experience bosses who don't support their employees tend to get in big trouble with the ceos. Honest question, did you ignore my suggestion completely before doing something completely random?
"Ok so gamma gets the night shift for the month and will not be invited to the company holiday party. Dismissed"
Everyone else: Phew
I cannot help but imagine Gammas speaking with a gay lisp.
You really captured every single reddit comment right there. It's uncanny.
They spend too much of their time online.
When developing AI, the Metasphere and eventually the holodeck, I could see a strong argument for Gamma Containment modules being the most socially acceptable first applications.
Or maybe a sort of "Minority Report" halo thingy that mesmerizes the gamma and turns them into productive deltas.
"Sir, the precogs have picked up a redball that a Gamma is about to interrupt the meeting."
"Alert Sigma Team"
"They don't want to deal with it, not their circus, not their Gammas. Besides, they all are out on individual mercenary work"
"Crap, Bravo Team?"
"Too busy, and last time the Gamma sulked for a month"
"DeltaForce it is then - those guys need a vacation."
"Don't forget to bring along a halo for our secret king."
How do you distinguish a Gamma challenge vs an Alpha challenge? Hierarchies will eventually have some alphas not at the top. Those will eventually challenge their leaders, sometimes publicly, like wolves do. How do you tell the difference?
An Alpha's challenge reminds you of times when you fought with the cool kids or were about to start swinging. When people started to talk about what He would do. When you ask if he needs or wants something from you.
The police are loud and clear when they challenge you. And even though bosses are disliked, people still look to be hired and praised and promoted by them. We like protection. We like to be part of The Alpha's team. On his side. The Alpha's challenge is the rule of law and is popular with both sexes.
Is there anyone who is or wants to be described as a gamma's girl or guy? Does he lead or care for anyone in that way? His challenge is sneaky, indirect, and never part of the game.
The alpha challenge will be unmistakable and direct. It will really be more of a calling to account than a challenge. Alphas challenge other Alphas. Lions don't "challenge" antelope. Or hyenas.
Format will be:
Why did you do this? Or in an HR context: Tell me what happened. Explain your reasoning. There will be ZERO ornamental fluff that the gamma uses to try and gaslight some position.
The gamma challenge will be posed as a question, or framed as an accusation. If the tone of voice is sassy, sarcastic, or there is dramatic body language or eye rolling, etc.
The Whole World is a Classroom
The best SSH training is as a fly-on-the-wall observer, not a participant. Esp if no one notices you at all. A lot of people tend to mind their own business and not pick up on the subtle interplays.
Imagine you are scoring a contest, and mentally assign points. Categorize behavior, not just status or authority. I remained very silent for most of the meetings I was in, and served as the authoritative tie breaker when the functional-level people could not come to terms.
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.
Perfect Gamma fictional character: Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer.
RIP Phil Hartmann
“It’s an attempt to score points in public”
Exactly this. It’s disingenuous & self-indulgent. There’s no desire or need for information, so it’s a time waster for everyone else. It’s why it flows so easily into that more pointedly deceitful variant - the “so what you’re saying”, but with the summary reworded to mean something the speaker didn’t say.
It’s repulsive. And it points to a dishonesty/attractiveness/status relationship.
1: Not necessarily; much of litigation can involve cross examining experts, and the lawyer is almost certainly not a peer or superior in the expert's field. 2: It's a passive aggressive way of hedging and it's meaningless; it reflects someone who either doesn't have confidence in what they're saying or at best doing it habitually to fill space.
I think you are replying to my question to you below, so thanks.
Experts should be challenged, especially in appropriate legal settings. That is the lawyer's job after all, the testimony being given must stand up to rigorous scrutiny.
Just as the comment that inspired today's post pointed out there are two types of questions, there are two forms of cross-examination. Not Daredevil seems to be referring to the weasel-lawyer form.
1. An "honest" cross focuses on yes or no questions and never leaves anything open-ended. The purpose is straightforward: back the witness into a corner where they are forced to directly admit something they would not otherwise say.
2. A "veiled challenge" cross, as Not Daredevil points out, focuses on twisting definitions and emotions. The purpose is subversive: use word spells to manipulate the outcome.
The former chases Truth, resulting in Justice. The latter seeks to invert the Truth, thereby causing injustice in our system.
Lawyer Jokes exist for a reason. The Legal Legion of Evil also exists for a reason.
Just be direct with your challenge or don't bother.
If you don't want to hurt group dynamics then directly challenge them in private.
Being indirect makes you look low status and allows a crafty manager to ignore / deliberately misinterpret your challenge.
There was a time I tried the couching and the veiled challenges, but I never liked it any more than the challenged. To my mild surprise, people have responded very well to honest challenges.
"I hate to ask, but someone should: have we accounted for X in this plan?"
"I haven't heard anyone mention Y yet. Is that going to cause a problem for us?"
"Reminder that Z is coming up. Do we have the resources to handle both?"
Not only do I rarely see anyone get angry, but I've almost always gotten something useful out of the answer. Either they've accounted for it, in which case there's nothing to worry about for now, or they realize that they've missed something.
Probably a couple reasons. First, most people appreciate directness as long as it is non-confrontational. Second, a lot of people see right through the sly challenge and feel insulted that the crafty gamma thinks they are getting one over on them.
I answered one gamma with "what is this weird hangup you have on this issue?"
A total gamma response (from me). Sometimes you gotta fight gamma with gamma.
You get back from me the integrity you give. Smart off and I slam the door.
I think a lot of people do not like directness. They see it as confrontational and entrapment. They think whatever they do or say should be taken at face value. They think anyone who is direct is an autist or something. Keep communication direct and to the point is not an artform for them.
Hah, the final circle of Hell would definitely be that. Motivation enough.