"DELTA: this is what I did and this is why it was the best way to do it.
GAMMA: this is why what I did is justifiable, and here are all of my thought processes along the way that prove why what I did was justifiable"
This distinction right here is very helpful. Example: a while back I thought I was "giving my boss an abundance of information in order to make an informed executive decision" and I was respecting his authority by not choosing the best way to do it and proceeding with development. He would get annoyed. Try harder I guess? Nope. After some dark streams and BB streams on SSH (and having Owen yell at me for saying things in his chat...), I realized my boss is probably Bravo and reacting aggressively to anything resembling gamma behavior, so I became very careful to learn distinctions in the behaviors and avoid anything that could be gamma. I never had any thought or desire to run the place or be in charge - only do excellent work to help the company. It didn't occur to me that I could do gamma things while trying to be delta.
The SSH gamma definition was particularly helpful in crystallizing my understanding of the actions of certain individuals.
There's also the reverse side of the explaining coin: 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.
When dealing with the gamma challenge, I would usually respond by questioning their basis or authority for asking. Or asking them to justify their need for a "just simple answer".
In a *FEW* cases, I said something like "To be clear, the decisions have been made and are not open to modification. If you would like to understand more, I would be willing to spend some time with you helping you understand what we are doing."
This only works if you sense that you can use this to reaffirm authority when dealing with gamma-lite. The heavier cases usually seem to be looking to spark a debate, and it is risky to give them an elevated sense of authority.
The honest question <---> veiled challenge is a scale, not binary and requires some emotional IQ to draw out.
Maybe its 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.
Well said. I think it's helpful if Alphas/Bravos can learn to distinguish between the deltas trying to clarify something in order to do a better job vs gammas wanting to be smart boys (and/or simply have someone to blame later). A delta wants nothing more than to do the best possible job he can do.. to be helpful. And sometimes that means asking questions or clarifying that what he intends to do is okay with the leader (as said delta may not always have all the information required to make the best possible technical decision).
That said, the delta needs to also understand his audience. For example, this could simply mean don't bother going into technical details. Depending on who you're talking to, it may be best to just discuss WHAT you're going to do, not HOW you're going to do it.. specific details are best left to discuss within one's own team.
I've helped a few subordinates by coaching them on what you are saying here. And also on timing. I usually say something like "You have really good ideas, but you're sharing them when people don't have their antenna tuned to hear it. Here is how you can find the moment to make your point stick..."
I suppose I could be accused of pandering to them a bit, where instead I could be more blunt: "you're a smart guy but your timing sucks..."
I try the collab approach first always. Plenty of time to slap 'em later.
Gamma's / Delta's / women in leadership will often pack meetings with people to meetings to showcase their importance.
Note there is a distinctiin between senior delta's and non senior in that Seniors will more likely just want to get job done and careless about being noticed. I don't know if this is learned or just age/experience?
A Senior that wants to be noticed is probably a gamma.
Authority is your spot on the Org Chart. Leadership deals with emotions. Can go with Authority, or separate. My comment is on the care and feeding of Deltas. They like explanations, both to give and receive. An Alpha can make use of that or not. In general too many people in authority seem to believe if they can make a job miserable they are doing it right. Bend the little people to your will mighty authoritarian. I've seen a great leader take a miserable job and supercharge his minions. Do you help your minions gain confidence and move up the SSH (Low Delta to high) or just beat on them? Authority has nothing to do with any of that.
It’s presumptuous. There are cases where it’s necessary, but the general pattern is solipsistic. The listener becomes a prop in a self-assurance performance. For gammas, it’s a prized chance to unveil as masters of strategy.
Hadn’t considered that being aware of the purpose of communication mapped onto status directly.
Perhaps they're always giving explanations because they expect explanations when speaking with other deltas/gammas? Different ways of communication for different ranks of SSH? If so, understanding the SSH is useful yet again in helping us know how to speak to other men.
I'm guilty of this. Seeking extra explanations is something I do.
On the flip side, one method I've used when others seek more of an explanation than I think is warranted: I will ask them to simply to repeat back to me word for word what I just stated to them when I explained/told them to do something. Forces them to either admit they didn't listen or to think about what I said. Then I say, "And what does that mean?" And they usually nod and understand in someway. Then I offer a throwaway explanation at the end to satiate their curiosity:"Because we need it for [the issue at hand]."
I'm no Alpha, Sigma,or even Bravo, but it seems to be effective.
"I finally got one audiobook producer to shut up and stop trying to explain the minute details of things like why he chose one level of bitrate quality versus another on a specific audiobook by subjecting him to an excruciating lecture on how the production editor and I had determined the precise measurement of the side margins utilized in our most recent leather book."
This is why I read this blog. I literally could not stop laughing while imagining that conversation for about 2 or 3 minutes straight.
I cracked up myself when I finished the impromptu lecture on the history of page margins and he - to his credit - responded with: "Wow, I didn't care about that even a little bit!"
He's a smart guy. It was clear that the light bulb had gone off.
Oh and the verbatim things he sometimes writes I have said to others or have heard others saying based on the SSH rank. They are usually extremely representative. Anyone that says the SSH is not based on observation of reality is obviously living in a gamma bubble.
Under the Limited Time item: danger is another reason for lack of an explanation. If you always explain to your wife WHY every time, she's going to fall back on that habit in an emergency. Then your kids might die.
The commentator featured in the previous post, who essentially described SSH roles as being situational ,was not entirely wrong, though he didn't help his case with the classic Gamma closing "and by the way, I am not reading any replies to this so I got the last word and I win, nanana bubu!"
There are times when a male reverts to different forms of communication. I've experienced that in my own life, including throwing up a few walls of text to the opposite sex when I was much younger and had no understanding of how that would be received. When I was later in a situation with significant female attention, my responses to women just naturally became much more terse (and well received). That applies in other contexts as well. Dealing with multiple young kids, for instance, tends to force a guy into an alpha type role, as you simply don't have time to deal with extended drama from any one kid.
Your workplace situation can also influence SSH type behavior. A good delta or bravo is generally the best employee and probably makes for the most stable career. It's not bad to strive to be the helpful one who can explain things. If you later end up with more responsibility and subordinates to deal with, however, you'll probably naturally assume more alpha type traits (you just won't have the bandwidth to do the delta explaining).
Also, it is worth noting that the correspondence between work place alpha and alpha with women is far from perfect. Just look at Buffett, Bezos or Zuckerberg for proof of that. Learning the different SSH types and analyzing what they are doing is still incredibly valuable, however. I guess the big takeaway for me is that you really do have the ability to change your SSH status by modifying your behavior and/or your situation.
"Also, it is worth noting that the correspondence between work place alpha and alpha with women is far from perfect. Just look at Buffett, Bezos or Zuckerberg for proof of that."
You're citing three of the world's best-known ticket-takers as "workplace alphas"?
Well, "ticket-taker" would probably describe most of the big shots in the current economy. Regardless, I would bet most such men exhibit many (situationally) alpha type behaviors when dealing with others in a work context, while being distinctly non-alpha in their interactions with women.
You're failing to have noticed that the possibility of a difference between situational status and intrinsic status has always been observed. One of the points of applied SSH is the way in which a mismatch between situational and intrinsic status will predictably cause problems.
I don't disagree with the utility of the mismatch concept. In my experience though, "intrinsic status" is not always set in stone and can be molded by situations. The "situational alpha" who understands why he was in that situation can retain useful knowledge, even when he is later in a different situation, and practiced behaviors often effectively become part of one's nature. For most men, it's the potential for self improvement that is the main point of studying "game".
Inherent temperment isn't changed by situation. However people may act in ways that cloud their temperment. "Respect my authority" being the rally cry of deltas/gammas when it hasn't been earned or proven.
Delta in leadership will want to see the details because they will feel responsible for the outcome. An alpha in leadership will believe in his team and trust them to do what they should do. The Alpha will prase his team for it where as the Gamma/broken Alpha will take credit for the outcome.
This is one thing that the mainstream interpretation of Sigma/high status kind of gets right. Most of the memes are of some guy doing something insane, offering no explanation, and then leaving. To those lower on the SSH, this may be how they actually perceive higher status leaders. Probably not to that extent, but in some way.
I do find myself erring on the side of overexplaining to my subordinates due to their incompetence or laziness including maintaining checklists. Failure to do so is just bad management especially when they mess up in ways you could not had even imagined. This is especially important for frontline, minimum wage employees.
This is standard operating procedure for NCOs and junior officers. As you go higher into Lt Col and above, this becomes less of a necessity as your Senior NCO maintains the discipline and is involved with training.
For training purposes, you can see why Alphas and Sigmas are ill suited for teaching roles.
Maybe that's why women are such 'splainers: they have to work with small children. Who need things explained to them off and on, in a myriad of ways, or demonstrated, or handled, and then get told to "tell me back" to be sure they've got it... Until finally, when they've Got It, mom can say: Make the pizza, and the dough and the sauce, and the roasted peppers Just Happen.
But even with kids "because I said so" is the way to go a lot of the time.
This is so wrong. Lazy and dumb subordinates should not have anything explained to them. Just given tasks they actually are capable of doing and delivering massive pain if they are not done as requested.
The problem is that delivering massive pain for lack of compliance is taboo in our society. If you are running a business, you will get into legal trouble trying to discipline employees.
This is why asshole has become an honorific in my eyes. If a guy won't shame a woman for failing to do her task, because that's not how you treat a lady, then I don't want him to control anything that matters.
Incompetence could be due to them being dumb or due to lack of training/explanation. For new and young employees, it's often hard to tell the difference.
Once you realize they're dumb, then you adjust. If they're smart, and they understand the explanations and improve/recommend better improvements, you know you have someone who you can move up in the organization.
At the final end, is laziness, in which case the checklists exist to justify their firing "for cause" in the legal definition depending on your jurisdiction.
Another reason Alphas prefer not to justify their decisions, whether they know it or not, is it gives people the idea that they deserve justifications in the future. This directly subverts his own authority.
In the military you're taught to explain if you have time - it builds trust for when there is no time. If the majority of males are deltas then they want to receive an explanation as much as give one. (I also suspect it forces junior leaders to say their thought process out loud eliminating some mistakes)
When managing a bunch of engineers I have made sure to have many brainstorming sessions and just chat about past engineering challenges. I'm a Delta so I do enjoy this, but so does my team. If done correctly, it builds trust and shortens future conversations. When time is tight I've told people I need X, now, explanations later. They've done it based on the trust built up. Also, many Deltas, as Vox has written, want someone else to take responsibility for making the decision. You can use these explanation sessions to build confidence. I've seen the look of surprise on more than one face when I have told people - "And that's why I trust you to get it done, you have the right thought process." Thus begins the slow weaning process. As confidence builds they need less conversations and you get more work out of them.
I've also had to shut down a gamma or two rather hard by switching to alpha mode. Don't give em an inch.
From a Delta's perspective, when an Alpha won't discuss an order that doesn't make sense it causes a lot of distress. What if I don't understand the thought process, what if I get it wrong? An alpha who spends the time building trust and confidence can significantly reduce the stress on his Deltas.
"DELTA: this is what I did and this is why it was the best way to do it.
GAMMA: this is why what I did is justifiable, and here are all of my thought processes along the way that prove why what I did was justifiable"
This distinction right here is very helpful. Example: a while back I thought I was "giving my boss an abundance of information in order to make an informed executive decision" and I was respecting his authority by not choosing the best way to do it and proceeding with development. He would get annoyed. Try harder I guess? Nope. After some dark streams and BB streams on SSH (and having Owen yell at me for saying things in his chat...), I realized my boss is probably Bravo and reacting aggressively to anything resembling gamma behavior, so I became very careful to learn distinctions in the behaviors and avoid anything that could be gamma. I never had any thought or desire to run the place or be in charge - only do excellent work to help the company. It didn't occur to me that I could do gamma things while trying to be delta.
The SSH gamma definition was particularly helpful in crystallizing my understanding of the actions of certain individuals.
There's also the reverse side of the explaining coin: 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.
When dealing with the gamma challenge, I would usually respond by questioning their basis or authority for asking. Or asking them to justify their need for a "just simple answer".
In a *FEW* cases, I said something like "To be clear, the decisions have been made and are not open to modification. If you would like to understand more, I would be willing to spend some time with you helping you understand what we are doing."
This only works if you sense that you can use this to reaffirm authority when dealing with gamma-lite. The heavier cases usually seem to be looking to spark a debate, and it is risky to give them an elevated sense of authority.
The honest question <---> veiled challenge is a scale, not binary and requires some emotional IQ to draw out.
Maybe its 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.
That last line is hilarious. That would make an excellent meme.
Well said. I think it's helpful if Alphas/Bravos can learn to distinguish between the deltas trying to clarify something in order to do a better job vs gammas wanting to be smart boys (and/or simply have someone to blame later). A delta wants nothing more than to do the best possible job he can do.. to be helpful. And sometimes that means asking questions or clarifying that what he intends to do is okay with the leader (as said delta may not always have all the information required to make the best possible technical decision).
That said, the delta needs to also understand his audience. For example, this could simply mean don't bother going into technical details. Depending on who you're talking to, it may be best to just discuss WHAT you're going to do, not HOW you're going to do it.. specific details are best left to discuss within one's own team.
The audience - yeah that is a good point
I've helped a few subordinates by coaching them on what you are saying here. And also on timing. I usually say something like "You have really good ideas, but you're sharing them when people don't have their antenna tuned to hear it. Here is how you can find the moment to make your point stick..."
I suppose I could be accused of pandering to them a bit, where instead I could be more blunt: "you're a smart guy but your timing sucks..."
I try the collab approach first always. Plenty of time to slap 'em later.
Current work climate has lead to many false signals with to many deltas being in management and not being trained to "manage".
Another Sign:
Gamma's / Delta's / women in leadership will often pack meetings with people to meetings to showcase their importance.
Note there is a distinctiin between senior delta's and non senior in that Seniors will more likely just want to get job done and careless about being noticed. I don't know if this is learned or just age/experience?
A Senior that wants to be noticed is probably a gamma.
Authority is your spot on the Org Chart. Leadership deals with emotions. Can go with Authority, or separate. My comment is on the care and feeding of Deltas. They like explanations, both to give and receive. An Alpha can make use of that or not. In general too many people in authority seem to believe if they can make a job miserable they are doing it right. Bend the little people to your will mighty authoritarian. I've seen a great leader take a miserable job and supercharge his minions. Do you help your minions gain confidence and move up the SSH (Low Delta to high) or just beat on them? Authority has nothing to do with any of that.
It’s presumptuous. There are cases where it’s necessary, but the general pattern is solipsistic. The listener becomes a prop in a self-assurance performance. For gammas, it’s a prized chance to unveil as masters of strategy.
Hadn’t considered that being aware of the purpose of communication mapped onto status directly.
Perhaps they're always giving explanations because they expect explanations when speaking with other deltas/gammas? Different ways of communication for different ranks of SSH? If so, understanding the SSH is useful yet again in helping us know how to speak to other men.
A: You messed up.
G: But I explained it all to you before I did it so it’s your fault!
I'm guilty of this. Seeking extra explanations is something I do.
On the flip side, one method I've used when others seek more of an explanation than I think is warranted: I will ask them to simply to repeat back to me word for word what I just stated to them when I explained/told them to do something. Forces them to either admit they didn't listen or to think about what I said. Then I say, "And what does that mean?" And they usually nod and understand in someway. Then I offer a throwaway explanation at the end to satiate their curiosity:"Because we need it for [the issue at hand]."
I'm no Alpha, Sigma,or even Bravo, but it seems to be effective.
"I finally got one audiobook producer to shut up and stop trying to explain the minute details of things like why he chose one level of bitrate quality versus another on a specific audiobook by subjecting him to an excruciating lecture on how the production editor and I had determined the precise measurement of the side margins utilized in our most recent leather book."
This is why I read this blog. I literally could not stop laughing while imagining that conversation for about 2 or 3 minutes straight.
I cracked up myself when I finished the impromptu lecture on the history of page margins and he - to his credit - responded with: "Wow, I didn't care about that even a little bit!"
He's a smart guy. It was clear that the light bulb had gone off.
Oh and the verbatim things he sometimes writes I have said to others or have heard others saying based on the SSH rank. They are usually extremely representative. Anyone that says the SSH is not based on observation of reality is obviously living in a gamma bubble.
Under the Limited Time item: danger is another reason for lack of an explanation. If you always explain to your wife WHY every time, she's going to fall back on that habit in an emergency. Then your kids might die.
I can see the sign: "Never Explain, It Might Save Your Life!"
The commentator featured in the previous post, who essentially described SSH roles as being situational ,was not entirely wrong, though he didn't help his case with the classic Gamma closing "and by the way, I am not reading any replies to this so I got the last word and I win, nanana bubu!"
There are times when a male reverts to different forms of communication. I've experienced that in my own life, including throwing up a few walls of text to the opposite sex when I was much younger and had no understanding of how that would be received. When I was later in a situation with significant female attention, my responses to women just naturally became much more terse (and well received). That applies in other contexts as well. Dealing with multiple young kids, for instance, tends to force a guy into an alpha type role, as you simply don't have time to deal with extended drama from any one kid.
Your workplace situation can also influence SSH type behavior. A good delta or bravo is generally the best employee and probably makes for the most stable career. It's not bad to strive to be the helpful one who can explain things. If you later end up with more responsibility and subordinates to deal with, however, you'll probably naturally assume more alpha type traits (you just won't have the bandwidth to do the delta explaining).
Also, it is worth noting that the correspondence between work place alpha and alpha with women is far from perfect. Just look at Buffett, Bezos or Zuckerberg for proof of that. Learning the different SSH types and analyzing what they are doing is still incredibly valuable, however. I guess the big takeaway for me is that you really do have the ability to change your SSH status by modifying your behavior and/or your situation.
"Also, it is worth noting that the correspondence between work place alpha and alpha with women is far from perfect. Just look at Buffett, Bezos or Zuckerberg for proof of that."
You're citing three of the world's best-known ticket-takers as "workplace alphas"?
Well, "ticket-taker" would probably describe most of the big shots in the current economy. Regardless, I would bet most such men exhibit many (situationally) alpha type behaviors when dealing with others in a work context, while being distinctly non-alpha in their interactions with women.
You're failing to have noticed that the possibility of a difference between situational status and intrinsic status has always been observed. One of the points of applied SSH is the way in which a mismatch between situational and intrinsic status will predictably cause problems.
I don't disagree with the utility of the mismatch concept. In my experience though, "intrinsic status" is not always set in stone and can be molded by situations. The "situational alpha" who understands why he was in that situation can retain useful knowledge, even when he is later in a different situation, and practiced behaviors often effectively become part of one's nature. For most men, it's the potential for self improvement that is the main point of studying "game".
Inherent temperment isn't changed by situation. However people may act in ways that cloud their temperment. "Respect my authority" being the rally cry of deltas/gammas when it hasn't been earned or proven.
Delta in leadership will want to see the details because they will feel responsible for the outcome. An alpha in leadership will believe in his team and trust them to do what they should do. The Alpha will prase his team for it where as the Gamma/broken Alpha will take credit for the outcome.
This is one thing that the mainstream interpretation of Sigma/high status kind of gets right. Most of the memes are of some guy doing something insane, offering no explanation, and then leaving. To those lower on the SSH, this may be how they actually perceive higher status leaders. Probably not to that extent, but in some way.
I do find myself erring on the side of overexplaining to my subordinates due to their incompetence or laziness including maintaining checklists. Failure to do so is just bad management especially when they mess up in ways you could not had even imagined. This is especially important for frontline, minimum wage employees.
This is standard operating procedure for NCOs and junior officers. As you go higher into Lt Col and above, this becomes less of a necessity as your Senior NCO maintains the discipline and is involved with training.
For training purposes, you can see why Alphas and Sigmas are ill suited for teaching roles.
Don't confuse "management" with "leadership". The post is talking about skilled labour not unskilled labour.
Maybe that's why women are such 'splainers: they have to work with small children. Who need things explained to them off and on, in a myriad of ways, or demonstrated, or handled, and then get told to "tell me back" to be sure they've got it... Until finally, when they've Got It, mom can say: Make the pizza, and the dough and the sauce, and the roasted peppers Just Happen.
But even with kids "because I said so" is the way to go a lot of the time.
This is so wrong. Lazy and dumb subordinates should not have anything explained to them. Just given tasks they actually are capable of doing and delivering massive pain if they are not done as requested.
The problem is that delivering massive pain for lack of compliance is taboo in our society. If you are running a business, you will get into legal trouble trying to discipline employees.
This is why asshole has become an honorific in my eyes. If a guy won't shame a woman for failing to do her task, because that's not how you treat a lady, then I don't want him to control anything that matters.
Incompetence could be due to them being dumb or due to lack of training/explanation. For new and young employees, it's often hard to tell the difference.
Once you realize they're dumb, then you adjust. If they're smart, and they understand the explanations and improve/recommend better improvements, you know you have someone who you can move up in the organization.
At the final end, is laziness, in which case the checklists exist to justify their firing "for cause" in the legal definition depending on your jurisdiction.
Another reason Alphas prefer not to justify their decisions, whether they know it or not, is it gives people the idea that they deserve justifications in the future. This directly subverts his own authority.
An exception is when the Alpha is showing off, e.g. explaining how he got a great deal on some materials.
Not always.
In the military you're taught to explain if you have time - it builds trust for when there is no time. If the majority of males are deltas then they want to receive an explanation as much as give one. (I also suspect it forces junior leaders to say their thought process out loud eliminating some mistakes)
When managing a bunch of engineers I have made sure to have many brainstorming sessions and just chat about past engineering challenges. I'm a Delta so I do enjoy this, but so does my team. If done correctly, it builds trust and shortens future conversations. When time is tight I've told people I need X, now, explanations later. They've done it based on the trust built up. Also, many Deltas, as Vox has written, want someone else to take responsibility for making the decision. You can use these explanation sessions to build confidence. I've seen the look of surprise on more than one face when I have told people - "And that's why I trust you to get it done, you have the right thought process." Thus begins the slow weaning process. As confidence builds they need less conversations and you get more work out of them.
I've also had to shut down a gamma or two rather hard by switching to alpha mode. Don't give em an inch.
From a Delta's perspective, when an Alpha won't discuss an order that doesn't make sense it causes a lot of distress. What if I don't understand the thought process, what if I get it wrong? An alpha who spends the time building trust and confidence can significantly reduce the stress on his Deltas.
I would distinguish here between leadership (especially as a skill) and authority.
Related: https://coreyjmahler.com/headship-authority-agency/
Kinda sounds like dealing with toddlers, must be lonely at times.
Man, as a Bravo, sometimes the subordinates make me wish for toddlers... It's why I don't understand Alpha's that don't horde good Bravos.
"Never explain, never complain"
- Benjamin Disraeli