
Tantrums as Status Symbols (2005) - networked
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2005/08/tantrums_as_sta.html
======
Snargorf
It's not just tantrums. It's a huge variety of status-reinforcing behaviours
which symbolically or actually make the lower-status person uncomfortable in
favour of the higher-status person.

Even something like having an entrepreneur stand and present in front of a
group of seated money men. They sit in judgement of him, they are comfy and he
stands, they relax and he works and struggles to please them.

Or, when bosses make weird symbolic work demands that don't actually make
sense. Sometimes there's the idea that they're just looking out for the
product and are wrong about something, but there's also often an element of 'I
sense some disturbance in the status hierarchy so I'm going to make you do
this task we both know is useless just because I say so to remind you that I
can'.

Or 'I'm going to be unreasonable to demonstrate that I can'.

Or 'I'm not going to give this question the think-time it really needs; to
demonstrate my superior value I'll save myself five minutes while costing you
two days to remind everyone that I'm above you'.

A lot of this is subconscious. The people with the power don't always do it
intentionally, thinking "I'm going to signal status today." It's just what
feels good and intuitive to them, so they execute these status-signalling
behaviours without conscious intent.

~~~
tristor
Which is why people like myself who are honest and oblivious to social signals
upset so many managers/etc. We'll honestly and fervently correct your
misconceptions without so much as an eye blink. This confers its own sort of
status with the rest of the rank-and-file, but doesn't win you any favors come
review time. It does make the manager look like an idiot for trying to force
you to do something obviously stupid though, which is its own sort of bonus.

~~~
techdragon
Commendable and worth remembering the next time it happens to you. But do
remember... Sadly this can backfire. Repeatedly doing this can get you fired,
suspended, grounded, or suffering whatever other punitive action the
"superior" is capable of metering out.

~~~
throweway
What if it is unintended e.g. autism spectrum?

~~~
qznc
Then you are probably under special protection by law. For your the pointy-
haired boss it means he has to use more subtle methods, e.g. a performance
review, to get you out of the door.

------
jonnathanson
It's important to note that the CEO _can_ throw a tantrum, while the mailboy
cannot. Throwing tantrums isn't a way to build status; it's a sort of 'luxury'
one can get away with if one is already in a clear position of power in a
social setting.

Ever see the show _Entourage_? Ari Gold can throw tantrums, and he does.
(Constantly.) His underlings don't have that privilege. If one of them ever
tried to throw an Ari-style tantrum, he'd be out on the street in five minutes
flat. [Full disclosure: I worked at a talent agency a long time ago, and what
was depicted on _Entourage_ was accurate enough to have passed as a
documentary.]

~~~
tikhonj
That's an important point. To be clear, the article also reaches this
conclusion:

> _Of course, like a swagger, the signal is not so much the tantum itself as
> the fact that someone can get away with it._

It also links to a paper[1] about NBA players that deals with this phenomenon.
Here's the abstract:

> _Casual empiricism suggests that celebrities engage in more anti-social and
> other socially unapproved behavior than non-celebrities. I consider a number
> of reasons for this stylized fact, including one new theory, in which
> workers who are less substitutable in production are enabled to engage in
> greater levels of misbehavior because their employers cannot substitute away
> from them. Looking empirically at a particular class of celebrities - NBA
> basketball players - I find that misbehavior on the court is due to several
> factors, including prominently this substitutability effect, though income
> effects and youthful immaturity also may be important._

[1]:
[http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=609946](http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=609946)

~~~
gertef
> including one new theory

I don't think so.

------
colllectorof
When I've read the title, the first image that popped into my head wasn't of
an athlete or some CEO. It was the video of that Yale student screaming and
swearing at a professor at the top of her voice. Viewing that kind of behavior
as a status symbol explains a lot of things I've observed in the past couple
of years.

~~~
everyone
Thats very astute.

------
amag
Personally I see throwing a tantrum is something a kid does. If an adult does
it, it just seems immature. I've seen executives throw tantrums at their
underlings and of course get away with it. However in doing so I'm pretty sure
they do lose the respect of a lot of people, at least they lose mine. It may
be a cultural thing though.

~~~
clock_tower
I'm pretty sure it's a cultural thing, although the word "tantrum" has many
meanings, and we might be thinking of different ones.

From what I've seen of the US, being able to get someone angry is a sign of
superior status in New York and the Northeast; getting angry is a sign of low
status in the Midwest, although being able to get someone angry isn't a sign
of high status; while in the South, well, it's a good thing dueling is
illegal.

I suspect that this may go back to smooth mercantile Lowlands English versus
tempestuous Celts, but I certainly can't prove as much; and most of the
Southern aristocracy comes from the West Country, not the Scottish border.

~~~
jpm_sd
Steven Pinker agrees with you:

[http://isteve.blogspot.com/2012/10/pinker-takes-crack-at-
exp...](http://isteve.blogspot.com/2012/10/pinker-takes-crack-at-explaining-
red-v.html)

But while these theories help explain why the seemingly diverse convictions
within the right-wing and left-wing mind-sets hang together, they don’t
explain why they are tied to geography. The historian David Hackett Fischer
traces the divide back to the British settlers of colonial America. The North
was largely settled by English farmers, the inland South by Scots-Irish
herders. Anthropologists have long noted that societies that herd livestock in
rugged terrain tend to develop a “culture of honor.” Since their wealth has
feet and can be stolen in an eye blink, they are forced to deter rustlers by
cultivating a hair-trigger for violent retaliation against any trespass or
insult that probes their resolve. Farmers can afford to be less belligerent
because it is harder to steal their land out from under them, particularly in
territories within the reach of law enforcement. As the settlers moved
westward, they took their respective cultures with them. The psychologist
Richard Nisbett has shown that Southerners today continue to manifest a
culture of honor which legitimizes violent retaliation. ... Admittedly, it’s
hard to believe that today’s Southerners and Westerners carry a cultural
memory of sheepherding ancestors. But it may not be the herding profession
itself that nurtures a culture of honor so much as living in anarchy.

~~~
clock_tower
All right! I'm beyond delighted to read this -- to know that there are other
fans of Pinker, Fischer, and Nisbett out there! Have you read _Bound Away_
yet? (It's the companion volume Fischer promised at the end of _Albion's
Seed_; it doesn't deal with slavery alone, but with Virginia in general.)

Expressed this lucidly, I almost feel that the exception is those without a
culture of honor, not those with one -- that the North and not the South is
the odd one. After all, while it's hard to drive off land, it's perfectly
possible to burn buildings and loot crops... unless the farmers can band
together into militias more powerful than the invading army, which the North
certainly does.

My anecdotal experience as a Southerner living in the North was that everyone
cared about conformity and hierarchy (including seeing where you were in the
hierarchy), and was hostile to the South's combination of a hot temper and a
live-and-let-live outlook. But you don't want hot heads or amiability in a
territorial militia, and you do want a lot of concern with hierarchy;
otherwise your militia will be uncontrollable.

You wouldn't happen to be in the Seattle area, would you? I'd love to get
together, and to have the chance to talk about these sorts of things in
person.

------
Animats
There are ways to deal with that. "Yeah, whatever" can help. Pull out your
phone and take a video. Divert your attention, and the attention of others, to
something other than the person having the tantrum. This can be useful in
negotiations.

~~~
ktRolster
Another one is saying, "When you are ready to calm down and act like an adult,
we can discuss this."

~~~
intopieces
I'm not sure being patronizing or sarcastic is particularly productive for
situations where the person you are speaking to is of a higher status than
you. This strikes me as something one wishes one could say, but doesn't dare.

~~~
ktRolster
_This strikes me as something one wishes one could say, but doesn 't dare._

I've said it. When someone acts like a child, it's not patronizing to call
them out: it's treating them with respect.

~~~
justratsinacoat
> When someone acts like a child, it's not patronizing to call them out: it's
> treating them with respect

While this is actually correct, someone wise enough to intuitively grasp this
probably isn't going to be throwing a tantrum in the first place.

~~~
ktRolster
Sometimes all you need to do is point it out.

------
facetube
The tantrum isn't the status symbol. Not getting fired for the tantrum is the
status symbol.

~~~
aetherson
From the article:

> Of course, like a swagger, the signal is not so much the tantum itself as
> the fact that someone can get away with it.

~~~
facetube
Thanks, oversight and too late to delete. Lost that line in the footer.

------
b-orges
As a professional in the culinary world this is certainly true of many chefs.

~~~
clock_tower
Abnormally hot tempers seem to go back a bit in cuisine; Orwell's _Down and
Out in Paris and London_ has some memorable examples.

------
gbog
That's for medium high status of those who need to make sure they "have it". A
bit like the "I'm CEO bitch" on Zuckerberg's name card: Really high statuses
persons have no name cards, and they have no need to ever loose their temper.
If something is not to their liking, they will denote it with an even lower
tone in their voice. Very competent people around them are listening and will
remedy.

Or is this a cultural thing and in US people with real power still loose their
temper (and face) like in the movies? I can't believe it... Will Mr Page shout
like a kid because G+ did not meet expectations? I hope not...

~~~
chippy
You are correct, those at the top won't throw a tantrum with those at the
bottom, the rank and file. But they will throw a tantrum with their immediate
underlings.

A CEO will tantrum and get away with it with the upper management. The CEO's
interaction with middle management and the workers will be much more even and
charming.

------
draw_down
He's right that people higher up do these things more because they can get
away with it, but I'm not sure that makes it a signal. These people are in an
environment that allows them to do it, so they do. People who won't get away
with it would tend to think better of it, before losing their job or some
other reasonably dire consequence.

------
aznpwnzor
This is what "fuck you" money / influence is.

~~~
rfrey
Fuck you money is about not having to tolerate the tantrums.

~~~
marklgr
If we are talking about N. "fuck you money" Taleb, then he does not throw
tantrums, but he resorts to pretty obnoxious behavior on a regular basis.

------
squozzer
The article looks a little short. Needs another paragraph. Here's my
suggestion - Feel free to taser such people.

~~~
throweway
Upvoted!

------
m23khan
While Bosses and Execs through tantrums are another class altogether - I can
suggest a way or two to put a Team Lead/Architect in place when they throw a
tantrum (NOTE: this only works if you actually know your shit and are
correct):

\- Shout back and stare down. Match such a person eye-to-eye. But don't take
the heat personally. Simply play-back the game.

\- Never-ever (NEVER EVER!!) let anybody (ANYBODY!!) shape your career.

\- Rebuff the Lead/Architect: Tell him/her that this immature behavior will
not be tolerated and if this continues, you will take your own direction and
won't require his/her services as your lead.

However, sometimes a __hole Lead /Architect are too powerful/influential and
can actually impact your career. In such cases, don't waste time and apply
elsewhere.

~~~
MawNicker
"Never-ever (NEVER EVER!!) let anybody (ANYBODY!!) shape your career."

Um... How does one do that exactly? I think you mean: Never-ever form a
concept of how much other people actually do shape your career. Which is
obviously stupid advice. Not that I don't find obsequiousness as annoying as
you apparently do.

~~~
throweway
Sounds like a very personal story generalised to advice. Perhap it should be
never ever let that asshole Tim shape your career. For example.

