18 ms·
Tantrums as Status Symbols (2005)
- aznpwnzor 11y agoThis is what "fuck you" money / influence is.
- jonnathanson 11y agoIt'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.]
- pjlegato 11y agoThe article does note that, in the last sentence: "Of course, like a swagger, the signal is not so much the tantum itself as the fact that someone can get away with it."
- tikhonj 11y agoThat'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 11y ago> including one new theory I don't think so.
- _RPM 11y agoI don't believe that Entourage is an accurate depiction. I've seen the whole series. I bet in the real world if events took place like they did in the show, then legal action against Ari would have been taken. However, I did still enjoy the show, but I took it for what it is: a fictional satire show on premium television, nothing more nothing less.
- jonnathanson 11y agoThe show is obviously exaggerated for dramatic and/or comedic effect at times. But it's shockingly accurate in its depiction of the film industry: movie studios, agencies, the politics of it all, the day to day details, the personalities, and so forth. Hell, even Ari is closely based on a real-life superagent who happens to be named Ari. I've never been a mover and shaker in Hollywood, and I fled that business long ago. But trust me, I certainly lived and worked in that scene for the better part of a decade. Entourage comes closer to capturing the details and feel of Hollywood than any other depiction I have seen in recent memory. Every so often I actually had a hard time watching the show because it dredged up all sorts of awkward memories and nostalgia.
- fleitz 11y agoIt does work both ways to some extent, do you think Ari only started throwing tantrums once he reached the top?
- jonnathanson 11y agoNo, but I do believe he only started throwing tantrums when he first became a rainmaker and knew it.
- qznc 11y agoSo, why can Donald Trump get away with throwing tantrums but Rubio or Cruz cannot?
- pjc50 11y agoBecause he's a celebrity, not a politician. His followers love Donald Trump, while people backing Rubio or Cruz are doing so for far less emotional reasons. He's working from a different script, playing a different game, appealing to a different audience. It's staged drama like professional wrestling. The uselessness of the American media helps him along, too.
- b-orges 11y agoAs a professional in the culinary world this is certainly true of many chefs.
- clock_tower 11y agoAbnormally hot tempers seem to go back a bit in cuisine; Orwell's _Down and Out in Paris and London_ has some memorable examples.
- facetube 11y agoThe tantrum isn't the status symbol. Not getting fired for the tantrum is the status symbol.
- Animats 11y agoThere 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 11y agoAnother one is saying, "When you are ready to calm down and act like an adult, we can discuss this."
- intopieces 11y agoI'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 11y agoThis 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 11y ago> 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 11y agoSometimes all you need to do is point it out.
- AlgorithmicTime 11y ago
- amag 11y agoPersonally 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 11y agoI'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 11y agoSteven Pinker agrees with you: http://isteve.blogspot.com/2012/10/pinker-takes-crack-at-explaining-red-v.html http://isteve.blogspot.com/2012/10/pinker-takes-crack-at-exp... 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.
- Snargorf 11y agoIt'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 11y agoWhich 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 11y agoCommendable 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 11y ago
- squozzer 11y agoThe article looks a little short. Needs another paragraph. Here's my suggestion - Feel free to taser such people.
- throweway 11y agoUpvoted!
- colllectorof 11y agoWhen 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 11y agoThats very astute.
- m23khan 11y agoWhile 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 ahole Lead/Architect are too powerful/influential and can actually impact your career. In such cases, don't waste time and apply elsewhere.
- MawNicker 11y ago"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 11y agoSounds like a very personal story generalised to advice. Perhap it should be never ever let that asshole Tim shape your career. For example.
- chippy 11y agoBosses, Execs, middle manager, Team Leads etc can always throw a tantrum, but only with those directly under them. So, your if team lead can throw a tantrum and get away with it, they will only do so with no one above them present. It's about status and power. If they cannot get away with a tantrum, ask yourself why? Possibly it's because their underlings perform the same things as your advice advocates. What would such a boss do in this situation to consolidate their status?
- draw_down 11y agoHe'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.
- gbog 11y agoThat'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...
- walrus 11y agoI worked at a company (in the US) where there were stories of the CEO losing his temper. He must have gotten it under control at some point, since I never witnessed it while I was there.
- eru 11y agoDepends. Some people just like blowing steam. If you are high enough status, you can do what you want there.
- chippy 11y agoYou 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.