Is there More than One Alpha

We recently explored the notion of the “alpha” and felt that the assigned definition was too one-dimensional. In fact, we believe that there are sub-classes of alphas. I came up with two: the “alpha-a” type (alpha alluring) and “alpha-b” type (alpha brutish). I personally realize - through some further thought and research - that this subject is way more complicated than even narrowing alpha down to two categories, but in my mind, I had to start somewhere. Here’s how I define the distinction. Both are highly intelligent, competent, competitive, opinionated, somewhat fidgety, attention-getters. What distinguishes alpha-a from alpha-b is that alpha-a has greater emotional intelligence (EI) and, more importantly, has a higher degree of social intelligence (SI). What is the difference? Daniel Goleman says that EI has to do with “self-mastery” and, I would add, seeking personal betterment; SI has to do with “empathy” in communication, i.e. how a person relates to other people, aspires them and is tuned into them (2008).

Not many of us in our doctoral class labeled ourselves as alphas. And, by the definition given in the article we read on alphas, I am not convinced that any of us would want to define ourselves as alphas. And I would argue that we are not alphas. I would even venture to say that you wouldn’t find too many of those alphas in such a higher learning space unless it had direct ROI on their career position (and, I mean career position, specifically; I am not talking about career path, on which we are all traversing). However, I think the definition from which we were all working was one based on alpha-b and if I shift my perception to an alpha-a definition then I think actually many of us do qualify! And it is a compliment!

What I do want to point out is findings about 5 types of individuals in the context of resource control theory: bistrategic controllers, coercive controllers, prosocial controllers, non-controllers, and typical controllers. “Controllers” is defined by the strategy used to influence. Bistrategic (1) controllers use both prosocial strategies of reciprocation and cooperation as well as coercive strategies of aggression and intimidation, to a high degree relative to peers. Coercive (2) controllers rely only on coercive strategies to a high level; prosocials (3) rely on those social strategies. Non-controllers (4) are low in both areas. Typical (5) controllers form the largest grouping and are average in both areas. Bistrategics have the highest level of social dominance status and are able to work the social elements while also bypassing or confronting them. (Hawley, Shorey and Alderman, 2009.) I am just guessing but I correlate bistrategic controllers with alpha-a types and coercive controllers as alpha-b types, both successful but different. And to really go out on a limb, I think prosocials are tier 2 management: the kind that gets to a certain, fairly successful point, is well-liked and appreciated in the organization, but who don’t quite make it to the top.

Wait, there’s more! Hawley et al. developed their research to identify how confidence and anxiety relate to these types. Ironically, they found that bistrategic controllers run average on confidence and have a high propensity toward anxiety and avoidance (of intimacy)! Coercive controllers have high levels of anxiety and avoidance and run low on confidence. Proscials experience high confidence, low avoidance and modest anxiety, but do not have high achievement orientation. (Hawley et al. 2009.) To me, this does not compute, at least if we operate on the assumption I made above correlating these types to alpha material.

An entirely other forum could be devoted to the similarities and differences between the sub-categories within alphas as they relate to gender. For example, Nancy Briton and Judith Hall developed research on the gender differences in nonverbal cues. They found that women were rates higher than men at interacting with people and recognizing facial expressions, gestures and expression in voice. “Women were perceived by both male and female participants to be fluent, skilled, and involved communicators” (Briton and Hall, 1995). Some would argue that these predispositions lend themselves to greater SI. They could be the reason why alpha females are labeled less overly aggressive. Gill Corkindale, Executive Coach, also believes that alpha females are less likely to run in packs than their male counterparts (2008) and that there are less alpha females than males. So, here is my question: is there such thing a thing an alpha-a female and alpha-b female, assuming you agree with the alpha-a and alpha-b definitions? Or, do we stereotype alpha-a and alpha-b, in thinking that alpha-a is more of a female definition and alpha-b is more male? However, we can envision male leaders of the alpha-a qualities, can’t we. And certainly we can envision those in our past who are alpha-b. I find it hard to come up with female alpha-b type. I don’t think they make it. I think that they are shut down because they push the envelope too far on societal norms.

Briton, Nancy J. and Hall, Judith A. (1995). Beliefs about female and male nonverbal communication. Sex Roles, 32, 1 / 2. Department of Psychology: Northeastern University, p. 79-90.

Corkindale, Gill (2008). Keys to working with alpha personalities. Presented by Harvard Business Review, as seen on YouTube. Retrieved from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JP3KkAdT25I&feature=channel

Goleman, Daniel (2008). Social intelligence and Leadership. Presented by Harvard Business Review as seen on YouTube. Retrieved from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Qv0o1oh9f4

Hawley, Patricia H., Shorey, Hal S., and Alderman, Paul M. (2009). Attachment correlates of resource-control strategies: Possible origins of social dominance and interpersonal power differentials. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships: 26:1097. DOI: 10.1177/0265407509347939.