[uqual]

We have many real life human "experiments" that can be looked to in determining if the "alpha" concept is a "more successful" model in business. This is particularly true in areas where demand for highly qualified employees outstrips supply - such as many flavors of software development.

If the 'alpha' model is universally detrimental to success in business, it would quickly die out.

However it has not and most modern (and premodern) successful companies (by metrics of growth, profit, income, revenue, PE etc) have been founded and grown by "alpha" leaders and staff.

There are of course exceptions but we would expect the "alpha" model to instead be the exception if it was a less successful way of running a business.

In practice, both can co-exist and as a company matures it may, over time, switch between models.

Some people like the driven competitive environment and seek it out and will tend to end up at enterprises that favor the "alpha" model. Others who dislike such environments will seek out enterprises that utilize alternative models. An individual will likely be more productive in the environment best suited for them and an individual will rarely switch from a strong preference for one of these environments to a strong preference for an alternative environment.

If there is substantial dissatisfaction on the part of workers with the "alpha" model and an alternative model would be more productive and successful, startups would blossom that use alternative models and hire away the cream of the crop of the "alpha" companies' employees.

[gnatman]

This is writing of someone steeped in "alpha male" youtube & podcast ideology.

[intalentive]

What he calls the “alpha” model might also be termed a “leader-follower” model where a single authority drives a team to accomplish his singular vision, like the captain of a ship drives and disciplines his crew.

It’s hierarchical and masculine, no doubt, and describes Linus Torvalds and Steve Jobs as well as Walt Disney and Thomas Edison or even General Patton.

This leadership model might not be everyone’s cup of tea but it can definitely be successful, and it’s definitely a real thing, not just some redpill / PUA fantasy.

[stackghost]

>However it has not and most modern (and premodern) successful companies (by metrics of growth, profit, income, revenue, PE etc) have been founded and grown by "alpha" leaders and staff.

Citation needed. By my estimation, the overwhelming majority of CEOs are doughy, effete city slickers who are the exact opposite of the prototypical "alpha male" image.

Zuckerberg, with his MMA training, might be the only one I can think of that fits the stereotype.

Don't confuse the putative "alpha male" with simply being a douchebag, because I can think of quite a large number of CEOs that fit that latter description, but it's not the same thing.

[dsr_]

And by definition, Zuckerberg didn't start out as an "alpha", but decided to emulate one after he was already super-wealthy.

[lmm]

> Don't confuse the putative "alpha male" with simply being a douchebag, because I can think of quite a large number of CEOs that fit that latter description, but it's not the same thing.

Can you clarify the distinction? Most people criticising the "alpha" model seem to equate the two.

[withinboredom]

> grown by "alpha" leaders and staff.

Umm... isn't the whole point of an "alpha" to be the top-man... so how would there be more than one? That doesn't make any internally logical sense.

> An individual will likely be more productive in the environment best suited for them

Good premise, but you don't need the "alpha" theory to argue it.

> in determining if the "alpha" concept is a "more successful" model in business.

You do a really poor job of explaining what this even means, but it sounds bogus from your description. No offense intended.

[lmm]

> isn't the whole point of an "alpha" to be the top-man... so how would there be more than one?

The point is they're top of their pack, not top of the whole world.