When high-power disempowers others: Chris Williamson on Alex Hormozi
This was super interesting.
Alex Hormozi tends to be high power.
But the host was even higher-power, and maintains his high-power frame without giving a F about breaking rapport or disempowering others.
There are many examples in the podcast.
This is just one of them:
Chris: (...) thousands of people who are listening who are that person
Alex: millions (<--- this is a joke/compliment that was slightly disempowering to Chris, but comes from good intentions)
Chris: (ignores it and repeats again in a very high power and dry tone) Thousands of people that are that person. There'll be a lot of people that are listening, don't worry
Alex: (laughs)
Chris: (doesn't laugh and moves on)
Did you see the power dynamics?
Alex' compliment/joke is slightly disempowering because when it exaggerates the number of listeners:
- Subcommunicates the show does NOT have millions of listeners
- The joke's frame makes the reality look bad, Chris can only come down and lose from the frame of the joke (if the joke was "2 listeners" on a show of millions of viewers, the host could laugh it off knowing the reality is much different)
- It focuses on crude numbers, while many winners prefer to focus on the process, the mission, the wisdom exchanged... And not worry about the final result (at least, not publicly 🙂 ).
Chris' answer is very high-power, but... A bit too high power, it ignores the "bid for humor" and it ends up disempowering Alex.
It's disempowering because:
- Chris ignores the joke and remains straight-faced, consider it a "Chris+"
- Alex laughs on his own while Chris steams on, consider it an "Alex-"
- Chris turns the disempowering frame all on Alex when he says "don't worry", which frames Alex as worrying about the listeners
- Chris actively disempowers Alex because while Alex' joke was slightly disempowering, that's often out of someone's ignorance of higher-level power dynamics. But Chris' move was a lot more active and obvious
If you watch the full episode, there are many similar situations.
In the end, Chris ends up "on top", but does so too abruptly, and Alex could have done better to defend himself -especially once it happened the first time because it takes one time to read someone's MO and intention.
PU has one lesson on how to handle high-power people so you don't end up below them.
---
Book a call for personalized & private feedback
Great example, thanks!
I’m wondering in this case isn’t it more high dominance than high power?
I could be wrong of course.
I spotted that Chris smiled when he said "Thousands of people that are that person. There'll be a lot of people that are listening, don't worry".
Doesn't it change somehow the dynamics? It didn't seem the difference in power was so evident to me ( But I see now, "Don't worry, there are more people watching this" is quite a bad thing to say to someone ).
I wonder about response from Alex, maybe something like:
Chris: (ignores it and repeats again in a very high power and dry tone) Thousands of people that are that person. There'll be a lot of people that are listening, don't worry
Alex: ( more neutral tone ) A good exchange of ideas is more than enough for me. ( Fights back against the frame that you do it all for followers ).
But I wonder if it's not a bit of deceptive, after all you may just be there because a lot of people watch it and you wouldn't be there if he had 100 viewers. Maybe owning up to it is better:
Chris: (ignores it and repeats again in a very high power and dry tone) Thousands of people that are that person. There'll be a lot of people that are listening, don't worry
Alex: ( more neutral tone ) I didn't doubt it for a moment, go on ( You affirm viewers are important but you don't spend too much time on it, you frame his comment as unnecessary ).
It may thread expand that you indeed do it for followers, but if that's what's true, why not own it?
@ John,
Yeah you could label it dominant (power minus warmth is even closer to dominance).
Albeit if Alex had been more power self-protective and didn't laugh then the loss of power would have been minimal.
@ DGX37,
Yes, great catch, that smile was indeed a sign of warmth, helps builds a bridge, reaches out towards Alex, and ultimately makes for a smaller win-lose.
Still very small of a smile, and without any sound, so the overall dynamic stands.
As for answering it, I wouldn't do the first one.
The whole game there was all in the sub-communication, and you want to keep it there and not at words-level.
The second one is much better, but I don't think he would have had the time for that as Chris moved on fast.
I'd personally have either:
- avoided laughing if I could catch myself on time
- added a high-power comment to re-instate my frame when it's yout turn to speak (ie.: "could be millions, why not. Anyway... ")
- simply let it go and make a mental note that you need to be less warmth and higher power and recover some power (it's always Ok to lose if you recover later)
If anyone has any thoughts to share on this, happy to read.
---
Book a call for personalized & private feedback
And talking about "reading people" now.
It can be telling that the only time the host actually laughed with gusto was during a win-lose joke:
Alex: (struggling to remember his own quote)
Chris: (quotes it for him)
Chris: I'll quote you, to you, which is a new low
This one:
- Thread expands Alex' brain fart
- Frames it as a "low point" (which is not necessarily true, and one could frame it as "normal not to remember everything one has said")
- Sub-communicates Alex has had several "lows" (of which this one is only the latest)
A more win-win type of player may have wanted to power protect Alex when he wasn't remembering his own words and he had to step in.
But Chris instead stacks another "joke" that makes him look a bit better, but that makes Alex quite a bit worse-off.
Edit:
Why it's telling: high standards for self & low standards for others = win-lose
The reason why that's an important sign to me is because of how it compares to his general behavior.
Compare how he:
- Strongly defended himself when it was about his power
- Nonchalantly dropped another disempowering comment on an already disempowering gaffe when it was about his guest power and reputation
I don't know this guy.
He seems relatively straight and may as well be a great guy.
However, if I'd have to advise a client going on his podcast, I'd tell them to be a lot less warm.
And I'd coach them on how to display some power early and throughout the interview so they don't end up below him.
---
Book a call for personalized & private feedback
It's an awesome thread.
The dynamics seem to have started right at the outset:
Chris: Welcome to the show.
Alex: Thank you for having me.
Chris: My pleasure man.
Chris social scalped Alex's thanks.
Alex immediately went into "I'm the submissive one here" mode from the outset, he started laughing out loud and talking fast.
When Chris said "I'll quote you to you, which is a new low", my feeling is that Chris - being very high in power and low warmth - just played more into the dynamics that were already developing.
That's when, I believe, Alex should have checked Chris's behavior:
Chris: I'll quote you to you, which is a new low.
Alex: No, it's very helpful - not low at all.
If Chris had then maintained the frame:
Chris: I was talking about you.
Alex: That's not very kind man.
Instead, what transpired is that Alex did not check the power move, and got flustered.
Later he made the "millions of viewers" joke by playing on something Chris had talked about - that when he started out with his podcast, he was putting out "shit" that had only "150 viewers".
But the principle is always the same:
If you don't check the power move at the outset, and instead try to rebalance the field by power moving later on a different "topic", you always risk the other person checking your move - and then you become the "social asshole".
Nobody remembers how it started. Everyone is focused on the specific interaction.
I agree that Chris's push-back on the "millions of viewers" joke is out of place from a "keeping rapport" perspective, especially in light of what had transpired before.
Chris was already "coming out on top", and a normal person would definitely give more leeway for being slightly disempowered after disempowering.
The fact that Chris didn't, is an indication of personality focused on always coming out on top - not good for a personal relationship.
Nice one, Bel!
Always good to read your take as you've gotten really really good at sniffing power movers and officially reaching beast mode.
Sounds like you've taken a look from the beginning and yes, you're absolutely right: the disempowering dynamic had started way before.
That was only a "more obvious" power move, but the dynamic was set.
Chris' overall demeanor is one of very low warmth and he's got a vibe of "I'm better than you" / I'm above you.
You have to approach those people higher power and check their power moves, lest you become their bitch (and end up below them).
Alex, normally high power and even here with many elements of high power, wasn't prepared to handle that type of win-lose, "power-over-you approach" (not going to apply a psychological label albeit I'd personally guess he'd fit at least one of the dark triad, but definitely enters into "social asshole" type).
In the other thread, Alex said he himself admitted he wasn't good at reading people -and that may be part of it-.
Result:
He ended up kissing up, seeking rapport, and following his lead way too many times -and often being rebuffed-.
Sucks to see it when you like someone and I like Alex -and yes, I couldn't help but lose some respect after that-.
As for this:
Quote from Bel on April 16, 2023, 3:01 pmBut the principle is always the same:
If you don't check the power move at the outset, and instead try to rebalance the field by power moving later on a different "topic", you always risk the other person checking your move - and then you become the "social asshole".
Nobody remembers how it started. Everyone is focused on the specific interaction.
Yes, you're right.
Great reminder and thank you for that: always check in real time.
Of course, there are always exceptions.
Even the most foundational principle doesn't apply to all situations.
Sometimes it can be too costly to check a power move in real-time and you gotta take note, and make up for it later on.
---
Book a call for personalized & private feedback
Thanks Lucio!
Hello Bel,
Chris: Welcome to the show.
Alex: Thank you for having me.
Chris: My pleasure man.
I don't understand here why is it social scalping: isn't it an acknowledgment that he's receiving value for inviting him?
If you don't check the power move at the outset, and instead try to rebalance the field by power moving later on a different "topic", you always risk the other person checking your move - and then you become the "social asshole".
I agree: if you missed the opportunity to self-defend, coming back later with a "revenge" is not very eagle-like.
Sometimes it can be too costly to check a power move in real-time and you gotta take note, and make up for it later on.
So I'm guessing this would be more on the re-empowering oneself than disempowering the other person, is that correct?
Quote from John Freeman on April 17, 2023, 5:21 pmThanks Lucio!
Hello Bel,
Chris: Welcome to the show.
Alex: Thank you for having me.
Chris: My pleasure man.
I don't understand here why is it social scalping: isn't it an acknowledgment that he's receiving value for inviting him?
There was a thread where a similar dynamic with regard to inviting friends to a house was discussed (but I can't find it now).
I remember the gist of it was that if the host's value-giving is being openly recognized by people (ie by people thanking the host), the best response is to just thank back to acknowledge the value received:
Friend: Thank you for inviting us!
Host: Thank you for coming!
On the other hand, a response like this:
Host: My pleasure man.
Highlights the "host's giving" even more, and thus is social scalping.
To me "My pleasure" equals "I'm doing it because I want to, irrespective of the value you are providing".
Alright I see now, thanks! So yes definitely power-scalping.