I'm part of a tech/open source community where the people leading the project are displaying some very gamma behavior. They can't take any criticism, have to be right on everything, refute major points with minor technical quibbles, etc. On top of it all, there's a very big split in the community and while there's some stuff being done, the Gammas are clearly preventing further progress with their toxic attitude. That said, they do have technical talent and the problem is mostly that they seem to be in ill-fitted leadership roles where their insecurity is having a detrimental effect.The best course of action is to force them down into their natural place in the hierarchy, which is taking orders and doing what they are told without any input into the decision-making process. This is not always possible, of course, so the second-best course of action is to leave and rebuild the project anew without their participation.
Anyway, what's the best course of action to make the community better? Is it even possible to survive Gamma leadership?
And in answer to the second question, no, it is not possible for an project, a business, or a nation to survive Gamma leadership, because Gammas are not leaders and are not successful people. They will cheerfully burn the entire thing down at a moment's notice merely because they feel insufficiently appreciated or insufficiently respected, regardless of how bad their performance has been or how poorly the project is doing.
This does not mean Gammas are stupid or untalented. In fact, they tend to be smarter than the average, and their lack of social status often means they've had the time to develop their talents beyond the norm. Unfortunately, this reliably results in them overestimating their abilities and encouraging their misplaced ambitions, and thereby seeking to promote themselves well beyond their psychological ability to usefully contribute to a group objective.
Gammas make useful critics. They are very good at identifying problems because they love nothing better than to tell someone that they are wrong. But they are hideously bad at prioritizing, delegating, managing, and providing vision.