Issue link: http://www.e-digitaleditions.com/i/61375
Fired! idea of Trump firing the incompetent. How can anyone blame them?We all know of the salutary benefit to the stock price when a CEO downsizes several thousand employees. As we know, Jack Welch himself advocates eliminating the bottom ten percent of a company's workforce. But there is one vital distinction between Trump's firing audience. It draws on the same set of desires that the Emperor Vespasian recognized when he commissioned the building of the Coliseum. The Roman people saw their games as a reflection of their nation- al character. Heroism was to be rewarded; cowardice was punished with death. A quick poll of my students indicates that they love the winner, Bill, complained that it was implied, and, therefore, Kwame was lying by omission. This was a low-key call for eth- ical standards in business. Likewise, in the penultimate episode, four Trump execu- queuing up to buy basketballs with his signature. No one told people in line that Kwame was a famous basket- ball player. However, teammate and eventual "Apprentice" andWelch's downsizing.Welch bases his system of metrics, at least allegedly, on job-related performance. Even themost cal- low observer of "The Apprentice" can see that not all of those terminated were directly responsible for their teams' failures. Even so, if two teams are in competition and one comes up short—even when the difference in performance between the two teams is negligible—somebody's head has to roll. The notion of examiningwhat iswrongwith a process, rather tives subjected the remaining four contestants to high-pres- sure interviews. The contestants' responses and the inter- viewers' insights were realistic, useful, and valuable for both students and people in business. The final episode was, in my estimation, the best. It featured a classic standoff between a Harvard MBA and an entrepreneur. These polar business opposites were finally given assignments that approximated real-world executive tasks. Bill, the entrepreneur of the group, was the ultimate winner. In that final episode, I only wished more time had been devoted to why Bill was selected. In great entertainment, we learn something about our world than identifying a fall guy,may be insufficiently dramatic and too subtle for prime time television. It is, however, a better lesson for our students. I fear that our studentswill view"TheApprentice" only to believe, once again, that style triumphs over substance. minor moral dimension—amuses and engages. Great enter- tainment, on the other hand, amuses, engages, and instructs by asking the audience to think about what is transpiring. It can provide ethical insights without being preachy.Onemust admit that "The Apprentice" is successful entertainment. It has drama, ruthless competition, treachery, betrayal, sex appeal, and romance. But I'm not sure it ever rises to the level of great entertainment. There were moments when "The Apprentice" approached that status; but when it did, its voice was muted. In an early episode, for example, eventual runner-up Kwame had people Entertainment? Yes. Education? No. Many members of business faculty have seen the value of incorporating entertainment into their teaching. They've used Shakespeare and other works of literature and film as means of teaching about leadership and other topics. But these works lack the reach of television, which has bombard- ed the public with images of the business world dominated by "Dallas" and "Dynasty" characters for decades.We have been exposed to a view of business that would make the crews at Enron, Worldcom, and Tyco look like Zen monks. Mediocre entertainment—devoid of context or the most dents, it provides us with an excellent forum for active dia- logues. But "The Apprentice" does not represent a model for total student development—development that provides a vital bridge between the merely descriptive aspect of educa- tion and the normative guidelines that are crucial for indi- vidual development. It does not encourage students to grow as technically competitive executives and conscientiousmem- bers of society. When we use the show as an example, our normative guidelines compete with its description of busi- ness behavior. It's a battle we can't, and shouldn't, avoid. And it's a battle we shouldn't be prepared to lose. After sounding rather sanctimonious about "The Apprentice" and Trump, I must admit to my own darker nature. I had hoped that in the last show Trump would turn to the winner and say, "You're not hired to run one of my companies because I've just outsourced that position to an executive in India whom I'll pay $100,000 rather than the $250,000 I'd have to pay you." Now that would be real entertainment—and a good dose of reality. s z David Cadden is a professor of management at Quinnipiac University's School of Business in Hamden, Connecticut. BizEd JULY/AUGUST 2004 49 and ourselves. We also recognize a moral dimension to life. Shakespeare'sRichard III is a captivating character, but I'msure fewin the audience leave the playwanting to be as ruthless as he is in the pursuit of power.Did Shakespeare want people to learn how to send "the murderous Machiavelli back to school"? I should hope not. But do our students view "The Apprentice" and want to emulate what they see? I fear, in some cases, yes. When a show like "The Apprentice" so engages our stu-