Undercover Boss

I've caught 4 of the 5 episodes of CBS's Undercover Boss this season via DVR. It's a great concept, except that it's on TV.

I'll admit, after seeing the first episode I was totally sold. I thought it was done well and the concept of going undercover to really see what's going on in your company is exactly what corporate America needs to access higher standards at all levels of employment. But then I saw a second episode.

If your show is based on transparency and shock value, I would think the key is to really deliver those items. What they've done instead is created a cookie-cutter story board on which each episode is based and asked that the respective executives fill in the gaps. Here's where my real disappointment lies: you're an executive in a company large enough to have a recognizable logo and you agreed to do a show where you go undercover to work the front line and you're shocked to find that some of your thousands of employees are underpaid, under-utilized, over-worked, and have personal, sometimes tragic, lives outside of work. Why are you in charge of a company?

If you're going undercover to discover operational shortfalls and truly lackluster business practices and happen to encounter some remarkable individuals along the way, then fine. But, with the exception of the Hooters episode where they addressed some seriously disturbing management styles, these executives are doing nothing but realizing that they have people working for them and not machines. If your COO / CEO / VP / President's jaw drops at this discovery, I'd seek new employment immediately.

What are the odds that, in 5 out of 5 cases so far, a senior executive is not only exceptionally incapable of completing minimum wage work, but that the manager in charge of training who they think is a newbie is 100% of the time willing, on camera, to announce that said executive will likely not last in the position? Unlikely.

Why is it that so far every guy's voice is laid over a panning image of the budget hotel the first morning they're going to work saying, "My biggest fear today is being discovered" -- why is that only their fear today? Since they're always in a new city the next day, why are they not fearful of being recognized the following day? And really, are you that egotistical that you think minimum wage employees a) care who you are, and b) know what you look like? Maybe that's the first problem you should address.

It's unfortunate that the producers in control of such an opportunity aren't more interested in dynamic. I suppose that it sort of works to have the undercover announcement - significant fail of the executive on the front line - fortunate meeting of an outstanding employee - trip to the home office confrontation - announcement that the company will improve, structure of the show, but only for so long before you see the first person and say, 'welp, there's our token charity case' and so on. What would make this show worthwhile and likely entice talented people to involve his or her company, is to truly put the leader in the front line and see what happens, without prompting them to meet a great person who needs help, or to fail at their employees' work.

The lack of reality in reality TV is exactly why it will never be great. And until some company is daring enough to cut the puppet strings and really let the players play, there will never be a remarkable story or significant change as a result.


bk

Game-changers

I was reading a post today that spoke about how successful companies are getting back to the old fashioned way of thinking that, no matter what widget you make, buy or sell, your company is only as strong as the people who are working towards its success. This is true, I think, but the ambiguity as to what is a strong or valuable front line employee, manager, executive, etc., is where the real failure gap lies.

I know lots of people. I know many successful people. I know a bunch of great leaders who, in turn, are great people. But I only know a handful of extraordinary people, because extraordinary people have the ability to be dynamic -- they can be, quite literally, whatever they need to be. And that is why they are valuable; they change the game entirely.

Quite often I see folks in a leader's chair but they're playing a follower's game. They're there to make someone happy, they're the push-over, they're a bully, they're only smart and not innovative, they make rules instead of listening to ideas, and they're able to be characterized by one word. The valuable person that is changing the game, the one who really matters in today's changing industries is able to play all of those roles -- he doesn't piss off everyone all the time and certainly doesn't make everyone happy all the time, because he knows that neither of those will bring success. The human being who relates to his employees, goes home to a family and understands the importance of it, leads by example with kindness and knows how to adapt to situations in a way that motivates every person in the meeting -- that is the extraordinary person who is pertinent in successful companies, the one who is more important than ever in today's world.