Undercover boss? Underwhelming TV
For some reason, I’ve recently found myself catching the new reality series “Undercover Boss”, a CBS version of a British show of the same name. If you haven’t seen the show, the concept is this (from the show site):
Each week a different executive will leave the comfort of their corner office for an undercover mission to examine the inner workings of their company. While working alongside their employees, they will see the effects their decisions have on others, where the problems lie within their organization and get an up-close look at both the good and the bad while discovering the unsung heroes who make their company run.
So far, they’ve run episodes featuring the CEOs of Waste Management, Hooters, and 7-eleven infiltrating their organizations.I’ve caught the Waste Management and Seven-11 episodes.
The disturbing part of the series for me has been its utter shallowness. The formula is a simple one to describe:
- CEO is painted as a great guy, family man, and all-round good Joe
- Company is profiled as a great success
- CEO begins the undercover job
- CEO discovers his utter lack of competence at most or all of the jobs that his company carries out
- CEO discovers some minor problems with the company
- CEO discovers his employees are the salt of the earth, and may face challenges that their job doesn’t address (sick relatives, financial problems)
- The CEO meets with his senior leadership to explain the ways in which this is going to “totally change the way we do business”, and then meets with the employees as the CEO.
The Waste Management episode, for example, profiled Jacqueline, an employee who was carrying out the work of several people and juggling multiple financial commitments; another employee continued to work despite being on dialysis for 20 years; a third who literally ran to punch in on time because every minute of lateness was penalized by the loss of two minutes’ pay.
Waste Management CEO Larry O’Donnell rewarded Jacqueline with a move from hourly pay to a salary and a promotion. He asked the plant manager to change the lateness policy.
All of this Ebenezer Scrooge-ish conversion is inspiring. But perhaps I’m too cynical to believe in it, as I would if Dickens wrote it.
Is all it takes a one-week immersion in the “real world” for a CEO to turn his back on company policies? And while it’s wonderful that a handful of employees get “face time” with the CEO and may get rewarded for being superior performers, what about the others — those who don’t get to see the CEO haul trash or wash beer mugs.
In The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, reporter Vera Miles is told by her editor: “When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.” In this case, I’d rather see the facts than a Thomas Kinkade portrait of the world of business.
FreshBooks – the amazing time tracking / invoicing / project management solution
Yeah, I’ve seen all four episodes online (at watch.ctv.ca – not trying to plug it, just there to see). I’d amend the sixth point to refer specifically to the specific handful of employees he meets in his work. If I were an employee of one of those companies who had similar problems to one of those featured, and I saw the bonuses that those people got, I wouldn’t be filled with joy at my fearless leader, I’d be pissed that those specific employees were propped up to make the company look better.
It does tug at your heartstrings (I mean, it’s formulated to), but then they talk about how the boss spends a week at various jobs, and often you’ll see fewer than five days’ worth of jobs. Makes you wonder what’s on the cutting room floor.
In the latest episode (White Castle), I noticed there was a pretty significant problem at one of the jobs which was conveniently ignored when it came to resolution time. One of the more minor issues from that job was dealt with instead.
You’ve also got to wonder how they choose which jobs and locations to put the guy, and how the ‘hiring’ process goes. Exactly how controlled/scripted is this stuff?
The Hooters one was really funny, because one of the problems was members of the public chastised Hooters girls giving out free wings on the sidewalk because they were in demeaning positions. The CEO’s solution was to have a ‘public education campaign’ on how girls like to work there. He claimed absolute ignorance that people thought it was chauvenistic, when there’s a fake traffic sign in the corporate boardroom referring to ‘bumps in the road’ obviously referring to breasts.
I’ll stop now because this comment is longer than your post. At least the show makes for interesting fiction.
- RG>
I enjoy the show somewhat. It reminds me of Shark Tank in a way. But this show is a spinoff of a Canadian version (Dragons Den), which is a spinoff of the British version.
But the interesting thing with Shark Tank is that it actually has 2 of the Canadian Dragons (panelists) on the show, who are really different versions of themselves on each show. On Shark Tank, the Canucks are so much more calm and calculating in what they say, whereas on the Canadian version, there’s very little filtering going on.
If produced in Canada, would the Canadian version of Undercover Boss be as edited and “feel good” as the U.S. version? Is there a subtle cultural divide in business/TV between Canada and the U.S.?