The Boardroom

Yeah, I sometimes watch The Apprentice. Yes, the backbiting, the glorification of wealth, and the deification of the Donald aren't particularly edifying, but it makes me laugh and I usually watch while I'm eating dinner/cleaning up, etc. while my wife is at choir practice and the kids are in bed. If I miss 20 minutes because I was putting dishes in the dishwasher, big deal - I can usually still follow the storyline - its all that legal training. But since this is a weblog - let me offer a complaint (just one, really, though there could be more).

Trump (Trump Models?? - who knew - does his ego know no bounds?) regularly offers the project manager the choice between bringing two or three people into the boardroom - usually they say two and he is surprised. I don't understand his surprise. As I see it, the failed project manager is typically the prime target (unless there was a colossal screw up by someone else), bringing two people into the Boardroom provides the decision makers with a more concise focus allowing easier concentration on the other selectees. An additional selectee would force Trump to split his analysis time even further and, in my opinion, increase the likelihood that he falls back to the default "Firee" - the project manager due to a lack of time to fully understand the faults of the three other people in the room. Fewer people in the boardroom allows greater concentration on the faults of the other two (the faults of the project manager are typically well-articulated) and therefore increases the possibility that the negatives of the other two selectees get sufficient hearing to take the focus off the project manager. Its not about 'Odds.'

Okay, a second problem. Last night Trump chastised John for bringing in Andy and not BOTH of the pricing guys. Again, he doesn't appear to understand his own game (which shouldn't be a surprise, he isn't really playing it). Bringing in both of the pricing guys would leave Trump without a good alternative - if he felt pricing was the central problem, he would be forced to attempt to decide which was MORE at fault - this would be too complicated a task and he would fall back to the firing the project manager - the default (of course, if Trump was really bothered by pricing, he could then turn to an alternative set of criteria to decide who should go, but that's another story). Bringing in Andy (which Trump thought wasn't fair) gives Trump a clear set of alternative people and alternative reasons for firing. Each guy stood for a distinct set of firing criteria - Trump was given clear alternatives, which seems to me the best way to take the focus off of the default.

But hey, I wouldn't even make it onto the show in the first place. We will soon go back to our regularly scheduled 'blogging.

Comments

[Vilyamrq]

Hello! great idea of color of this siyte!

[Evitwornori]

Can anyone provide proof that these guys really pay? I mean http://harknessfoundation.net/ , my friend gave me registration link, I'm still pondering can I trust them or not can someone provide proof that Harkness makes payments? payout screenshot would be fine?

[choommitenell]

I was exactly looking for something like that. I hope you like my rare press Nice joke! What is a zebra? 26 sizes larger than "A" bra.