I haven’t checked any media websites or blogs. So maybe this has been adequately addressed and covered somewhere. (Actually I did look after I drafted this.)
But does anyone else have any simmering skepticism about the new “reality” show “Undercover Boss”? Parts of it I find encouraging and refreshing. But I can’t get over the lingering unease at the theme that’s permeated every episode so far. That is the notion that employees are almost universally depicted as harder working and more innovative and imaginative than the CEOs believe them to be. This leads the CEOs to love and trust the workers more and to give them various perceived rewards which supposedly represent a ‘Win-Win-Win’ for the company, the employees and the ultimate customers/consumers. What seems missing from all these shows so far is what I believe to be the more rampant fear, stratification, rigidity to founder’s original vision, and mediocrity at all levels of any given organization. What about the examples of employees undermining the company’s goals through sloth, greed, and lack of appropriate oversight? What about supervisors and mid-level managers who are “Yes_Men” unwilling to allow the innovation and imagination because it is “out of the box”?, to use an extremely trite cliché, but one which is apropos.
Admittedly I’ve only watched maybe one entire episode (Churchill Downs), but I’ve seen bits and pieces and the endings of a couple of others. And in every one so far the CEO who went undercover discovers that his workers are better, harder working than he realized. And he proceeds to do what he has unilateral authority to do to improve their work lives. This, in and of itself, is laudable. However, it seems to be pitched as a revelation that is offered up to CEOs of all companies and not for profits. Sounds good. But I don’t see it happening.
For starters, many of the perks, benefits and pay raises that the CEOs lavish on the few lucky guinea pigs who work with them would, if applied across the board to entire companies, eat into the short-term profit/loss posture of the company. One of the reasons the companies were picked, I’m guessing, for being spotlighted on the show is that they are “successful” companies. Among other things, they were profitable companies. I haven’t seen an AIG or Enron or Acorn featured yet.
Secondly, it would be interesting to see a followup program with the front line supervisors and middle managers in some of these companies as to their reaction to the TV treatment of their environment and their application of company policies. They can’t be unanimously happy with how they are portrayed, even indirectly.
Thirdly, I’d like to see a unionized company featured and the program include a little of the give and take of formal labor management processes in the workplace.
Having offered all these caveats and concerns, I generally approve of and endorse the show. I think increases in overall understanding of what I studied in college under the name of “industrial sociology” is a good thing. I just wish the producers wouldn’t leave it at the pabulum level.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Well it's starting to look like this show has no intention of straying too far from its established formula. The "Roto Rooter" episode this past Sunday was the same as the previous ones. The company employees who end up working with the boss basically hit the corporate lottery jackpot. They receive vehicles, scholarships, cash bonuses, anything and everything to make their life perfect working for "the man". One has to wonder, though, what the bottom line profit/loss statement for companies like Roto-Rooter would be if they lavished such largesse on every average or above average employee.
"Third Verse, Same as the First"
The "season ending" episode held to the established early formula. With "1-800Flowers.com" the scenario was similar to what we've come to expect. Boss finds the work at the bottom tough and his workers surprisingly (to him) thoughtful and dedicated. The only new twist was some imagined tension between the two founder brothers. The younger brother who had not done TV commercials went undercover. His differences with older brother CEO were, however, negligible. The other new item was the undercover boss actually getting recognized by a mid-level manager. Solution was to swear the discoverer to secrecy.
Final result was highly rewarding to all employees who came in contact with the boss.
They never all season even hinted at what happens if a company can't afford to bestow largess on happy workers. Or if a company has serious labor/management issues. Obviously, such companies aren't going to volunteer to host and "do" this show. So it will be interesting wheneve they begin "Season Two" to see what else they try to do with this concept.
Actually, I'm not anonymous, just pushed the wrong button. DennisH
Post a Comment