When in doubt, ask for clarification. Any good manager should know that.
Yeah, I know that a lot of people are saying Randal was probably uncertain about what Trump meant. To my mind, that does not excuse his actions. Why not seek clarification, if he was so uncertain? It’s a sign of poor leadership to plunge ahead without understanding the situation.
Besides, he sure didn’t act as though he didn’t know what Donald’s intentions were.
Word! The best employees know how to make others look good, even as they themselves shine. This is especially true of managers and the teams that they lead.
At first, I thought Randall was extremely petty and insecure for telling Trump so emphatically not to hire Rebecca, but some of the well written counterviews in this thread have softened my opinion.
I still think Rebecca is a good enough find for the Trump Organization to merit hiring her (though not as the $250K per year Apprentice), but I agree that Trump was wrong to handle it the way he did. I don’t believe he was putting Randal on the spot for any of the insane reasons some have written. He probably wanted to give Randal the chance to be the giver of what would have been a very special gift and allow him to praise his rival one last time. Had Trump phrased it differently, like “Randal, there can only be one Apprentice, but I believe there is always room for stars in my companies. If you were me, do you think I should offer Rebecca a job?” I think Randal would’ve answered yes to that, Rebecca and Trump would’ve been happy and Randal could’ve enjoyed the spoils of his victory without looking like Omarosa’s male counterpart.
I don’t believe there was any malice intended on anyone’s part, just a poor choice of words from Trump that led to perhaps a more emotional reaction than expected out of Randal. I sincerely hope he and Rebecca smooth things out because she looked upset with him and during the show they seemed to genuinely like each other.
Still, what a season! We had the ineptness of Marcus, the quadruple firing massacre and “Alla, sit…you’re fired!” I hope Trump hand picks the candidates from all future seasons as well because he did a damn fine job this season.
The fact that he interrupted Randall in the middle of his victory celebration to ask him whether Rebecca should be hired too, indicates that it was a position on par with Randall’s. If it wasn’t supposed to come off like a co-apprentinceship, why pose the question like that? If the job Trump had in mind for Rebecca was supposed to be of lower status, it would have been more appropriate to offer it to her off-camera. Because he made a big deal of bringing that question up in the first place, I think it’s much more reasonable to assume a co-apprentice than to assume anything else. The finale was marketed as having a huge twist for a reason. Giving a consolation prize of a job to the loser does not constitute a huge twist.
If Randall had said yes, Trump would have immediately taken that as his cue to say to Rebecca “You’re hired!” I can’t see him qualifying with, “you’re hired…as something less than a real apprentice, though.” He would have simply pointed at her and said the same thing he says to all the winners. Then cue the celebration music for both Rebecca and Randall, thus marking the day that The Apprentice had two winners and not one. I have no doubt that this is how it would have played out.
I think that’s what Randall had a problem with (and I can’t blame him). DT was trying to turn the game into a Special Olympics event where everyone is a winner, competence be damned. Doing that would have devalued Randall’s accomplishments because it would have made the world see Rebecca as his professional equal, when that is not the case. Instead of making the media circuit as the sole apprentice, he would have had to split half of the limelight with someone else. As it is, he’s still going to have to deal with the Rebecca question, but at least he made it be known that he is the sole winner of the game.
I don’t think people would have forgotten about Randall, but I do think they may have given the two equal billing. Especially since a “co-hiree” would be seen as a novelty and therefore deserving of lots of press.
Trump would be constantly asked, “Why did you decide to give Rebecca a job?”, not “Randall sure was a sharp guy, wasn’t he?”
Perhaps it is egotistical for Randall to care about this. But IMHO it is totally understandable and forgiveable.
I do think it would be interesting for Trump to allow the newly-appointed Apprentice to pick an assistant from the candidate pool. Maybe Trump could limit it to the candidates who had made it to the final five. This allows for additional suspense (Who’s he/she gonna pick??) as well as show that Trump and the Apprentice realize that victory is rarely due to one individual’s efforts. I still think that if Trump had worded the question a little more specifically, Randall would have given the “right” answer.
So true.
Actually I’ve gone from “Randal is a total tool for this” to the Diogonesian theory. This was Randal’s big moment- who realistically would want to share it? It’d be kind of like having the minister at your wedding say “I now present to you Mr. & Mrs. Doper… but hey, while we’re all here and everything, how about Mrs. Doper’s slacker baby brother and his girlfriend coming up here and getting married too? Let’s make it a double wedding! We’re all here and they can stand right next to the other bride and groom and cut the wedding cake together! Whatdya say folks?” It would kind of suck.
Totally agree.
Like I said, it’s a tv show. Ethics and ramifications? There are none. No alternate parallel universe was generated by Randal’s answer.
I just don’t think that’s true. Or rather, it is an exreme exaggeration. It simply makes no sense that a person in Donald’s position would (A) view this as a game, (B) reward failure and punish success, or © disregard whether someone is competent. Rebecca does not constitute “everyone” as in “everyone is a winner”. It was a remarkable season with remarkable people, two of whom happened to rise head and shoulders above the rest. In the end, only one of them remained in that lofty position. And we are disagreeing over just who that is.
Your premise is flawed because it was not a (fully) scripted drama. Someone actually did get a job. People actually did resign from their jobs to try to get this one. Lives actually were affected. Therefore, ethical examinations are appropriate.
I’m sorry, but I disagree that Rebecca rose “head and shoulders” above the rest. I can’t help but think that The Donald had his eye on her from the start. I think she got some lucky breaks (no pun intended, but that broken ankle DID help her image). But, I’m sorry, she just didn’t show me that she was qualified to be The Apprentice.
And Randle did.
Of course Trump views this as a game! It wouldn’t be on TV if it wasn’t a game. The Apprentice has all the hallmarks of a reality-TV era contest. Each week someone is eliminated. Each week one team is declared a winner and one a failure. At the end, the two remaining players face-off to see who is best. The only thing that makes The Apprentice any different from a show like Survivor (which coincidentally happens to be another Burnett production) is that instead of the cast voting players off, Trump does is it. That is a minor difference though, considering that the castmembers often have a lot influence on who goes home each week.
Trump rewarded Rebecca’s “Tethno” failure by letting her stay when she really should have gone home. Especially since she followed that failure up with a vehement defense of the team’s weakest player while simultaneously slamming all the other women on the team. Then she went on to fail again with the singer whom she desperately market as Nigerian, even though the guy had only lived there a few years out of his life. And then she failed to raise one dime at charity benefit. Trump may not consciously think that he is rewarding failure, but if you look at the facts objectively (which he did not), that’s exactly what he did with Rebecca. He rewarded her failure by ignoring it. And by treating her as Randal’s equal, he minimized Randall’s performance throughout the show.
The Apprentice is supposed to narrow the pool of contestants down to the best. One player was clearly a better player than the other. So yes, he did disregard competence by wanting to hire two people at the end of the show. They were not equal. There was no true tie.
That’s arguable, Liberal. She wasn’t horrible, but she wasn’t head and shoulders above a lot of the people there. Alla and Felicia won more tasks than she did, with fewer mistakes. But regardless, among the 2 finalists, one player was head and shoulders above the other. The more superior player deserved to bask in the glow of his success, secure in the knowledge that he won fair and square, just like all the apprentices before him.
So do you think, on the basis of pure merit, that Randall deserved the job more than Rebecca did? Do you think this is debatable?
One of the players spoke his mind when asked a question. Instead of being the “nice guy” that Trump counted on him being, he stood up for himself. I like Sampiro’s analogy, but I will go him one further: Trump attempted to make the high school valedictorian share the podium of prestige with someone having a lower GPA. Sure, the valedictorian is still the valedictorian, but in name only if he has to the share recognition with someone of lesser standing. I don’t understand why it’s so difficult to see how unfair of a position that is to be.
When I said Trump was unclear, I meant that Randal may have, understandably, interpreted it the same way I did: that Rebecca would be a co apprentice. So he answered based on that interpretation. you with the face makes a good case about why Randal may have interpreted it that way. If Trump wanted to know whether Randal would recommend hiring Rebecca in some other capacity, he should have said so.
Even if Randal was confused as to what Trump meant, it really wasn’t the time or place to get into a long discussion of just what Trump’s offer would be. They had 1-2 minutes left in the broadcast, they were in front of a studio audience and cameras. I think it would have been more tacky to get into a whole discussion of what Randal would and wouldn’t recommend with regards to hiring Rebecca. So he stated the one thing he wouldn’t recommend–that Rebecca be a co apprentice–and left the door open to other possibilities.
I agree that there are significant consequences to the contestants on this show and, therefore, ethical examinations are appropriate (plus, it’s a fun discussion). However, I guess there’s a difference between my viewpoint and yours in that I see this as a competition put on for entertainment. That doesn’t mean it’s insignificant. Many entertainment-based competitions have significant consequences (e.g. professional sports). I do, however, think that a competition should have a winner and not award the prize to everyone who makes the grade.
I hadn’t thought of the prodigal son parellel. That was interesting because it did make me rethink my position for a moment. As a kid (and into my early 20’s), I had a very hard time with that parable. I had to think about this situation and see if I wasn’t bringing back some of those feelings.
But, in the end, I still think Randal did the right thing. Again, it’s because I see this as a competition to find the very best candidate. If it weren’t, it would be completely different. Trump could decide to fire someone on a winning team if they showed they’d never meet his standards. He could decide to hire more than the top two. He could decide to hire no one.
My problem with the prodigal son parable is that this isn’t Sunday School we’re talking about. And let’s face it: none of us would really want to WORK with the prodigal son. Love him, yes. Respect him for trying to do “right”, yes. But work with him in a corporate setting. No, not really.
At some point you have to start wondering about blacks, or Mark Burnett’s views towards them. We have a long history of his shows portraying blacks as lazy, evil, or insane.
btw, i’m calling mark burnett a racist, not declaring black people one way or another.
I don’t disagree, but in that vein, life itself is a game. Work is a game. There are rules. People execute tasks in teams. They are judged collectively and individually on their success or failure. And their peers have a lot of influence on what happens to them. I don’t think it is a very meaningful discussion if we’re going to call every human praxis a game. Besides, I wasn’t saying that it isn’t a game; I was saying that Donald doesn’t view it as a game — a statement he himself has made repeatedly.
Well, let’s not exaggerate here. Randall was far from perfect. He had his moments, whether it was publishing the wrong station number on his poster, or leaving Darth Vader completely out of a display about Darth Vader, or taking the whole crew shopping at a cheapo party store, or assigning one lone man to set up the entire Outback VIP area, or paying scant attention to the pitch from the autism charity, or failing to check the weather report for an outdoor event, or failing to have a back-up plan just in case — Randall was not the Apprentice god.
So you say. But why is your opinion any better than mine or Donald’s?
I agree that he deserved to bask. I don’t advocate taking anything away from him. Let him bask. But there is a difference between basking and wallowing. He would not lose his laurels just for being gracious. In fact, it could have been one more olive branch in the cluster. Instead, he seemed to decide that now that he had won, all others must grovel lest we all be confused and misake him for being ordinary. It seems to me that he who sits on his laurels wears them in the wrong place.
I said going in that I would be satisfied with either one winning. I think it was too close to call. Yes, Rebecca lost tasks as a leader, but she led she-devils with claws. And when she led Randall, she won. The instant his victory was announced, I cheered out loud. But the instant he answered Donald’s question, I booed him.
Being nice and standing up for oneself are not mutually exclusive. Suppose Donald had told Randall, “If you leave the show, you leave the show. Don’t come back.” Fair, sure. But dickheaded, certainly. Rules do not confine leaders; they are guidelines, not laws of physics. I thought Randall’s decision was childish and myopic, like a kid not wanting his little sister to touch his Christmas present. It was not a question of granting Rebecca equal status with Randall. After all, it wasn’t she who got to decide about the other one. Randall’s first decision with his crown on his head was to make sure that Rebecca was given no tiara. So, boo on him.
Well, if the kid had been promised a present if he brought home mostly As on his report card, and on Christmas morning he discovers that his parents had decided to give his younger sister the same gift even though her grades weren’t as good, then I don’t blame the kid for being a little pouty. No, her getting a present doesn’t rob him of his, but it does demean the whole point of rewarding an achievement.
I think Randall’s decision was perfectly human and understandable. And although I agree with you, Liberal, that Randall’s record was not perfect, he did objectively better than Rebecca. Hands down. That should mean something.
I don’t think that would have gone over well. Remember, Trump was only asking for Randal’s opinion. He didn’t say that Randal would be the final decision maker. Under those circumstances, I think it would have been terribly unwise to say “That’s your call, not mine” instead of offering an honest opinion.
Not true, as evidenced by the wealth of discussion on this matter.
Well, he did offer an honest opinion and yet he’s getting a lot of flack for it. The poor guy can’t win.