monstro, the problem isn’t that he offered an honest opinion. Rather, the problem is the way he offered it–that, at the rationale he used to justify it.
People aren’t complaining simply because Randal said that Rebecca shouldn’t be hired. Rather, people are objecting to the content and substance of what he said.
The main difference is that life is not filmed with the explicit purpose of providing entertainment. Life has no commercials, no ratings-hungry producers, and no gimmicks such as “you’re fired!”. TA had all those things.
It is naive to take Trump’s word as gospel, especially when we know he is a business man out to make money. If he was truly concerned about picking an apprentice, he could do it without all the stress and drama associated with cameras, producers, and Neilsen ratings.
No, he wasn’t a god. But he performed better than Rebecca overall. Even when he made mistakes as PM, his groups still won the challenges. When Rebecca made mistakes as PM, they tended to directly contribute to the groups’ failure.
Because I can back it up with more objective criteria.
I think you’re reading way more into what he said than what was there. First off, he demanded nothing from Rebecca or anyone else. Remember how he showed graciousness by complimenting her when Trump asked how he felt about Rebecca? “I can’t say enough good things about Rebecca” (paraphrase) doesn’t sound like the words of a selfish egomanic. All he wanted was to stake his claim as the winner of the contest without having to hold hands with someone else.
And why was an olive branch necessary? Randal and Rebecca weren’t at war; they were simply competing against each other. There should have been no hard feelings at the end because the best person won, and therefore even the suggestion of a peace offering would have been an affront to the principle of “this is business, nothing personal”.
And Randall led the same she-devils along with some alpha males, and managed to come away with their respect. So I don’t think this argument holds much water.
You are talking about something different than I was talking about. I never said anything about rules. But I agree with you. Being nice and standing up for oneself are not mutually exclusive. That’s why I still consider Randal to be a nice guy, even though he could have stood up for himself in a more diplomatic way.
It seems that in your opinion, Randall was more of a jerk because he based his opinion on his own idea of what the apprentice means (in Randall’s mind, it means one winner, and thus, only one could be hired that night), instead of basing his opinion on his thoughts about Rebecca’s qualifications. Is that correct?
To me, it would be far more less classy of him if he had said Rebecca didn’t deserve to be hired because she lacked the right stuff. If he really didn’t think she would make a good fit for the company, he would have had to make her look bad. Wouldn’t that have left everyone with a poor taste in their mouths? At least the way Randal answered the question didn’t involve tearing Rebecca down in the remaining 30 seconds of the show.
Not at all. The problem goes far beyond merely having a preconceived notion that only one job offer should be extended on that night (a mighty illogical premise, I might add). Having such a notion would merely make Randal mistaken; it would not necessarily make him a jerk.
However, to tell Trump that there should only be one winner against all logic and when Trump himself broached the idea of offering Rebecca a job – that makes it incredibly presumptuous. Couple that with the fact that this gesture would cost him nothing, and would not detract from his ultimate victory, and it makes Randal look incredibly petty.
Remember, Randal offered no reason why there should only be one winner, apart from that lame appeal to the show’s title. As things stood, it amounted to saying, “I should be the only winner” without a single comment about Rebecca’s lack of qualifications. Very petty indeed.
You speak as though the only way to illustrate Rebecca’s lack of qualifications would be to tear her down. As various other posters have pointed out, that simply isn’t the case. It’s all a matter of diplomacy.
Moreover, if Randal truly felt that his only other option would have been to tear her dignity apart, then this would show that he’s not the capable leader that he claims to be.
(Mind you, I doubt that Randal felt this was the only way to speak negatively of Rebecca. He seems too polished for that. However, if your scenario is accurate, then this would be a huge mark against him, IMO.)
I only watched the last episode (full disclosure here), so maybe I’m getting things totally wrong, but…
(Actually, fuller disclosure–I vaguely know Rebecca from college. Met her a few times here and there. And she tried out for one of my husband’s plays once. He didn’t cast her.)
…Rebecca was so obviously less qualified than Randall! I’m glad I’m not the only one here who sees it. It’s not her fault she’s only 23, but I thought it showed. She was very fake around people, not very comfortable at all. Randall, on the other hand, was so genuine and natural at what he was doing. Rebecca was very competent, but not at all comfortable with what was going on. I know what that looks like; I’m her age and I’m still not quite comfortable in situations where I’m running the show. That slight unease and overcompensating tone-- “Mr. Trump” this and that…I smell youth and inexperience.
I think Randall’s one mistake was giving the wrong reason at the end. He should have said, “No, Mr. Trump; she’s a very competent person, but she doesn’t have the experience to be an Apprentice.” Otherwise, I’m happy–I think both candidates got what they deserve.
“Tear her down” is a bit strong admittedly, but I still think spending the remainder of the show trying to convince Trump that Rebecca wasn’t sufficiently qualified would have come across as very mean, like throwing salt in her wounds. There was no need for him talk further about her lack of qualifications anyway, since he’d already expressed his opinion that she was too young and inexperienced.
It was presumptuous of Trump to ask the question of Randal in the first place. He was wrong to assume that Randal would go along with that arrangement, and because of that error he embarrassed himself and the two finalists.
I disagree that the gesture would cost him nothing, if only for the fact that it looks bad. People shouldn’t be offered jobs as a gesture of goodwill, particularly in an arena like the TA which presents itself as a competition. To do so devalues the job itself and demeans the accomplishments of those who actually earned the position through achievement and not simply by being a good person.
Best one-sentence summary yet.
Even that’s not necessary. He could have simply reiterated that she lacks experience. He could have also emphasized that with some further seasoning, she might make a valuable addition to the Trump organization. (If his profuse praise of Rebecca was not entirely disingenuous, that would be a legitimate claim to make.)
So what if Randal had said these previously? Sometimes, these things are worth reiterating, especially in a new context. Rebecca might have lacked the experience to be Trump’s first choice, but this didn’t necessarily mean that she wasn’t good enough to be her #2 selection.
A good manager and leader should know about diplomacy and finesse. If Randal felt that he couldn’t turn Rebecca down without sounding “very mean, like throwing salt in her wounds,” then he’s not a very good leader.
Here’s my take on Randals comments. He knew going into the finale that there might be a possibility that both would be hired. They are the strongest final two combo in the show’s history, and many speculated that both would be. He wanted to win, not tie for a win, so he came up with a snappy line about Aprentice not Aprentii to use in case it came up.
However, he did win. That much was clear. Trump wasn’t suggesting that there be two winners. Randal won. But he still whipped out his snappy comeback as if he were competing with her. End result: He looked like a huge jerk in front of the whole country.
Not wanted her to get hired also made him look petty, small, insecure, and mean.
Either we allow analogical examination or we don’t. If we do, then we stipulate that no analogy is perfect; if we don’t, then we don’t explain why some aspects of life are games and some aren’t. Otherwise, we will have you saying that so-and-so is a main difference while I say that it is a trivial difference, and vice-versa. Life can indeed be filmed, and it can be done so for entertainment, whether it’s a birthday party or a couple’s “special” homemade video. There are ratings hungry producers in life as well. I call them “bosses”.
I’m not taking his word as gospel; I’m taking his word as descriptive of his feelings. Just like I’m taking your word that you really believe what you’re writing. Am I naive to do so? You don’t need all the stress and drama of this message board to communicate with me. You could e-mail me. Likewise, there are an infinite number of ways Donald could pick an apprentice, from holding a lottery to delegating the decision to George. The fact that he combined a business opportunity with a hiring opportunity does not make him dishonest.
I disagree.
I think it’s important that we both stipulate that our opinions are subjective. From my perspective, it seems to me that yours is an East German judge review of Rebecca. I’ve explained why her tasks were much harder to manage, owing to the enmity and pettiness of her catty crew. Randall was never saddled with that.
And had he done so, I would still respect him.
Here go the analogics dances again. I’ll just put it plainly: Randall won. He still would have won had he been gracious toward Rebecca. In fact, his victory would have been of a higher kind in my opinion. You disagree? You’re entitled. But your opinion is no more objective than mine.
No, he didn’t. They were already gone. Review the episode listing at the Apprentice site.
I think that diplomacy is an important part of leadership. A critical part. After all, he lost me — one of his most fervent supporters — in the blink of a decision.
That’s an impressive list of mistakes, especially for a Rhodes scholar with five (?) advanced degrees who started and operated several successful (?) businesses.
Rebecca oozed confidence and poise; Randle less so. Maybe his brains got ahead of his tongue sometimes, but he wasn’t as well-spoken or composed as Rebecca. He gets flustered when he’s challenged. I don’t think he’s been challenged much.
The Apprentice was a cakewalk for him, but the more I think about it, I wonder why. Was it mostly because the other candidates trusted him? Because they sensed that he respected them, and the process, and would work hard and try to win each task, whether he was PM or not?
Opinions are inherently subjective. Some opinions are a lot more subjective than others. In my admittedly subjective opinion, someone as accomplished as Randal (five degrees from 3 presitigous universities, businessman five times over, published author, etc.), who had an undefeated record as PM and who technically raised infinite times more money than his competitor on the final task, and who was well-respected by all his previous rivals (she-devils and alpha males combined), is simply not on the same footing as someone who is only a couple years out of undergrad, who has no experience running a for-profit business, who failed 2 out of 3 tasks as PM, who failed to raise one cent at a charity benefit and not only that, made the corporate sponsor for said event look horrible on national TV.
But that’s just me. Although I’m amazed that you disagree with that analysis, I understand that my opinion is just that. My opinion. Really I do. But I’d be lying if I didn’t say the whole “black people have to work 4 times as hard as whites to get equal recognition” seems to applying in this situation. If we were talking about the real world sans all the trials and tribulations associated with TA, and Trump was honestly going about selecting someone to run one of his next big projects, I would hope that the someone with Randal’s background would be the obvious pick over someone with Rebecca’s background.
You keep bringing up the cattiness that Rebecca had to deal with, though, as if that’s a given. It is no mistake that she found the women on her teams hard to work with, Liberal. She insulted them that night in the boardroom when she said that Toral was way smarter than all of them. I have a feeling that this statement was only a reflection of how she related to her female peers, and if so, that doesn’t exactly endear people to you. It’s really no coincidence that the only woman rooting for Rebecca was Toral. She was the only woman there that she hadn’t thrown under the bus.
But you know what, that point is neither here or there, now that I think of it. Rebecca’s two losses as PM came at the “tethno” expo and the Nigerian singer thing. How were those evil catty bitches responsible for making her lose those tasks? Most of the fatal oversights associated with those events can be directly traced to Rebecca.
(God, how pathetic it is that I know all of this stuff about TA. Ah well, such is life.)
I really don’t disagree with your analysis as far as it goes, but it’s incomplete because it’s one sided. Rebecca misspelled a word; Randall miswrote a number. Rebecca didn’t really know her singer; Randall didn’t really know his movie. It was not the case that he was head and shoulders above her, except in terms of age and education. But it seems to me that those facts, if anything, bore heavier on his failures than on hers. You’d think someone with a doctorate in epistemology might know how important knowledge about his movie would be. If someone lacks an education, he can learn. But if someone has an education and doesn’t use it except for bragging, then he’s learned all he’s going to.
I have to agree with Liberal on that matter.
Personally, I think that Randal deserved to win, despite that ending debacle. However, I don’t see that he towered above Rebecca, except in terms of height and the esteem with which he was held by the other wannabes. In terms of actual performance, he was very good, but not a genius.
they were both on Larry King the other night, from separate locales, with The Donald on the phone… continued discussion over what has become “Randal’s choice”… Randal stated his decision was merely for that night, and that winners of other “contests” do not have to choose to appoint the runner-up as co-winner (he used Miss America as an example).
Interestingly, Rebecca basically turned them down when a job offer was extended, saying she “would consider it” among the numerous offers she has received. She was (IMNSHO) quite smug and arrogant.
Personally, I saw her as a young, inexperienced, overly vocal (in a phony kind of way) financial journalist who may one day grow to be a business associate or executive, but could not presently step into and run a business meeting.
I think that’s overstating the case. Yeah, she talked about how employers should hire talent when they see it, and I can see how that could be construed as arrogant. When going through a job interview though, one should be prepared to emphasize one’s talents and contributions. Moreover, a candidate would have to be foolish to go through this whole process without affirming that one is capable of doing the job.
True, she did talk about having received other job offers, but this was AFTER Trump himself brought the subject up. What was she supposed to say? “Oh, I received a few offers, but only a few”? And of course, she should say that she’d be willing to consider Trump’s offer, if he should make one. That’s simply the tactful reply.
And frankly, while I still think that Randal was the better candidate, his explanation rang hollow. “Merely for that night”? They why didn’t he say a single word about hiring Rebecca at a later date, for some other position? I think one would have to strain rather mightily to read that comment into his words. His answer sounds like a bit of revisionism to me.
I watched the recast of the show on Friday and I definitely got the impression that he was concerned with Rebecca being hired right then and there, as opposed to some later time off-camera. In response to Trump’s questions, I distinctly remember him saying “Not tonight”. If he wanted to deny her a job altogether, I don’t see why he would say “tonight”. He would have just said no.
He didn’t actually say “not tonight” though. What he said is that if Trump were to hire someone “tonight,” it should only be one person. This may seem like a fine distinction, but again… I think one would have to strain rather hard to conclude that he was open to her being hired at some other time. That would be reading an awful lot into his words, and if that was truly his intent, then he didn’t communicate it very well at all (again, not a good sign for an Apprentice).
I don’t see why it’s so important that we need to strain in the first place. Why is it so crucial that Randal validate Rebecca’s worth anyway? Why would it be so bad if he didn’t think she should be hired at all and just doesn’t want to come out and say it? Can’t he just win without having to kiss his rival’s ass? That Randal is somehow expected to make all these feel-good overtures to someone he competed against and beat strikes me a unfair.
I believe Randal doesn’t think Rebecca deserves a job with Trump, but he didn’t want to say that because his main issue was not her lack of competence but rather Trump’s attempt to dilute his win with a two-fer. By saying what he did, he was able to state his case for why the finale should have only one winner without diminishing Rebecca on national TV. The question to hire Rebecca or not to hire Rebecca was sort of besides the point, for Randal. The question of concern to him was when, and that came through loud and clear.