Just finished watching Undercover Boss preview here.
Basically, the CEO of a major company is hired to do the work of his own frontline employees and experiences an epiphany. He realizes that cost cutting productivity measures implemented from the top down aren't always the most humane way to improve production.
One message from psychohkittie on the CBS board:Money trumps the value of an employee in their eyes and will only make a "change" when forced to do so, e.g. having a camera in their face in order to make themselves look compassionate. I mentioned in another post that I may give it another show or two but don't think I can without getting frustrated with the fact that 1) show is scripted 2) it tugs on the emotions of those who are frustrated at work and struggling to make ends meet during a hard economy and another viewpoint from gozzaronI own a business with several offices and 8 employees. I have always strived to be a great boss. It is nice to see a show focused on the human factor in business. It is easy to become so large that you forget those that helped you get there. We can never forget the front line factor. Great concept- Great show!
Message edited by: jackcrawfish on 2010-02-08 08:13:49 CST
To enter a coupon code in your post please enter the following info:
Coupon Code:
Merchant:
Url (optional):
saving...
Quick Summary is created and edited by users like you... Add FAQ's, Links and other Relevant Information by clicking the edit button in the lower right hand corner of this message.
That's what happens when they hire and promote people to run the company that didn't start from the bottom or have any idea what front line employees deal with. The large company I work for now has a senior executive staff where most, if not all, has spent some time on the front lines of operations.
Things from the show that I hope they actually change: 1) Don't make women trash collectors pee in a can just to meet their productivity goals. 2) Make that one recycling center manager peak his head out of his office to greet new employees. No one should be too good to greet new employees, especially just at that level. 3) Realize that having one lady do all those tasks is asking for one big disaster when she calls in sick one day. Sounds like they hired a couple more people from the notes at the end of the show.
Anyone who saw the preview for the trailer for the next episode looking forward to reindeer games??? (sarcastic...not cool at all)
squid3 said:What does my dog's flea control have to do with anything? A dog with fleas can get grumpy and bite two different people on two separate occasions (and get your umbrella policy cancelled).
I watched it and really thought it was a good concept.
The first CEO was a really sympathetic character and seemed like a genuinely caring and nice guy. I think the show may not work as well in future weeks if the wrong CEOs are chosen. I also like how they explained the premise and how they were justifying having cameras follow the newb guy around (I think some reality shows are really devoid of reality b/c everyone knows what's going on).
I think there might have been some selection bias with respect to the people who were chosen to work alongside the CEO. I would imagine that a company like Waste Management would have significant turnover but all of the people he worked with had been there 5-10+ years so are probably the types who are more likely to have a positive attitude, be patient in training new employees, etc. The one guy who didn't come out smelling very well as the recycling center manager - I don't think he's long for that job any more.
thegerudo said: The top poops on the bottom, the bottom is jealous of the top, and the customer deals with apathetic vomits all around...
I read a nice formulation of something like the above on somebody's blog. Can't remember where now:
The top: psychopaths. Willing to do anything to get ahead (which is why they're on top). The middle: clueless. Think that by working really hard, they'll get to the top (which is not at all how it works). This group is willing to work harder than they're being paid to work in the hope that they, too, will get ahead. The bottom: losers. These have lost the game, but know it. They're content to stay where they are, and do the job and no more.
Pet peeve of mine: corporations that hire from places like McKinsey, Bain etc rather than developing their own talent. More often than not the results are something like this: - New hire has minimal experience managing people but is given a position with a lot of responsiblity. - New hire, although fairly smart, tends to be arrogant, does not listen well, and thinks they know all the answers. - New hire does not know how to get things done in the context of the company's culture. - New hire is great at giving powerpoint presentations, not so great at executing. - New hire comes in, spends two or three years making a mess of their organization, moves on to another company, and is replaced by somebody else from a top-tier consultancy. Rinse, wash, repeat.
Did anyone notice at the end of the show that they said the guy cleaning port-o-potties left to work in a hospital? He was too friendly for a garbage company anyways.
And there's a ton of selection bias when you tell local management that they're going to be on tv. They find the best person and send them with the noob. Same thing they would have did if they were told the CEO was coming for a visit and to see how the operation works.
And if these were the people they could find to go on TV, I'd hate to see the others, the less palatable.
Next week, Hooters CEO goes undercover. Pretty disturbing in the preview where they showed a manager making waitresses eat from a plate like animals so they can go home early.
scrouds said:Did anyone notice at the end of the show that they said the guy cleaning port-o-potties left to work in a hospital? He was too friendly for a garbage company anyways. I saw that and was scratching my head, apparently he left Waste Management.
HumDoHamaraDo said:Next week, Hooters CEO goes undercover. Pretty disturbing in the preview where they showed a manager making waitresses eat from a plate like animals so they can go home early.
Apparently no one is ever supposed to get fired on this show, but it seems like this could be a case where it is justified.
I agree that this is a show that needs to be firmly grounded in reality to work, but I don't think it is. How many people personally know and give hugs to their garbage person? Of course there is going to be selection bias with the employees they pick, and of course they are going to act more positive and hard-working then normal with the camera on them.
Then he gives the one over-worked women a promotion and tells her to hire two more people to do the job she was doing before. That's great for her, but how many other employees in the company are in the exact same position as her? Is anything going to change for them?
Vain attempt at telling both sides of the story: Ratings mean everything to television stations - this is a CNN style sob story about how hard it is being a general laborer. As several other posters have already mentioned, there is a much larger majority of this workforce that does not perform which, in turn, leads management to crack down.
As a child, when I finished only 8 of my 10 assigned chores, I was paid nothing; if all the chores were completed, I got paid. I learned quickly to finish the entire list.
Marketing: Waste Management nets an added 200,000 - 500,000 new customers based on how "nice" they are perceived to be. I wonder if FOX were to create a program like this how many customers they'd lose? Some policies are not intended to be friendly to the front line employee - they are meant to keep the masses in line.
Silence the Players: My guess is the participants in this "program" signed papers indicating they would not discuss the details of the taping of the show. If you were to ask the CEO about what his shareholders think about how he's going to waste their money as a result of the show he'd probably say he can't discuss specifics.
I give our local trash guy a $20 tip each Christmas but how many customers write a thank you note saying how awesome the service is and then run out for the cameras to see you? (get real)
They are just hour long paid commercials for businesses that feel that they have public image or public relations problems. WM = We need monopolistic municipal flow control ordinances and contracts where we charge you a fortune for mandatory garbage service because we have all these nice employees and some of them are dying! Hooters = We do not condone the objectification of women, hostile work environments and we care about these mandatorily scantily clad, hot, lucious babes that serve you overpriced chicken and I'm sure we will learn that some of them are dying. We will also learn that if you don't go to Hooters, you don't care about empowering women and little Suzie will likely die.
That garbage lady needs to stop hugging folks on her route and just pickup trash; maybe then she'd have time to use a tiolet rather than a tin can. I agree this is strictly a PR deal and has very little to do with actually relating to "front-line" employees. In what way were these front-line employees being pushed too far? Every company is pushes employees to operate efficiently and reduce costs. Big Shock.
I would like to see a story where the middle management and front-line employees are pushed in areas like safety, environmental standards, etc. For example, I would love to see a show about Toyota and how their push towards efficiency and cost savings led towards a mass recall.
Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.
