1
Trump’s Apprentice
Introduction
Not since we spent the summer wondering who shot J. R. Ewing (1980, “Dallas”) has the American television audience been so entertained by business conduct and ethics as it has viewing Donald Trump’s “The Apprentice.” Each week, whoever remains from the initial cohort of sixteen candidates compete for Trump’s attention and approval. Each week the contestants are organized into teams and given a business project (e.g. sell lemonade on the streets of New York City, organize a charity auction and secure celebrity donations, develop an advertising campaign, sell art, produce a gallery art show, rent real estate, etc.) In the show’s first season, each challenge involved a business venture or charity of Mr. Trump’s. The contestants knew that they had to work well with each other and that each week one would be eliminated from the losing team (“You’re Fired!”) until only one remained to hear Trump say, “You’re hired.”
The prize was to be selected to work with Mr. Trump in one of his many business ventures at a starting salary of $250,000. Bill, the winner of the first season, is now preparing tomanage the building of an office high rise complex in Chicago. The others, the losers, are pursuing their careers and, in several cases, leveraging the fame or notoriety they achieved on the show. Mr. Trump has made considerable effort through personal appearances on NBC’s Today,ABC’s “The View,” MSNBC, and other venues to ride the crest of the popular wave created by this version of reality TV. According to Trump, the show is required viewing at the Wharton School of Business and at Harvard. Newsweek magazine did a cover story on the show. Its author Keith Naughton says “There’s great disagreement among CEOs at to whether Trump is helping or hurting their battered images. Jack Welch thinks the show is great. But other CEOs I spoke to said Trump is making them look heartless and ruthless” (2004, p. 4).
The show’s popularity suggests that professors of management and business ethics should be aware of the issues and the images the show is promulgating. This article presents our analysis of this public contest for a high profile executive position, its representations of business conduct, and the implications of this conduct for business ethics in both practice and education.
The Show’s Format
Trump met with the contestants at the beginning of each episode to give them their assignment. At the completion of the task, Trump would meet with them again in his boardroom and fire someone from the losing team.
Each episode, the contestants selected a Project Leader in each team to manage them in that week’s particular task. Sometimes they selected a leader based on competency and sometimes they used the appointment to guarantee that someone would go the boardroom.
Trump tried to review the management of the task and isolate what went wrong during the postmortem session in the boardroom. He would question the losing team members. Then, the team would be excused. Trump would then review with his advisers, George Ross and Carolyn Kepcher (Oldenburg, 2004) what they thought. These executives not only work for Trump and manage aspects of his business they also spent time observing the teams on-site during the tasks. They had first hand knowledge of some of the task management and interpersonal dynamics. Then, the Project Leader would return with two of the contestants whom s/he had chosen to go to the boardroom. One of these three would be fired. Trump usually demanded that the Project Leader tell him who messed up and deserved to be fired but he did not always follow that advice.
The show’s original sixteen contestants were evenly split between men and women and ranged in age from mid-twenties to mid-thirties. All were photogenic and possessed some combination of business experience and education. Table 1 depicts the line up for the first contest where men and women competed against each other. The
Table 1
The Contestants
The Women’s Team: / The Men’s Team:Heidi Bressler / Jason Curtis
Katrina Campins / David Gould
Jessie Conners / Bowie Hogg
Kristi Frank / Kwame Jackson
Amy Henry / Troy McClain
Tammy Lee / Bill Rancic
Omarosa Manigault-Stallworth / Sam Solovey
Ereka Vetrini / Nick Warnock
women won the first four contests. Accordingly, four men were fired: David, Jason, Bowie, and Sam. At that point, the men’s team was having difficulty providing enough members to cover the tasks involved in the assignments so Trump reorganized the contestants into two teams of mixed male and female members. From that point on, a woman was fired every week for seven consecutive contests. Trump expressed puzzlement over this when he appeared on ABC’s “The View” with Heidi after she was fired. He claimed that the women were unbeatable when working together but somehow pulled back when combined with the men. Then, Nick was fired and the final four contestants included Amy, Bill, Kwame and Troy. The final two were Bill and Kwame. Bill won.
The Show’s Ethical Orientation
Trump relies on his experienceto identify exemplars of the values that he holds and expects in an apprentice. His values are discernible in the design of the show, which he created in collaboration with reality TV producer Mark Burnett. The show’s design is a zero-sum game: only one can win. This is similar to the design of other reality tv shows that Mr. Burnett has produced. The show’s editing showcases conflict for its entertaining nature. There is also an implicit assumption that is evident in America’s sports culture that ‘the best man will win’ in response to challenge and adversity and this makes the conflict a contest of “skills.”
Trump’s values are also evident when he provides feedback to the contestants who meet with him in his boardroom after every challenge. Invariably, Trump’s feedback includes his ideals for leadership and conduct towards others— in other words, ethics (Johannesen, 2002). As the show evolves, the direct connection between ethical behavior and reward blurs. For example, some contestants who act unethically avoid accountability if they are on the winning team because the winning team does not go to the boardroom for feedback from Mr. Trump and does not have to identify who should be fired. The purpose of this study was to analyze what went on and to bring these ethical issues to the surface for discussion and analysis.
Studying The Apprentice
We engaged in an iterative,interpretive analysis of the shows in which we divided up aspects of the work as a way to check on the trustworthiness of our interpretations. At all times we were guided by three basic research questions.
Research Questions:
1. What is the nature of the ethical dilemmas in The Apprentice?
2. What is the show teaching us about business ethics?
3. What are the implications of these lessons for practicing ethical business conduct?
Significance
The significance of this study is that it cuts through the show’s entertainment value to reveal ethical dilemmas and the nature of their resolution. This study depicts not only what is at stake ethically but the competing values that are held by the contestants and by the show’s producers. The significance of the large audience share for this show, its plans for second and third seasons, its re-runs on CNBC, and its launching a twin in the U.K., suggest that people may be widely influenced by the show and begin to employ behavior reflective of the behavior of the contestants and the producers. This article provides analysis of that behavior.
Biases and Limitations
We are avid viewers (if not fans) of the show. Two of us are experienced business veterans, and the third teaches leadership and ethics in undergraduate communications courses.
We are pleased that a show about business attained such popularity, because few undergraduates have much experience with real or realistically-simulated business scenarios. We believe that the show could help to educate young viewers about business and we also enjoyed the opportunity the show provided for Monday morning quarterbacking (e.g. second-guessing) the decisions of contestants and the producers.
This is an interpretive study based on videotapes of the first season of the show and not generalizable to other shows or business situations in general.
Methodology
First, we all watched all the episodes and discussed what was going on and our impressions of the lessons we were learning. Then, working alone, one of us reviewed tapes of all the shows and identified each ethical issue, who was involved and what occurred. Then, two of us reviewed and analyzed that work and identified typesof ethical dilemmas. We discerned three patterns: (1) ethical dilemmas involving the individual versus the group and vice versa; (2) ethical dilemmas involving the contestants and their customers; and (3) ethical issues involving changing the rules as the contest progressed. The first pattern we labeled “professional ethics;” the second, “business ethics;” and the third, “use of power.” Working alone, as a means to ensure trustworthiness of interpretation (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) the third researcher reviewed this work for consistency with her notes from viewing the episodes. We had considerable agreement and made few adjustments. Then, we examined the literature for any congruence between what we were witnessing and recording and what others had identified as ethical issues for business conduct and leadership.
The Literature
Ethics involves judgment about whether human behavior is right or wrong (Hackman & Johnson, 2003). The literature indicates that for leaders in organizations dilemmas about right and wrong may surface involving five important values: truthfulness, responsibility, power, privilege, and loyalty (Hackman & Johnson, 2002). Table 2 displays these five elements from the literature in relation to the three patterns we found in the Apprentice.
The first ethical issue presented in the literature (Hackman & Johnson, 2002) is truthfulness. Deceit is particularly disruptive in organizations and in The Apprentice because effective teamwork requires trust. In real business, relationships would not be sustainable over time if business people did not value and practice trustworthiness. In the show, however, the challenges and deadlines constraining the tasks generate some desperate responses—including lying. Making others believe what you do not believe (Bok, 1979) is a useful strategy in achieving short term goals, and this tenet is a significant aspect of the design of The Apprentice.
The second ethical issue, responsibility (Hackman & Johnson, 2002) is evident by its absence. Sam sleeps during work-time in the second episode, and Omarosa repeatedly neglects her duties, generating rueful responses from teammates and audience alike.
Trump fires Kristi for refusing to name someone to blame for her team’s failure. She is seen, as all the losers are, riding away from TrumpTower in a cab with her suitcase. She claimed that she could not employ such scapegoating at her restaurant in Santa Monica, California and continue to do business. This is the clearest confrontation of values with Trump and with the show’s design in any of the episodes. Interestingly, she could have readily pointed the finger at Omarosa who as the project treasurer could not explain the loss of $183 of the initial $1,000 project budget. Kristi might also have selected Jesse, her ‘friend,’ who openly blames Katrina for mis-mangement in front of Mr. Trump.
Table 2
Findings vis a vis the Literature
------Findings ------
Ethical Dilemmas in the Literature: / Professional Ethics:Strategic | Tactical / Bad Business Judgement / Misuse of Power
Truthfulness / Omarosa
re/ Kristi / Lying to customers (e.g. autographs & renters) / Omarosa’s lies to Kwame in final episode.
Responsibility / Scapegoating / Pushing liquor. / Carolyn & Trump reprimand the women.
Power / Protect
from
Board-
room / Nick selects artist. / Firing Jason.
Performance rule of the game changed to organizational fit when Trump has staff interview remaining contestants.
Privilege
Loyalty / Board-
room
protection / Nick chastised by George and Carolyn. / Tammy fired.
Omarosa protects Kwame. Troy protects Kwame.
The third aspect, power, is evident in the design of the show. Unlike Burnett’s “Survivor” there is no element of pseudo-democracy where contestants vote each other off the island. On this island of Manhattan the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) makes the decisions and Trump decides who stays and who goes.
Privilege -being above the rules or having resources / information that others do not have - is minimized throughout the show. The contestants perform on relatively level playing fields. Ironically, privilege is a motivation for the contestants and a key thematic element of the show’s catering to the audience. In this regard, Trump is the exemplar of a life of privilege and his living quarters are featured as something for contestants to desire. Other aspects of his life are used as rewards in the show: a flight in the executive jet to Boston for dinner, a picnic at his country estate, and a visit to his Florida retreat. The assumption is that if you learn to think and work like Mr. Trump you will have the privileges that he enjoys. These are the rewards of being The Apprentice.
Connected to privilege is loyalty. Once a contestant has gained entrance to the “kingdom” s/he must be loyal to the leadership. Indeed, Trump fires Tammy for being disloyal to her teammates when she is caught on tape obstructing some tasks and when she complains loudly that Katrina, her Project Leader, was duped by Troy in their negotiations for an apartment.
Table 2 highlights the fit between the patterns in the Apprentice and the literature on ethical dilemmas for leaders. In addition, the analysis of the specific incidents from the episodes reveals patterns of ethical mis-conduct that provide some lessons for students of leadership. These patterns are not dealt with because of the format of the show. Consequently, The Apprentice may leave impressions with its large and growing audience that this is how business is and should be conducted for success like Mr. Trump’s.
Patterns of Ethical Issues in the Apprentice
Pattern 1: Professional Ethics
The majority of the ethical violations in The Apprentice occur when a team member puts his/her interest ahead of the team or a project goal, or maneuvers to scapegoat another team member. This study identified two types of unprofessional ethics: tactical(i.e., blaming and fixing blame) and strategic (i.e., maneuvering to manipulate the rules of the competition and the boardroom firings).
Strategically, team members engaged in maneuvers to make certain individuals more vulnerable. For example, they openly conspire to select “problem” people as the project leaders so that they would have to go to the boardroom where people are fired. In one instance, Bill proposed that his team set up Sam to take the lead. Then Sam deliberately protected Nick, because he knew Nick would not rat on him, but Sam was fired anyway. Likewise, in Episode 4 Nick nominated Kwame for team leader. In both these cases, the organizational interest in benefiting the business through excellence in project management is subverted by the gamesmanship surrounding firing. The contestants’ value for long term survival of the team holding their individual fates is more important than honest interpersonal relations.
In Episode 5, Omarosa blamed project leaderKristi when sales money was missing, even though Omarosa was the team treasurer. While this move was tactical, by Episode 6 Omarosa’s plays had become strategic. She wanted to be the project leader so that she could control who would go to the boardroom with her, should her team lose—which it did. She then chose Jesse and Heidi inspite of the fact that Kwame messed up the negotiation with Russell Simmons. Jesse was fired and Omarosa continued in the game. Likewise, in Episode 8, Ereka protected Katrina by taking Nick and Bill to the boardroom. This strategy proved fatal, asNick and Bill united against her. She might have been able to oust one of the guys, had she taken her ally Katrina. Each week the viewing audience witnessed choices based less on performance and more on calculated maneuvers to save one’s own hide or an ally.
Another aspect of unprofessional ethics occurs when a team member breaks a commitment to the team. As mentioned, we saw Sam taking a nap during Episode 2, while his teammates toiled away. When he is not fired for this, the team’s strategyselects him as Project Leader for the next task which proves fatal for Sam. Similarly, Tammy was taken to the boardroom largely because her team considered her disloyalfor having undermined Katrina’s authority as project team leader. This works; Trump fires her for disloyalty.