Comments on: Undercover Boss: Making CEOs More Palatable?

By: Rebecca Bley

Rebecca Bley — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 15:02:36 +0000

I’ve seen a couple episodes now, and each time I’m struck by a sense of futility in trying to change things for one person at a time. I know they only do so much, but rewarding a handful of employees while making grand speeches about the future is just not convincing to me. I am far more interested in seeing how the companies look a year from now.

By: Erin Copple Smith

Erin Copple Smith — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 21:42:58 +0000

One other thing about Undercover Boss that struck me is the absence (or, anyway, my perception of the absence–correct me if I’m wrong, as my experience is limited) of any sense that maybe these employees would prefer *not* to be working for White Castle/Hooters/Waste Management/7-Eleven/etc. One of the White Castle employees mentioned a desire to go to culinary school, but was presented as satisfied to produce a new “secret sauce” for the burgers at the franchised restaurant where he works.

I ended up wondering whether this was simply a reflection of general beliefs about blue-collar workers–that they’re perfectly satisfied with their social position, that they’re resigned to a life behind the counter at White Castle or on a 7-Eleven delivery truck, and that, really, that’s how it should be.

Great post, Melissa–a lot of food for thought, here.

By: Erin Copple Smith

Erin Copple Smith — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 21:38:54 +0000

I agree, Michael. I’ve only seen one episode–last Sunday’s, which followed the White Castle owner. The only “problem” the boss discovered was that there were supervisors at the frozen foods division who weren’t pitching in on the line, resulting in line workers being annoyed and frustrated. This obviously isn’t a problem of the CEO or owner, right? It’s the problem of those darn supervisors! And, luckily, such interpersonal/HR type problems can be solved if employees would just talk to each other and work together for the betterment of the company! (Or so the owner and/or show would have you believe.)

By: Michael Dwyer

Michael Dwyer — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 17:56:46 +0000

I noticed this, as well–though it wasn’t as blatant as the misogynist ‘manvertising’ during the Super Bowl, there was a clear attempt between this show (which directly followed the SB) and a few of the ads to work to humanize the CEO–The Coke ad where a down-on-his-luck Mr. Burns is given a Coke and allowed to join in on the pleasure of a summer day in the park comes to mind.

The interesting thing about Undercover Boss is that it relocates the source of corporate America’s exploitation of workers from the structural organization (represented to the boss) to irresponsible or petty practices of middle management. “It’s not the system,” the show seems to say, “it’s that a-hole of a boss you have that’s the problem.” The episode where the Hooters owner is shocked (shocked!) that not everyone thinks of Hooters as a wonderful place, and then he refuses to take any meaningful action against the sexual harassment practiced by the store manager (who should have at least lost his job) was telling.

By: Tim Anderson

Tim Anderson — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 17:45:54 +0000

I look forward to the academic version of this when the president of a major university is charged with a 4/4 load for a month at a local community college. 🙂