△ MENU/TOP △

Holtz Communications + Technology

Shel Holtz
Communicating at the Intersection of Business and Technology
SearchClose Icon

Undercover Boss makes for good television—and bad management

Shel HoltzOnce the Super Bowl—the most-viewed television program of all time—ended, 38.6 million people (about 36% of the Super Bowl audience) stuck around for the premiere of CBS’s new “reality” show, “Undercover Boss.”

In case you’ve just emerged from a coma and aren’t aware of the show, the premise is simple: Company leaders go undercover on the front lines of their companies to discover what it’s really like to do the heavy lifting. Surprised at what they see—from abuses to the horrific consequences of their own policies—their humanity bubbles to the surface and they initiate changes to improve the lives of front-line workers.

(As of right now, you can watch the full episode on the CBS website.

The concept isn’t particularly revolutionary. Hertz used to require its senior staff to spend time working rental counters in order to stay in touch with the customer and remind themselves of the challenges faced by employees who are the human face of the company. JetBlue’s former chairman Dave Neeleman used to work as a flight attendant from time to time for pretty much the same reason.

The wrinkle in “Undercover Boss” is that the employees with whom the executives work are in the dark as to their new colleagues’ identity.

It makes for entertaining television, and the number of tweets I saw from communicators I follow on Twitter proclaiming “Undercover Boss” their new favorite indicates that the show resonated with people who work for a living.

Of course, it “Undercover Boss” is a network reality program, which means it’s superficial and contrived. The footage CBS requires for an hourlong show isn’t going to result in a comprehensive overview of the company’s operations and it won’t reveal most of the significant issues affecting the organization’s performance. But that’s okay. It’s just entertainment. If the executive hitting the road with a camera crew really wanted to uncover the conditions that are holding the company back, this isn’t the approach he’d take.

Ultimately, though, the program could do the company more harm than good.

Organizations need committed, engaged employees. Unlike loyalty, we know a lot about what leads employees to be committed and engaged. One driver of commitment, according to research, is the certainty that pay and benefits are handled fairly and equitably throughout the organization. This belief in fairness and equity is far more important to employees than the actual size of their own paycheck when it comes to inspiring employees to deliver their best work and to put in discretionary effort on behalf of their employer.

I once worked for an organization facing a dilemma. One of their rising stars, already a member of the management team, was pregnant and had decided to resign so she could be a full-time mom. To convince her to stay, the company made arrangements to make room for a crib and a rocking chair in her office and told her she could bring her baby to work and take all the time she needed to care for the child. The executives who concoted this scheme were proud of what they viewed as their forward-thinking solution.

Of course, the news got out to hundreds and hundreds of women at lower levels who struggled with child care but didn’t have the resources that would have allowed them to quit. Their thoroughly understandable reaction: Pay and benefits at this company is unfair. We who work our asses off get no help while the company pulls out all the stops for a highly compensated director-level executive. Morale plummeted.

Waste Management, the company featured in the premiere episode of “Undercover Boss,” could suffer the same backlash. One employee, Jaclyn, is supporting an extended family in the home she’s about to lose while she does the work of three or four people at the landfill where she works. The undercover boss, Waste Management President and COO Larry O’Donnell, risks breaking cover to tell Jaclyn’s boss that something needs to be done to help. At the end of the show, when O’Donnell reveals his true identity, he sees to it that Jaclyn gets promoted from an hourly to a salaried position that pays better; the company also hires a couple people to fill the vacant positions to relieve Jaclyn’s workload.

Then there’s Walter, O’Donnell’s supervisor at a landfill. Walter has been on dialysis for years but still works hard and has a positive attitude. At the show’s conclusion, we learn that O’Donnell has made Walter a health mentor for the company.

Yes, it’s emotional and satisfying television. But Waste Management employs tens of thousands of people. Jaclyn and Walter are not the only employees struggling to pay the bills, coping with a “do more with less” mentality, or overcoming health issues just to be able to get a paycheck. But they are the only ones O’Donnell spent time with on camera and they are the only ones whose issues were addressed by the company.

And make no mistake: There are very few Waste Management employees who didn’t watch “Undercover Boss.” Every admin doing the work of three people, every employee who isn’t making enough to save their house from the current mortgage meltdown, every employee with health issues who still needs to work or lose their health insurance watched the show and wondered, “What the hell? What about me?”

And their levels of commitment and engagement went right down the portable toilets Waste Management manages at outdoor events.

Even the resolution of a time-clock issue at a recycling facility could cause bad feelings if the problem (or similar problems) aren’t addressed at other company locations.

I’m hardly alone in recognizing the problem. Time magazine’s review notes:

Sure, he handed out promotions and raises to the few people whose stories we saw. It was moving to see a woman with overwhelming family and job responsibilities get a bump up that kept her from losing her house. But is there anything reason to believe anything is better company-wide?

The time review also notes that the policies that led to some of the situations O’Donnell encountered were the result of shareholder demands for higher ROI. Should O’Donnell alter those policies to the extent that ROI suffers, it wouldn’t be the first time a company found itself a new president. (Just ask shareholders at SAP.)

I have to admit, I’m not a fan of reality shows. I’ve never watched a single episode of Survivor or American Idol. There is one reality show I do watch: chef Gordon Ramsay’s “Kitchen Nightmares.” One of this show’s regular features is an update. The crew revisits a restaurant where Ramsay worked his magic to see if the initial success wrought by the changes stuck. It would be nice if “Undercover Boss” went back to Waste Management in a year to see if anything changed company-wide.

But don’t hold your breath. It wouldn’t be good television to show a company with lower morale as a result of the undercover experience.

Comments
  • 1.I don't watch reality shows, and I didn't see this one but I get the gist of it.

    Funny, this post isn't about social media and yet it goes to the heart of something I feel strongly about--similar to the argument you lay out above about certain employees getting preferential treatment, why should customers who complain about service on Twitter receive a more timely and satisfying response to a customer service issue than those who use traditional channels?

    The bigger the company, the further decisions are from their actual application.

    Jen Zingsheim | February 2010

  • 2.Shel:

    Well thought-out post as usual. I didn't see the show, so I'm not an expert on what happened, but based on your comments, I have one thought.

    Going on the show at all is a bit risky. The pendulum could swing the other way from the points you highlight.

    What I mean is, yes, this show could hurt morale in the sense that people see other employees getting preferential treatment and resent that person, the company, etc.

    But, it could also hurt public perception of the company as well.

    After that episode, I'm sure there are plenty of people with a good feeling about Waste Management because of how the CEO rectified the "injustices" that were brought out on the show. What if they hadn't done anything?

    What if they thought through the impact to employee morale and shareholders and said, "Well, that's too bad for that person." Imagine the public outcry over another "heartless" CEO!

    In the end, I agree with you that, while the show is interesting and the concept of the CEO having to spend some time on the front lines is a good one, it can make for some dicey situations and tough decisions throughout the company.

    Kevin

    Kevin Behringer | February 2010 | Wisconsin

  • 3.I was one of your followers who tweeted what a great concept I thought the show was - which I did.

    The entire show I was very engaged and really liked the heart-felt reactions of the CEO..until the end...

    I felt like his solutions at the end didn't deal with the obvious issues his experience identified..

    Each employee he worked with was a symptom of a greater problem in that area of the organization, but he only addressed the individual cases..not the greater problem.

    Promoting Jaclyn fixes her issue, but what about the fact that she was overworked and the need for additional staff? And why hadn't the manager who provided the CEO during the show with 'ideas' for Jaclyn's promotion not do so before? Where has he been?

    The rest of the solutions fell just as flat to me. Sure, talking to the recycling plant manager about giving employees more time during lunch addressed that issue - but what about the fact that the manager sat at his desk and stared at cameras that are on employees all day!? Or that he didn't even meet the new employee (the CEO)?

    And the horrible situation for female truck drivers - the CEO's solution... a task force??? I'm sure that's all they need is another task force. I guess the women will continue to use the restroom in a can until the task force can come to the rescue.

    Despite my opinions on this, I'll still probably DVR the show and watch. Next week... Hooters. I can't wait to see their CEO in orange short-shorts, a white tank top, and panty hose! :)

    Christy S | February 2010 | Charleston, SC

  • 4.From an optimist's point of view, maybe he will implement other changes within the company as a whole after the cameras stop rolling. Yes, he did change the lives of a few people, but we don't know for certain that new policies are being added and old ones discarded. I'm with you, Shel. I'd like to see a follow-up show to see if anything else had been done since the CEO's eye-opening experience in the field.

    John S | February 2010

  • 5.Excellent analysis, Shel. I haven't seen the show but I've heard about it. When I read that the 2nd episode would be at Hooters, I thought I'd skip it.

    The reality is that life is very difficult for many employees. A show like this isn't helping. Entertaining TV has nothing to do with genuine employee relations.

    Donna Papacosta | February 2010 | Toronto

Comment Form

« Back