Not Playing by the Rules

When Magna agreed to lobby for Donald to overthrow Michael's exemption they were making a creative and innovative play for control of their own team.

While the idea required Donald to be open to discussing the details of the exemption rule, and the possibility that there was some fine print that would allow for creative play, there's no reason to believe he wouldn't be open to considering it.

Erin pointed out, "from a legal perspective, every contract, every corporate bylaw, there are words, and they don't exist in a vacuum. They have meanings, and they have exceptions," she said. "'Exemption' is a word that has meaning, and possibly, if you guys agree, maybe exceptions."

However, the discussion never really turned into a discussion of the rule itself, Donald very expertly kept the conversation focused on performance.  Which in turn moved to a discussion of who was responsible for the loss, which this early in the game is quite often the primary focus of Donald's firing decisions.

I think that Danny and Magna (sans Michael) needed to be a bit less direct in attempting an overthrow of an exemption.  By telling Donald, Carolyn & George that the rule should be broken Magna focused too much on the rule, and not on tangeably demonstrating why this was time to invoke the fine print of the exemption rule. (Assuming of course that there is any.)

If they had been more indirect perhaps they could have created an environment in the boardroom where Donald was the one to table the idea, or perhaps challenged Michael sufficiently to demonstrate the reasons they felt the exemption should be overthrown.

It was a smart and strategic move - but I think they needed to do a little creative salesmanship to have made it fly.

So, we asked what people thought

What do you think of Magna's attempt to fire Michael?   Survey Closed
Total Votes: 754

Too bad it didn't work - neither did Michael 34.9% If they'd spun it right, Michael would be gone. 25.1% Michael was exempt! Shame on Magna. 12.21% Bad idea to challenge The Donald. 8.72% Nice try, very creative, but too late. 6.31% Only Donald can break the rules. 7.11% Rules are meant to be broken. 4.3% I'm not sure. 1.34% Looks like Michael was everyone's target for this episode.

Comments

[stephen]

Although lack of leadership was apparent with Danny, Michael proved himself to be a jerk - and it will cost him down the road. Danny might have been fired, but Michael great damaged his chances.

In my live blog (apprenticeviews.blogdrive.com), I thought making the attempt to overrule the exception was worthy. However, it appeared that Donald was not open to this ideal - and Magna should have abandoned the effort.

"IF" Danny had demonstrated sounded management - then I would have pursued this strategm further. Again, in my Blog, I agreed with George in that Michael could have been delegated out totally. Told to take a hike while the team works through the project. Risky but the PM should have the authority to mini-fire anyone on his/her team, if it's in the best interest of the team. I would have fired Michael - and removed him as a distraction.

However - in the end - Danny did not demonstrate sound leadership and was appropriately fired.

stephen
apprenticeviews.blogdrive.com

[Lex]

Stephen,

To build on one of your points...

A number of times in the boardroom sessions project managers have been asked point-blank why they didn't "fire" or remove a team member who was doing more damage than good.

Does anyone remember a situation where a PM has done this? Last season Jennifer M was given administrative work in one challenge, but I think that is the closest anyone has come to it.

Care to speculate on why this is?

Are they just unaware of it as a viable option?
Is it because they are too scared of Trump's response if the team loses?
Is it just bad HR policy or are they concerned with the interpersonal relationship aspect of it? (that would be a laugh)

It would certainly make for a more interesting show at times... perhaps a challenge where project managers are forced to sit someone out... or send a group of team members to a 3rd team?

[John]

How in the world can Donald say it goes against "the rules". Does he not change the rules as he wants to? I beleive he has changed the rules in the past. Oh I forgot, that was to suit his desires. The integrity of the show is going downhill. I believe they are going for ratings and "hoopla" over integrity, skills and qualifications anymore.
Granted Danny wasn't great but Micahel is actually dangerous to morale.

[tribalcounselor]

Hi!

I was looking for an analysis/discussion of what happened this week on the Apprentice. I agree that the Magna team approach to fire Michael was a great idea. I also think that they had a sound basis for the argument, but that it had not been articulated thoroughly enough. However, despite this sound basis, they did not fully appreciate the "reality" of the situation: Donald Trump could not be viewed as a person who went back on his word. THAT is the overarching principle that must be kept in mind and if Magna could have figured out how to address that issue, they might have achieved their objective to save Danny.

First, Erin's observations were great, but did not go far enough in analysis, in my opinion. The simple fact is that an exemption IS a contract. A contract which includes certain implied terms, one of which is that the person who has exemption does not sabatoge the team in the following week. I have NO doubt that Trump intended that the exempt team mate play ethically and contribute to the team even if they have exemption. THAT is an implied term of the "exemption contract." Michael, by his behavior "breached" that implied contractual provision and should therefore have been given the boot.

Now to Danny. I don't believe that his actions were necessarily the contributing factor to the loss. I think that "editing" may have had a lot to do with how we "feel" about his performance. If I am to believe what was SAID on the show, the event planner gave them 20 minutes to make a decision. I can't believe that 20 minutes was enough to throw the "game plan" that far off into a tail spin. I think it was a "convenient excuse" for the show to justify Danny's firing.

There was another option which had not been discussed by the team and I'm sad that they didn't focus on it. Namely, if you can't fire Michael, and Danny didn't do enough to be seen as the direct cause of the failure, why not treat Verna's decision to "quit" as "firing" for the week. After all, the overall process is to narrow the field down each week. Verna's action effectively narrowed the field... Had she stayed through to the challenge, she probably would have been fired because she had "no energy" (her words). Indeed, had I been there, when she made the decision to leave, I would have asked her to "hang out in the apartment" for the day and then join us in the boardroom if we lost. That way, the entire team would have had a "bye" for the week in case of loss and she would have been able to "leave" anyway...she could have "taken one for the team" so to speak in her departure for wigging out on them in the prior challenge.

Anyway, thanks for letting me vent on this. Yes, Danny was not the best leader, but Michael's actions and attitude overwhelmed Danny's poor performance, in my opinion.

[stephen]

Lex: I recall that episode when JM was given a quiet task. I also seem to recall that Trump said something to Kwami about why he didn't fire Omarosa. Kwami said he didn't know he could. Obviously - he can.

I often wonder if candidates watch prior seasons! I have said this before: If I was going to be on the show, I would study the prior seasons and read boards such as ours. It's about strategy - it is after all a game (sorry Bill).

Restating my comment: I am a PM/Mgr - and it is not a game. I have had the ability to fire team-members if given cause and follow proper HR procedures. I have fired people in my career. When I have, it was because it was required for the good of the team and the organization. I think this is something that should be in the PM's hands in this game. If not, alteast delegate that person to go back to the condo and watch tv.

Reality:
I think that if Danny had presented himself as a solid leader frustrated by a lousy employee, he would have listened to the arguments about the rule change. BUT Trump knows how the teams acted and did (George & Carolyn are his advisors). Trump knew Danny was ineffective as a leader - so this was NOT the place to change the rules.

Danny deserved to go (editing or not - he didnt create any BUZZ and he is a marketing guy!) BUT Michael is not scot-free. His team hates him and Trump knows he was a jerk. Michael is walking dead.

Lastly, Da-Trumpster could NOT have allowed Verna' exit to be the firing. I am sure they have contigencies like this (in case someone got ill etc). It probably means that there is no final-4 for the interview rounds, it will be a final-three instead. Or maybe they will have a "gift" episode where no one is fired.

The first question was who was responsible for the loss. That is the question to Trump. Whatever Erin said is just BS. Sure every law does not exist in vacuum, but the goal of the team was to create a marketing campaign for Instant coffee, that was the trask at hand and not find legal loopholes.
Focussing on Michael is a distraction, for Danny , Erin and everybody. Danny was not in control, Erin didn't contribute anything to creating the campaign and at the end of the day Micahel is not responsible for the loss, whether or not he had exemption is it at all relevant ?

[Lex]

The question of how to sideline a team member is an interesting one. As you point out Stephen, in business there are processes you must go through in order to fire someone, often involving warnings and a probabitionary period designed to allow the employee to straighten up and fly right. But also to protect against a personal issue or malicious leader targetting an underling.

Obviously in the first season, based on Kwame's comment, the option of benching someone was not included in the communicated Rules of the Game.

But I wonder how extensive that initial communication of "Rules" is. Obviously it includes a discussion of what can be revealed to the customers and partners in the process of the tasks - but I wonder how detailed it is in intra-team management.

[Randi]

I have a problem with the fact that despite Michael's "safe" status, he was allowed to stay after threatening physical violence to a co-player. Once they walked into that boardroom, Mr. Trump should have said, "todays boardroom will be very easy for me. It is unacceptable for anyone to threaten physical violence, therefore,
Michael, you are fired". I love this show but this really pissed me off. He should have been gone!

[don]

refer to the stacey j. firing. prior to selecting the 3 losing candidates, her entire team thought she was scary and crazy. on that basis she was fired. Michael could have been fired because his team viewed him as lazy and threatening(to Danny).

[don]

so what I'm saying is, that Michael would be fired because of his attitude and behavior as a candidate, and not because of his lack of performance. Threatening to throw someone out of the window, is grounds for dismissal. Refusing a fair request from a project manager is grounds for dismissal. They did it to Stacy J., who was a little weird but not recalcitrant. This is a glaring lack of team support, and indicates Michael will cruise at the next opportunity. Now Trump will execute him in a future episode, much like a referee utilizes a makeup call, righting a wrong with a wrong call.