With the latest series of The Apprentice over, and another £100k recruit appointed, I wonder what a Martian watching the show might conclude about the way we do business in Britain. My own reactions are divided when looking at the contestants' and at Sir Alan's, behaviour.
The aspiring apprentices brought to mind the Darwinian phrase "nature red in tooth and claw". Several demonstrated the worst aspects of capitalism, as well as greed and inconsiderate behaviour. They tended to be over-aggressive, took credit for others' work and success, demonstrated a lack of loyalty, wanted to win at all costs, and showed a conspicuous lack of self-effacing and supportive behaviour to colleagues.
Even in Victorian times in the upstairs-downstairs, "them and us" class system, there was an element of paternalism and some social conscience, a feature noticeably missing from The Apprentice's thrusting entrepreneurs. Is this behaviour a consequence of the US influence, of the value systems of our business schools, or just an evolutionary response to globalisation? Whatever the causes, I am worried about tomorrow's business leaders if, today, we are breeding obsessional self-interest, a lack of loyalty, and value systems that are anathema to the corporate social responsibility ethic.
Yes, it's only a TV show and its primary aim is to entertain, but it seems to me what it communicates to a wider audience is that you can only be successful by being individualistic, thrusting, and climbing up the "greasy pole" on the backs of others.
Another aspect was the unedifying sycophancy of the contestants to Sir Alan—something that's probably prevalent in many large organisations, as high flyers attempt to get ahead. But isn't this behaviour counter-productive to UK PLC, which needs innovative, unconventional and original thinking on products, services and ways of doing things, rather than conformity? It was great to see Sir Alan react in a negative way, both verbally and non-verbally, to this type of behaviour over the course of the series.
I was dismayed to see someone who had been selected for the final, being forced to consider either her job or her family. I was delighted she chose her family over the job. I understand this is entertainment, so the producers needed an immediate decision, but it still highlights the dilemma faced by many business women of trying to juggle work and the family—the great work-life balance debate. Even in the era of the so-called "new man" and with flexible working a practical option, what we saw is still, unfortunately, far too prevalent throughout British industry.
Now to the show's star. Contrary to what many journalists and commentators said during and after the last series, to me, Sir Alan exemplified the best of senior management. You could see in his feedback to the aspiring apprentices that he was unhappy with, and did not tolerate, team leaders who blamed their team members for failure, or who took credit for what others had done, or behaved unco-operatively, or made excuses for their own failures to protect their position, or were sycophantic toward him.
He showed model co-operative and respectful behaviour toward his two associates, and to most of the contestants, by explaining to the latter why their particular management style and behaviour was not appropriate to achieve success in his organisation. And, although the format required the "you're fired" signature, he tended to listen and empathise, trying to understand the aspirant's behaviour but still taking decisive and appropriate action when needed.
So, our Martian friend might take heart from the behaviour of the real-life entrepreneur, Sir Alan, but might be less impressed with the next generation of business leaders. In the post-Thatcher years, have we Americanised too much, pushing individual success, money and status beyond the limits of respect, co-operation and loyalty? You be the judge.
Cary Cooper CBE is pro vice-chancellor and professor of organisational psychology and health at Lancaster University and chair of the Sunningdale Institute.
