Undercover Boss (1 Viewer)

[mattCR]

Ok, I admit, the first episode after the superbowl was entertaining.
But this episode, out of hooters, may have been downright despicable. I haven't eaten in Hooters often (I've been maybe twice in my life) and I don't really oppose the concept. I've always thought that it should just commit and go to being a full sports bar, but whatever.

The show "Undercover Boss" seems to be mostly about showing how the big-wigs understand you, and they like you just fine. They want to help.
But tonight's episode was like a dagger in the back of Hooters. I have no idea how Hooters could let this thing air without major bucks. Because within the course of an hour, we saw a CEO who is completely out of touch with his own product.. hasn't visited his own factory in 5 years, and never as a CEO, and then we see what happens in the stores.
Oh, what happens in the stores.

We see them wash up chicken with bare hands and then just grab other dishes (GREAT), and then we see a store manager absolutely demean the waitresses in a way that is almost textbook sexual harassment. And, despite his bit of having the girls participate in demeaning 'reindeer games', and having them all go through a beauty pageant for him daily, he doesn't get terminated? Are you serious?

Wow. This could have been a dateline expose on the corruption and devil-may care attitude of a company, because jesus did the people at Hooters come off as complete morons. I've only been there twice in my life, so I'm not a big patron, but that show pretty much convinced me I'd never buy their crap product.

Yes, I realize some have said CBS made companies commit to not firing.. but I'm sure they could have fired the guy and backed out of the TV appearance or something. And he could have found work doing something else, say... in drywall. But wow. Just absolute PR nightmare wow.

 

[Diallo B]

totally agree matt.

 

[Adam Gregorich]

I haven't seen this weeks yet. The first episode of (Waste Management) was surprisingly good. Yeah he did some sappy things at the end, but overall I had a lot of respect for the work he was willing to do, and the fact that he took responsibility for some of the companies policies that were impacting employee moral. That episode was interesting enough to make me want to continue watching. It also made Waste Management and its CEO look pretty good, especially for the way he took responsibility and wanted to deal with problems. Sounds like like Hooters didn't approach it the same way.

 

[mattCR]

The Waste Management episode really showed an ownership though that "got" their product, but was just looking for the actualities of how the day to day operations went. I thought that was a really good one.

The most recent episode was also good, but for different reasons. It pretty much confirmed the Hooters management is completely out of touch with reality (when he stumbled along the street and looked stunned as women told him he thought it was offensive and looked wounded and surprised??) I mean, does he understand at all the product he's selling? And the Jimbo thing was basically the worst kind of nightmare imaginable for Hooters, the fact that he wasn't fired? Or that he spent the end hugging on the girls, or that he had no issue repeatedly saying "the girls are the product" all of which may be true, but then if you know it, stop boo-hooing about the inability to be seen as a family restaurant.

 

[Adam Gregorich]

Having just watched it I don't think they came across as harsh as you think they did Matt and Diallo, but I think it was a good case of a good CEO vs a bad CEO for the first two episodes. The difference in the wrap up between the two was telling. Not firing Jimbo was a big mistake.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

I just watched the Hooters episode, it was my first and it won't be my last, I quite enjoyed it.

But that dude Jimbo was just despicable, he treated the girls under his watch like animals who were there for his own personal amusement. The CEO was waaay too lenient with him, he should have been let go right on the spot.

To comment on the concept of the series itself, it's pretty cool IMO, my father works for Wawa part time to pass the time and make some extra dough and they have undercover reps come in every once in awhile to check up on things so it's not unheard of but it's nice to see a show that lets us see how that works.

I'll definitely be sticking around for this one.

 

[Mike Frezon]

I've seen the first two episodes and have already found them to be rather formulaic and predictable.

My big question is who makes the decision about where the CEOs go? It seems like the scenarios they find themselves in are nice and pat in that they find some "needy" personnel that they are able to have a nice resolution with at the end--that is, give them help or ask them to help the company. It also seems like there's going to be one "problem" employee. (I was quite curprised to hear the Hooter's CEO say he "wasn't looking forward to" talking to the bad manager. I would have thought a good CEO would have been actually looking forward to dealing with a bad egg.)

Also, on the surface, it would be nice if the CEOs just did this sort of thing on occasion as a matter of policy. But would these people never have done it without the prompting of CBS?

So, I have lots of questions about how the scenarios are set-up. Both episodes, so far, have had too many instances which put the CEOs in situations in which they "learn" things about themselves and others. I know that's the "point" of the program...but it all seems too pat and convenient. I'm doubtful that a lot of this isn't set up.

 

[TonyD]

Originally Posted by Mike Frezon

I've seen the first two episodes and have already found them to be rather formulaic and predictable.

My big question is who makes the decision about where the CEOs go? It seems like the scenarios they find themselves in are nice and pat in that they find some "needy" personnel that they are able to have a nice resolution with at the end--that is, give them help or ask them to help the company. It also seems like there's going to be one "problem" employee. (I was quite curprised to hear the Hooter's CEO say he "wasn't looking forward to" talking to the bad manager. I would have thought a good CEO would have been actually looking forward to dealing with a bad egg.)

Also, on the surface, it would be nice if the CEOs just did this sort of thing on occasion as a matter of policy. But would these people never have done it without the prompting of CBS?

So, I have lots of questions about how the scenarios are set-up. Both episodes, so far, have had too many instances which put the CEOs in situations in which they "learn" things about themselves and others. I know that's the "point" of the program...but it all seems too pat and convenient. I'm doubtful that a lot of this isn't set up.

Agree on these points, the show is underwhelming to me.
there's no emotional WOW, it's just a meh so what feeling for me.
There just is no impact happening as a result of the ceo working undercover.

I'm not sure I understand the point of the show, what are they going for?

 

[Mike Frezon]

Originally Posted by TonyD

I'm not sure I understand the point of the show, what are they going for?

Sort of an "Extreme Makeover: CEO Edition", I guess. Hoping to open up the CEOs eyes to what their organization is all about/how it works.

I would think the more a CEO has his/her eyes opened, the worse shape their company is in.

=====================================================

Any CEO could certainly find people in the lower rungs of their operation that he could help out someway. I would posit that it seems "unfair" that the CEO would be steered towards a particular person or two when there are so many people that work under them that they could also meet and get to know. It gets me back to that original question of who decides where the CEOs go.

Originally, I wondered how the producers were going to get the camera shots they would need to effectively tell the tale. I think the premise of a "new worker" documentary crew is pretty lame and not going to be able to last too long as the show continues its run.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

To me it sounds as if this is their answer to the ailing economy, at least that's what was eluded to in the opening of the episode, to go in and find what's wrong in their company and fix it.

I hear what you guys are saying but I found it to be pretty interesting.

 

[Al_S]

I recorded this and watched it for the first time last night. I thought the Hooters episode was pretty good. Hey listen, guys are pigs and Hooters exist because we are. I've been to Hooters several times and it's not really for the food. I think it's wrong to try to turn it into a family restaurant. I've been there when families sit next to me and I don't understand it. I wouldn't go to a restaurant where men dressed like that. It's just not right. This is a place where I want to relax and have a beer and look at pretty women. I will not apologize for that.

Sure the manager was a pig. Are you surprised by that? Do you think these women that work at Hooters do it for any other reason than they can make a ton of money by showing a little skin? They are not innocent they know exactly what they are there for.

The CEO seemed like an idiot to me. He just inherited the position without understanding what it involved.

 

[Chris Lockwood]

Originally Posted by Mike Frezon

So, I have lots of questions about how the scenarios are set-up. Both episodes, so far, have had too many instances which put the CEOs in situations in which they "learn" things about themselves and others. I know that's the "point" of the program...but it all seems too pat and convenient. I'm doubtful that a lot of this isn't set up.

I don't know if we're seeing everywhere they go- it could be that the show just has the most interesting scenes.

 

[Scott-S]

I have a lot of respect for the Waste Management CEO. He got in there and picked trash and cleaned porta-poties. He really went all-in.

The Hooters CEO admitted he sort of fell into his position. But I can't believe how far off he was in his own mind about what Hooters is.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Originally Posted by Scott-S

The Hooters CEO admitted he sort of fell into his position. But I can't believe how far off he was in his own mind about what Hooters is.

Yeah really, I'm not the CEO of Hooters and even I knew it's all about boobs and food lol.

 

[mattCR]

It was still bad PR. He should have said "you know, Hooters is really the right place for a great SPORTS BAR"
Hooters fits that market, and fits it well. Invest in the girls, put up tons of LCDs everywhere for all the games and call it good. Stop boo-hooing about why people aren't bringing their 12 year old kids in.

 

[Diallo B]

Originally Posted by Al_S

The CEO seemed like an idiot to me. He just inherited the position without understanding what it involved.

that is exactly what i told my friend. this guy has no management quailities. his father just heaped the title of ceo on him. he doesn't have the skills to run a large company. if anything if i worked with him i would be emabarassed to say so.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

I actually don't get why people wouldn't bring their kids there, they're too young to notice or even care about the girls and even if they did it's not as if the girls have their boobs hanging out.

I see people dressed like that in the summertime on the street so I don't see why people are so uptight about that. It's a girl wearing a top and tight shorts, big freakin' deal.

 

[Diallo B]

Originally Posted by Inspector Hammer!

I actually don't get why people wouldn't bring their kids there, they're too young to notice or even care about the girls and even if they did it's not as if the girls have their boobs hanging out.

I see people dressed like that in the summertime on the street so I don't see why people are so uptight about that. It's a girl wearing a top and tight shorts, big freakin' deal.

my concern is more with the drunk oafs making inappropriate comments and gestures towards the women. i don't think that children should be exposed to that.

honestly if they switched to a sports bar format they would probably make more money.

 

[Chris Lockwood]

Originally Posted by Diallo B


my concern is more with the drunk oafs making inappropriate comments and gestures towards the women. i don't think that children should be exposed to that.

Which Hooters was that in? The ones I've been in were just like other restaurants except for the way the waitresses were dressed. I never saw the big deal, either, since it's not like they are dressed like strippers. And, yes, there are people who go there for the food. I don't think the waitresses would be enough to keep them in business if everyone hated the food.

BTW the CEO is not the idiot some seem to think he is. He did acknowledge that he knew that some of the public has a problem with the Hooters concept. I think he may have been surprised by how strong some of those feelings are, but the impression I got was that he was saddened by that reaction since it was a business that his dad started, so naturally he would want it to be well-received.

He also acknowledged that the CEO job was given to him before he was ready. That's not unusual in a family business.

 

[Mike Frezon]

Well, my wife still likes the show a lot. She likes the "feel good' aspect of it (which they've been promoting heavily). I, OTOH, find it a bit too "set up." It seems like there's GOT to be a good deal of pre-production work which goes into deciding where the CEOs go to spend their time.

Instead of being a show--as originally promoted--where the CEOs would be hard-pressed to cut the mustard at the entry-level jobs...it seems to be much more interested in having the CEO send the employees they spend time with on vacations and give them promotions. I was laughing out loud when the 7-11 CEO, tonight, got chummy with the bakery supervisor who also dabbled in drawing. I was thinking...is he going to send the guy to art school or something??? Nope. Instead he gets him a job with the corporate advertising office.

I wonder who foots the bill for the week's resort vacation for Igor and his wife (whom he only sees on weekends)? I bet it's CBS. I'd be pissed if I was a shareholder and the company was selecting random employees and funding a week's vacation.