Full Show Index
Advertise With Us
Write For Us
The Apprentice 2 Weekly Performance Review, Episode 4: Zagat's the Way it Crumbles, Cookie-Wiseby Mike DeGeorge -- 10/04/2004
View Printable version of this article
Just in case you're wondering, Heidi "Love Love LOVED" the column last week. Let's hope I can keep her happy…
I've been worried, writing these articles, that maybe the only reason I like Mosaic and have such a seething hatred for Apex is due to some sort of unconscious mysogynistic attitude. So I asked a number of professional women at work who also watch this show, and along with Carolyn, it seems to be unanimous: none of these women deserve to be on the show, let alone win.
We didn't see a whole lot of the men's team, mainly because they worked smoothly while the women were better television.
Kelly and Wes: And the problem with not having much shown of your team is that a couple team members get left out. That means you.
John: You did an exceptional job on the paintings! I'm usually the first to deride modern art (as longtime readers may remember), but those look like something I would hang on my wall. On the chance you don't win, you should definitely open a website to sell some of those. In addition, you managed to turn the "gay table" around. Now, they could have just been reacting badly to Chris, but in any case, smoothing over an unsatisfied customer takes a lot of charm. That's a good thing for a manager to have - ask Bill.
Kevin: As Betsy alluded to in her recap, you automatically became one of my favorites with your defense of Stacie. As you said, and I said in this column last week, none of them had any right to judge her mental state.
And a note to Betsy: I don't know about you, but my columns are SO IMPORTANT that they are capable of travelling backward in time and changing the results of the show. So there.
Pamela: That was really funny, pretending to spill that red drink on the customer with the white coat. Oh, wait, it wasn't. It's funny to do it to your friend, or spouse. It's not funny when the noticeably jumpy customer is going to fill out a form grading you on your service in a few minutes, idiot!
According to the previews, you go over to Apex next week, which in my mind is like throwing an anchor to a drowning man. I've grown to hate your smug attitude over the last four weeks, and am very glad you won't be around to screw up the "good team."
Andy: You were in charge of service, which wasn't very good, by your own admission. Even so, you beat the women in service, not to mention impressed Bill and Carolyn. Maybe it's just because I like you, but very often in your career, you will be forced to perform a task at which you may not be very proficient. It's how you handle it that counts, and I think you handled it well.
Chris: Being in retail sales for a long time, I quite enjoyed your training session with the group. But you have to be careful about your attitude because you come off as very cocky and insufferable. This is the first week I've seen enough of you to make any sort of comment, and it's a negative. Not good, Chris.
Raj: I'm glad you took the reigns as Project Manager, but I wish you would have ceded the title to Chris upon learning of his experience. As it was, it made you look weak when you want to look strong, as it appeared to the viewer that Chris did all the work. That may not have been the case, but that's how it appeared. However, the other argument says that the best managers work behind the scenes, so I've giving you a pass this week based solely on the fact that your team was the proverbial "well-oiled machine."
If you ever need to come up with a slogan, may I suggest, "Apex Corporation: Finding new and original ways to lose every week." I mean, I hear the Cleveland Browns are coming to you for advice on how to lose!
Jennifer M.: You were so quick to blame Elizabeth and come to Stacie's defense… in the suite. Not standing up for her in the boardroom makes you one thing: a hypocrite. I hope you don't take similar ethical stands with your law clients: "Well, I know you're innocent, but I figured it would do more good to say so after the case was over." Even if you are right about Elizabeth…
EDIT: I've gotten a ton of emails about Jennifer's evaluation, claiming she did come to Stacie's defense in the boardroom. I wanted to leave the above intact, but clarify a little.
Perhaps saying "hypocrite" was a little strong, and my example wasn't very good. The fact remains, Jennifer is a lawyer. Had she felt strongly about Stacie, she should have stood up (figuratively) and declared it. She didn't come to Stacie's defense so much as refrain from attacking her. Trump said, numerous times, that "the entire group" was against her. Why did she not correct him? It's possible to correct Trump, if you do it politely.
The problem I have, in short, is that the miniscule argument in the boardroom did not justify her haughty attitude in the suite. It is commendable that she made an effort, but trying to take the high road later on is indefensible.
Elizabeth: Oy. Not to bring an "emotional woman" argument, but is there a reason every time that you're yelled at or disagreed with you turn into an unintelligible blob of goo? If you're frustrated by your team's performance, whining about it isn't going to help. If you're not given the proper resources, do the best job you can do with what you have. If you fail, then you can make the claim that you were doomed to fail from the start. However, crying that you're going to fail before you even try is like a flashing neon "loser" sign above your head.
Ivana: I'm shocked! You actually did a decent job this week! Of course, your main contribution that we saw was trying to prevent the "clumping" of women. It's not much, but compared to your past performance it ranks right up there with sliced bread. Hey, being on the opposite side of the fence as Jennifer C. is bound to make anyone look good.1 2 Next-->
View Printable version of this article