Full Show Index
Advertise With Us
Write For Us
The Apprentice 2: Why Jennifer C. Lostby David Bloomberg -- 09/30/2004
View Printable version of this article
The fourth episode of The Apprentice 2 was enjoyable for several reasons. The producers didn’t try to trick us into thinking one team would lose when it appeared they were not doing as well. We saw Apex going into the toilet right from the very beginning. And we saw Jennifer C. leading them straight into the toilet. Trump had a very easy decision this week, and that was apparent to pretty much everybody.
But why was it so easy? Ah, that’s where we come in here. As always, we will take a look back at What ‘Apprentice 2’ Applicants Should Have Learned and use it as a map to figure out all the wrong turns Jennifer took.
The first rule is, as always, to show leadership. Several times during the Boardroom people talked about Jennifer’s leadership – and it was not in a positive way. They kept talking about she would talk the talk but not walk the walk. Indeed, after the women found out that they had lost, Jennifer still bragged about her alleged leadership skills – before going on to blame “two old Jewish fat ladies” for their loss.
Let’s address this on a couple fronts. First, if she’s such a great leader, why did they lose? For one thing, Raj was a much better leader for the guys, as everybody saw. Ivana said it right at the beginning of the Boardroom – the guys had good leadership and were able to rest and get some sleep before the task. The women didn’t and were up all night.
Next, if she’s such a great leader, why did she need to blame two old ladies for their loss? How many votes in the survey does she think those two women had?! It was a sign of desperation, just looking for anywhere to cast blame other than on herself.
Third, was it the sign of a good leader to offend people by repeating over and over that they were old Jewish ladies? It bothered Stacy, which started a new round of fights at the loft. We never really saw it addressed, but look at it this way: Why did she even bother mentioning their possible religious affiliation? Everybody knew which two women she was talking about. The two old women who were complaining about everything. OK, so where does "Jewish" come into it? For that matter, where does "fat" come into it? If it's irrelevant, why even mention it unless you have some reason for mentioning it? And why repeat it, as she apparently did? If they had been wearing crosses and carrying rosaries, would she have said, "Those two old Catholic fat ladies?" Somehow I doubt it. Maybe she didn’t really mean anything by it, but sometimes a leader is judged by what she says, not just what she means. So it’s really no wonder that Stacy was upset. Making divisive statements is not the sign of a good leader.
On the plus side, Jennifer did at least follow the advice about being a manager and not letting other strong personalities overwhelm her, such as when she decided what type of food the restaurant would serve. Unfortunately, she made that decision without actually checking to see if it was a good idea.
The second rule says to stay cool under fire. While Jennifer did not have problems the same way Stacie J. did in the first week or Elizabeth did this week, she still reacted poorly to stress. It appears that when Jennifer is under stress, she can’t shut her mouth. When she was in the Boardroom in the second episode, even though she was obviously not the target, she wouldn’t be quiet – even after Trump told her to be! As Mike DeGeorge said in his Episode 2 performance evaluation article, Jennifer needed to “Shut. Up.” At the end of that Boardroom, she said she’s learned not to speak up. Um, no, she hadn’t. Because she kept interrupting Carolyn, for one thing. It appeared that whenever somebody said something about her, she had to rebut it instantly, and it didn’t matter who else was talking at the time. Not cool.
On the surface, Jennifer seemed to do okay on the third rule, having a backbone. She did stand up for herself – a bit too much, in fact, as we just discussed. But let’s look at what the rule actually says: “this doesn’t mean attacking them back or getting emotional. But you need to explain your side of the story and show how the person attacking you is really the one who deserves to be fired.” Jennifer didn’t do that. She got personal, she got emotional, she went on the attack. She did not do a good job of explaining why anybody else should be fired – in fact, she did such a poor job that Trump, Carolyn, and Bill didn’t even appear to consider firing the other two women Jennifer brought with her in the end.1 2 Next-->
View Printable version of this article