LAST EDITED ON 12-19-05 AT 09:29 PM (EST)

Rummy on first, he's certainly looking more cheerful than I've seen him in a long time. Part of the ole dog 'n' pony show.....

Edited to Add:
Donald Trump said it all, said it well, and it's very convincing: Randal won, he made the tough business decision. Miss U.S.A. said told DT she would have said the same thing. In addition, Randal explained himself beautifully.

Of course Trump is going to try to put a positive spin on what his new apprentice did. But Randal's decision, was not a business decision, it was a self-serving decision. A business decision, would have been one based on whether or not Rebecca was qualified enough. Randal's decision was based on his need to be the sole recipient of a mere title. Rebecca saying that she would have hired Randal; because when you have talent standing in front of you, you snatch it up before the competition gets a hold of that talent; is making a business decision.

Randal's decision,
>was not a business decision,
>it was a self-serving decision.

Any businessman who does not make business decisions based on how well it will serve him is a candidate for bankruptcy.

DooWahDitty: Do you remember what was said? I wish I had known they were coming on. I'm sure it was enlightening.

transcript of the interview can be found here

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/19/lkl.01.html

>transcript of the interview can be
>found here
>
>http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/19/lkl.01.html

I didn't think Randal added much to his justification for making that decision. It sounded to me like rationalization.

As most of us suspected, Randal's decision took Trump totally by surprise. The question about "race" came up, and Trump dodged it (I didn't think he dodged it particularly well, but really, he may have been insulted and giving a knee-jerk response). But the question of "gender" did NOT come up. I've personally wondered if gender had more to do with his decision, and I think the point is equally relevant. Historically, he's always chosen the man until Kendra. And the men that season were all admittedly bozos.

But what King said was absolutely correct: This was the best thing that could have happened for Rebecca. The offers are pouring in.

"I didn't think Randal added much to his justification for making that decision. It sounded to me like rationalization."

Seeing and hearing is often more convincing than reading.

thanks for the link, colormepink, and welcome to the boards. Resourceful newbies are particularly welcome!

>Any businessman who does not make
>business decisions based on how
>well it will serve him
>is a candidate for bankruptcy.

Does it serve you well to hand qualified candidates over to other companies? I doubt it. Furthermore, had Randal said it was okay to hire Rebecca, he would have had her loyalty. Whether or not they're "friends" I'm sure Rebecca's feelings toward Randal would have been a lot warmer, and her loyalty toward him a whole lot more emphatic, had Randal not made the self-serving decision.

You can always use loyal supporters. Don't think there's always another Loyal Supporter coming, or that you're entitled to people's loyalty no matter what you do to advance yourself. If people watch you make self-serving decisions at other peoples' expense, as Randal did, they'll back away from you and work against you under the "how well will it serve ME" rule. And sometimes they'll take gloating satisfaction in trying to take you down to get even.

You walk a slippery slope when you serve yourself without regard for the people around you. In Randal's case, it was a short-sighted decision.

"In Randal's case, it was a short-sighted decision."

I remain unconvinced by this position because The Donald's hiring question was a publicity stunt, and because Rebecca's performance was not remotely co-equal with Randal's.

There is nothing short-sighted about advising The Donald not to hire a mediocre performer.

I also remain unconvinced by the original argument, because The Donald did not consider offering Kwame the same kind of special treatment after he hired Boyfriend Bill. He did not consider offering JenM the same kind of special treatment after he hired Robot Kelley. He did not consider offering Tana the same kind of special treatment after he hired Kendra.

All of the unhired candidates in this cohort of players would have done well in his organisation, yet he did not seek advice from a new apprentice to hire them. Given that pattern, it was a nonsensical publicity stunt to change approaches at the end of the finale. And publicity stunts are not necessarily sound business decisions.

--Singer

Does it serve you well to hand qualified candidates over to other companies?

Trump still could have one of his companies hire her. The losers of this competition were not automatically turned over to some other corporation.

Trump merely asked Randal's opinion. Randal had not been hired to run Human Resources for Trump. It was Trump's decision not to hire Rebecca, based partially on the reponse of a brand new employee. Put the blame where it lies.

Furthermore, had Randal said it was okay to hire Rebecca, he would have had her loyalty.

Who gives a crap? They were not going to be working together, so any potential "loyalty" would have meant zilch. Maybe you didn't understand that they weren't going to be working together. Or perhaps you assumed that the winners of these contests climb a different corporate ladder and meet in a golden board room that Trump's regular professional employees never see.

You walk a slippery slope when you serve yourself without regard for the people around you.

Trump asked Randal if he should hire Rebecca. Randal said that he didn't think Rebecca would make a good manager. Randal was forming an opinion about someone's ability and whether or not they would be a good fit for Trump's organization. He was not just going off of "I won and I don't want to share". As I said in the summary - Randal would have spent weeks from the final taped show (when the charity events happened) to the live final Board Room to think of ways that he was better than Rebecca so that he could make his case for getting hired. It was perfectly natural for Randal to have a low opinion of Rebecca at that moment. Trump should not have asked him to make that decision immediately at the end of the competition. And now, Randal has no choice but to back up what he did by continuing to defend his opinion of Rebecca.

Trump so much as offered a position to Rebecca on Larry King Live.

She's got a lot of offers on the table. I doubt she'll go with the Trump Org., but not because she doesn't like Trump or what happened in the competition.

>Any businessman who does not make
>business decisions based on how
>well it will serve him
>is a candidate for bankruptcy.

But, doesn't that self-serving decision also need to benefit the company? I always figured it was contributing to a company, that helped businessmen move up the corporate ladder. Randal put the Apprentice competition before the company.

Did you watch LKL? Try to watch this wknd for a possible re-run. DT addressed that issue quite well. He's fine with it.

Sigpic by Seana

based on Rebecca's performance on the show and in the tasks, I'd say Randall did Trump a favor by saying he shouldn't hire her. Was I watching the wrong show and she actually won 3 tasks and lost only 1?

Her performance alone was reason enough to not hire her. She buckled to the Yahoo execs during her Charity event. That's great for Yahoo, sucks for the Aids foundation. If she cant' complete a task...why recommend her for a top position.

Maybe this was supposed to be like the real world after all...someone messes up so much that they get promoted so they'll be out of the way.

Maybe this was supposed to be like the real world after all...someone messes up so much that they get promoted so they'll be out of the way.

LOL. So you've seen that happen, too?

The ole Peter Principle.....

To be fair to Rebecca, I don't think she's the best example of the Peter Principle.

Sigpic by Seana

>Randal's decision,
>>was not a business decision,
>>it was a self-serving decision.
>
>Any businessman who does not make
>business decisions based on how
>well it will serve him
>is a candidate for bankruptcy.

If he was really a smart businessman he would have made the savvy *political* decision to be magnanimous and hire her. He would have been king of the world with an amazingly valuable image to sell - now he's just another chump working for trump.

>Of course Trump is going to
>try to put a positive
>spin on what his new
>apprentice did. But Randal's decision,
>was not a business decision,
>it was a self-serving decision.
>A business decision, would have
>been one based on whether
>or not Rebecca was qualified
>enough. Randal's decision was based
>on his need to be
>the sole recipient of a
>mere title. Rebecca saying that
>she would have hired Randal;
>because when you have talent
>standing in front of you,
>you snatch it up before
>the competition gets a hold
>of that talent; is making
>a business decision.

I could not have said it better myself thank you!
TT

>ETA: Pardon. Rebecca will be
>on too. Please peeps,
>look and see that Randal
>and Rebecca most likely WERE
>friends, and still ARE friends.
> I for one do
>not think they'll be posing.

Do you still think they are friends now?

Let's just say that I don't think they harbor any real ill-will toward each other. And it's very possible that they developed a very nice friendship due to being thrown together for those six weeks. Many others did. Why not them? (Don't answer that!) JK.

>Let's just say that I don't
>think they harbor any real
>ill-will toward each other.
>And it's very possible that
>they developed a very nice
>friendship due to being thrown
>together for those six weeks.
> Many others did.
>Why not them? (Don't
>answer that!) JK.

Personally I think that Rebecca was quite hurt when she was humiliated in front of a national audience by someone she felt a true respect and admiration for. Rembember that one of things Trump really liked about her was her loyalty, so she really must have felt betrayed (well you could see that on her face when it happened). Now that she's had a few days to get over it and has been comforted by the avalanche of support along with several very exciting job offers she seems to be feeling pretty good about how it turned out.

Fair enough and prolly true. By the way, haven't welcomed you yet. So welcome! Hope you stick around.

>Fair enough and prolly true.
>By the way, haven't welcomed
>you yet. So welcome!
>Hope you stick around.

Thanks much DWD. Never posted on a forum like this before - guess I was one of the legions who was so disturbed by how the finale turned out that I need a place to vent - so thanks to this board for allowing an outlet. Saved my poor family from having to hear about it any more than they already endured!

One thing you can say about that last show - if nothing else, it sure got people talking! A side effect DT seems to be happy about in spite of the negative reactions that occured. No such thing as bad publicity, eh?

I kind of wonder how I would have felt, had I watched the whole season. I was so disgusted by the most recent season (and the Kelly/Jennifer M. finale) that I vowed not to watch. So I succeeded in that. But as I said elsewhere, I just don't see how Randal was so offensive. Granted, Rebecca probably would have said something different than Randal did, but that doesn't mean Randal is a capital B. At any rate, Trump turned in a stellar performance last nigt on LKL and I dare say he was even believable when he chided Larry for bringing up the race issue. Maybe I'm gullible, but I don't think so in this case.

It's not so much that he said no, that I have a problem with, it's what he based his decision on that is the problem. I think if he is going to make a self-serving decision, it needs to be based on the on going company and not because he needs to be the sole recipient of a mere TV show title. There are a lot more important things in life, than to worry about having to share a title. In other words, if Randal is trying to eliminate a future competitor in the Trump Organization(this being Rebecca in this case); he could give Trump, his self-serving verdict, that Rebecca underperformed on Apprentice tasks and he feels that she is not quite experienced enough.

Thanks for notifying us about the LK interview and thanks also to the person who included a link for the transcript.

Now that it's been almost a week since I watched the live finale, I am not as disappointed in Randal's decision to not hire Rebecca as an Apprentice to Trump. (Personally, if I were Trump, I wouldn't have given Randal so much power in making a business decision, especially since Randal himself has just been hired that very night).

Nevertheless, after revisiting Randal's statements (and now reading the transcript of LK), Randal did in fact, leave open the option for Rebecca to join the Trump organization post-show. Randal had emphasized that that night was about hiring *one* apprentice, not multiple apprentices ("apprentii"). I could see how he wanted to distinguish himself as the sole winner of Apprentice IV, the t.v. show.

I still believe he made a mistake in declining to offer Rebecca the apprenticeship concurrently with his, but I can understand how he wanted to be named the show's solitary winner. It was still pride and ego on his part, but Randal, as he states in LK, did not close the door on Rebecca entirely from Trump.

Regardless, Rebecca is brilliant (and young) and the Apprentice show has provided her with many lucrative options now. I think she will do exceedingly well without joining Randal and Trump. I hope she continues with her financial journalism work and non-profit activities.

>I could see how he wanted
>to distinguish himself as the
>sole winner of Apprentice IV,
>the t.v. show.

I agree with alot of what you say, but don't you think he already was distinguished as the sole winner when Trump pointed to him and him alone and said You're Hired? I think he was afraid of Rebecca stealing his limelight if he endorsed her, but ironically his answer backfired on him and now she's America's Sweetheart and he's radioactive.

I think he
>was afraid of Rebecca stealing
>his limelight if he endorsed
>her, but ironically his answer
>backfired on him and now
>she's America's Sweetheart and he's
>radioactive.

Just curious, how could she have stolen his limelight in a real life situation, when she didn't come close to doing it on the show? Many people seem so impressed with Rebecca, but I thought she was by far an inferior candidate to Randal and many of the others.

Agreed. With all due respect to Rebecca, she couldn't have stolen Randal's limelight, not during the show and not afterward in a co-setting in the Trump Org. Now, maybe because she's a very attractive female, she may get certain kinds of offers that Randal wouldn't - altough he's in Kwame's league in terms of his fashion style and the panache with which he carries it off. (Panache may not be exactly the right word for Randal, but "you know what I mean".)

Sigpic by Seana

>Just curious, how could she have
>stolen his limelight in a
>real life situation, when she
>didn't come close to doing
>it on the show? Many
>people seem so impressed with
>Rebecca, but I thought she
>was by far an inferior
>candidate to Randal and many
>of the others.

I think he was afraid of being that during all the media appearances following the crowing of dual apprentices that his victory would be downplayed in light of the shared title. But it didn't have to be that way. He was the clear winner and if he had endorsed Rebecca it wouldn't have meant that she was his equal but just that he was a gracious winner. Strangely, she has stolen the limelight, funny how life works that way.

She has only stolen the limelight for the people who wanted her to win in spite of the obvious fact that she is an underachiever when compared to Randal. An underachiever in every aspect.

--Singer

>She has only stolen the limelight
>for the people who wanted
>her to win in spite
>of the obvious fact that
>she is an underachiever when
>compared to Randal. An
>underachiever in every aspect.
>
>--Singer

If Randal had to name a co-apprentice, it would not be Rebecca. There were far more deserving candidates on the show than her.

LAST EDITED ON 12-21-05 AT 06:19 AM (EST)

>If Randal had to name a
>co-apprentice, it would not be
>Rebecca. There were far more
>deserving candidates on the show
>than her.

Probably true, but for one reason or another they had all been fired already, so that wouldn't have really made sense - of course alot of people think the whole question of hiring her at the end didn't make any sense either Anyway, she may not have had a stellar record, but many people (including me and DT) think she was great - smart, articulate, personable, even-tempered, loyal, determined, etc.

I didn't want her to win, and she didn't, but I certainly wouldn't call her an underachiever. In any case, let's remember that the job is for an *apprentice*, not a CEO. The whole point is to hire someone who has great *potential*, not necessarily a huge record of previous achievements. Of course, in the real world the whole idea of an apprentice is kind of silly nowadays because so few companies actually support any kind of meaningful on-the-job training anymore - but it's a nice idea.

I see the show as an analogue for what happens to women and minorities in many American corporate organisations.

Given the fact that The Donald has made racist statements about blacks and Jews, and given the fact that he has few, if any, women and minorities in top-level positions in his company, his rules-switch appeared as a ploy to create yet another glass ceiling against a black person.

The unstated inference was "Yeah, you're kind of good Randal, but you're kind of lazy like the rest of your kind, and you are not quite as good as a 24-year-old with one degree. You see, it's a genetic thing."

The choice situation that The Donald created was completely untendable and offensive, at least by my lights.

--Singer

LAST EDITED ON 12-21-05 AT 03:50 PM (EST)

>Given the fact that The Donald
>has made racist statements about
>blacks and Jews, and given
>the fact that he has
>few, if any, women and
>minorities in top-level positions in
>his company, his rules-switch appeared
>as a ploy to create
>yet another glass ceiling against
>a black person.

I was thinking about this. Given the fact that the previous winners were all white, and that he wanted to hire two apprentices for the first time, there was no way he could have avoided accusations of racism regardless of what the race of the winners would have been. See this is how it works:

Winner Runner-up How it shows racism
------ --------- -------------------
white.. white.... no blacks = racism
white.. black.... black gets second-place insult = racism
black.. white.... black has to share with white = racism
black.. black.... takes two blacks to equal one white? = racism

>LAST EDITED ON 12-21-05
>AT 03:50 PM (EST)
>
>>Given the fact that The Donald
>>has made racist statements about
>>blacks and Jews, and given
>>the fact that he has
>>few, if any, women and
>>minorities in top-level positions in
>>his company, his rules-switch appeared
>>as a ploy to create
>>yet another glass ceiling against
>>a black person.
>
>I was thinking about this. Given
>the fact that the previous
>winners were all white, and
>that he wanted to hire
>two apprentices for the first
>time, there was no way
>he could have avoided accusations
>of racism regardless of what
>the race of the winners
>would have been. See
>this is how it works:
>
>
>Winner Runner-up How it shows
>racism
>------ --------- -------------------
>white.. white.... no blacks = racism
>
>white.. black.... black gets second-place insult
>= racism
>black.. white.... black has to share
>with white = racism
>black.. black.... takes two blacks to
>equal one white? = racism
>

That is not how it works, because your schema ignores the framework within which The Donald is reasoning.

Had Carolyn or George created any of the choice situations you posit, no claims of racism would be made. The reason is that they are not on the record as having made racist comments about blacks and Jews.

That is the only salient point here, at least for me. I do not believe for a minute that in a normal rational choice situation, racism has to figure in a managerial decision-making outcome. The best person should always be chosen, regardless of racial background.

I do, however, believe that in an ostensibly rational choice situation that involves The Donald, there will be problems, because of his racist statements about blacks and Jews.

The Donald is the problem here, not any of the players on The Apprentice, and certainly not Carolyn and George.

--Singer

Randal is a jerk plain and simple. Rebecca was on par with Randal. The final task, I would say she beat him there. Even though she raised no money, that's not her fault. She did every criteria there was. I liked Rebecca more than Randal, I knew he would win, but his final statement showed his true ugly nature.

Of course race played a role, if Trump didn't hire Randal he would be label a racist.

Rebecca is way above Randal. I hope Randal only works one year and regrets his decision forever.

LAST EDITED ON 12-22-05 AT 10:40 AM (EST)

Some people think that The Donald wanted to hire an undeserving Rebecca to avoid a lawsuit from her, because she broke her ankle on the show. They think that he and Mark Burnett scripted the outcome and got rid of better players to ensure that Rebecca would make it to the finals. In other words, Marshawn may have been directed to refuse to give the presentation, Trump's firing of Alla was a ruse, since she was arguably the best player in the entire crowd, Randal was directed to allow a poorly-performing Rebecca be PM in their final task together, etc.

In other words, Trump and Burnett wanted to create a story arc to ensure that Rebecca would win. Unfortunately for her, she did not have the vision and basic smarts to raise money in the final task, and Randal beat her numbers-wise when he raised $11,000.

The argument goes this way: Race had no bearing on what Trump was doing when he tried to hire an undeserving Rebecca. His desire to avoid a lawsuit did.

I am beginning to believe that this is at least a plausible argument. I have definite views on the social issues we have discussed here, but the entire set of developments may have been a damage-control exercise.

--Singer

LAST EDITED ON 12-22-05 AT 11:11 AM (EST)

"The argument goes this way: Race had no bearing on what Trump was doing when he tried to hire an undeserving Rebecca. His desire to avoid a lawsuit did.

I am beginning to believe that this is at least a plausible argument. I have definite views on the social issues we have discussed here, but the entire set of developments may have been a damage-control exercise."(emphasis added)

Agreed. Too bad this crucial point will get lost in a long thread that most people unfortunately won't see because: (1)they don't read long threads, (2) they don't read anything not written by themselves and (3) the rush of the holiday season.

(slight edit for clarity)