1. It makes sense for Rebecca to defend Toral in the boardroom, simply because of her sense of loyalty.
2. It makes no sense for Bryce to defend in the boardroom the people who actually worked on his failed task, simply because of his sense of loyalty.
3. It makes sense for Lee to defend Lenny in the boardroom, in spite of his arguably weak performance as a project manager, simply because of Lee's sense of loyalty.If loyalty is a good thing, then none of them should have been fired. If loyalty is a bad thing, then all three of them should have been fired.
What is The Donald doing?
--Singer
Although I agree with you for the most part there are some differences. First Lee was not the project manager. I thought for a second Trump might fire Lee and Lenny because Lenny screwed up and lee thought he was great so with both being on the same page he would fire them. Also I had no clue until last night that Lenny and Lee were tight. Lenny threw lee under the bus about taking holidays off.As for Bryce, while I agree Bryce should not of been fired if Trump really valued Loyalty, but maybe Bryce got fired because he just could not convince Trump and Co not to fire him.
Rebecca did do a nice job of convincing Trump not to fire Toral or herself. It also helps that there was another person that screwed up the task and could also be fired. Bryce adn Lenny did not have an easy scapegoat.
Trump is inconsistent...I do agree with that.
<< Trump is inconsistent...I do agree with that. >>An even bigger inconsistency is how some winning teams win valuable rewards while other winning teams get as their reward something not much better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. This week the reward was buying tons of toys for one child. This was similar to the week when the winning team got to buy clothing for three men. But another week each of the winners was rewarded with expensive diamonds. Even a meal with Trump would be a good reward. This inconsistency in the quality of the rewards given must be making an impression on members of the winning team who must feel cheated. Their helping out this child was an advertisement for Trump's public image. At the very least, there should have been a personal benefit for each member of the winning team, such as a meal with Trump, in addition to helping a child get more toys.