'Undercover Boss' Should be Retitled 'Exposed Boss'

After reading this scathing editorial on the new CBS TV show Undercover Boss in the latest issue of Newsweek, our Founder and Chairman Ken Lehman wrote our team an email in which he wondered,

if even big company CEOs who are doing their jobs, and providing leadership, could be sufficiently anonymous, given all the technology that enables regular contact with a workforce, to go undercover and pull it off. So while the program is probably intended to depict these undercover bosses as progressive leaders, I think it demonstrates just the opposite.

I agree with Ken. He seems to share the view of respected workplace author and coach Wally Bock, who recently fired off a series of his own cogent arguments for why Undercover Boss is "a repellant piece of trash." Chief among these is that,

If you're a senior executive, you don't need to go undercover to find out what happens on the front line. Just go out and talk to the folks on a regular basis. If you're not already doing that, you won't find out much from a single week undercover.

I was so impressed by Wally's take on the show that I tweeted about it last week (in addition to an assessment by Quantum Workplace, which is much more forgiving).

Taking into account the above opinions on Undercover Boss, and my own, I would retitle it Exposed Boss. Here's why:

A boss of a large company that is "surprised" by any amount of poor workplace behavior should be an agenda item for the firm's next board of directors meeting.
Even more importantly from an employee engagement/workplace team building perspective, no CEO – of a large or small business – should be OK putting workers between a rock and a hard place, forcing them to appear on air and potentially reveal damaging behavior, or to refuse to appear and risk disciplinary action, including suspension or even termination.

In his email to us today, Ken also said "No CEO of a Winning Workplace is sufficiently anonymous to become an undercover boss." While that's true – and ultimately a good thing in terms of creating a productive workplace starting from the "tone at the top" – it's a shame that there are probably not high enough ratings in the premise of CEOs of highly effective small businesses MBWA and focusing on what their people are doing that's right and which moves the business forward.

If you've seen Undercover Boss, what's your take on it?

Comments for 'Undercover Boss' Should be Retitled 'Exposed Boss'

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 by Wally Bock:: Thanks for mentioning my post on the Undercover Boss and thanks for adding to my store of understanding. In a small workplace, the boss can't go undercover because everyone knows who he or she is. But that doesn't mean the boss can't hide or live inside a bubble. I've seen that often. I was lucky that three of my mentors set the example of bosses who wandered about, well before MBWA became a buzzword.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010 by Mark:: That's a very important distinction. Glad you saw my latest reference/link to your post, Wally. Keep up the great writing at TSL!
Sunday, May 16, 2010 by Me:: This is all a marketing scam. Free advertisement with an agreement to have last say on what is aired. Plus, its no wonder no-one speaks up these days about how terrible managers are, they themselves don't speak their mind for fear of the unemployment ax. They just bury their head in the sand and continue to feed their family while firing anyone who threatens the corporate "Political" ways. Isn't it funny how Politics, no matter where they are in this world, mean the same thing?
Wednesday, January 19, 2011 by david turner:: Yes, marketing ploy. Yes, too many managers are out of touch. Yes they're not perfect. However, isn't making an effort worth something? If all were Winning Workplaces, you'd be out of business, a situation I'd love to see, but the reality is different. Consequently, I am glad there is some high profile attention being given to the idea and benefits of MBWA, and being in touch with what goes on. Why be snotty about something that may help a little? Sure these people are out of touch but they're at least trying to change it.
Monday, January 24, 2011 by Mark:: Thanks for your insights, David. You're right that some attention on good workplace practices during primetime on a major network is better than none. However, my intention was not to be "snotty" but to say that as good as that level of attention is, let's strive for the ideal of a show that showcases almost the opposite story of UB -- empowered line workers working with their managers or even the CEO to get their ideas acted upon to improve the business, and ultimately their personal lives (I'm thinking of a spot bonus, or change from PT to FT for an innovative PTer who wants more hours and pay). So my thinking for this post -- and maybe it didn't come across in execution -- was, that's a good step, but now that that's been proven to be good for the network in terms of eyeballs and ad revenue, let's go further and show more of what an ideal team environment looks like. I would especially like to see that show if it introduced millions of viewers to brands we know about at Winning Workplaces, but are by and large not name brands.