Leadership - A discussion of traits, characteristics, and current news of leaders.

Thanks to my friend and colleague Russ for pointing me to this sizzling Apprentice debate. 

As I have read many commentaries about the finale episode of the Apprentice last night, one thought kept coming to my mind. Does anyone remember the movie Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome? Do you remember when Tina Turner’s character Aunty Entity declares, “Two men enter, one man leaves.”?

Is this the rule that should have applied to the boardroom of the Apprentice last night? Some think so. From My Irrationalities, “This is about a job. Survival of the fittest. Dog eat dog. It isn't about a popularity contest.”

On the other hand, The Apprentice Rules weighs in, “Sometimes winning isn't everything... and that clearly was the case here. When faced with the choice between being gracious or selfish, Randal was greedy, greedy, greedy.“

I don’t think that anyone doubts that Randal Pinkett demonstrated exceptional business skills and talent and deserved to be named the Apprentice, however, at what cost?  Will his choice affect his ability to lead?

Apprentice or Apprenti? That is the question.

This morning the hottest topic around the water cooler seems to be the season finale last night of the Apprentice.  And here I stand, with nothing. I missed the show. Apparently, it was fireworks and the two final contestants met their maker (so to speak) and the Donald threw a curve ball.

Randal, clearly qualified to be named the Apprentice, was asked by Trump if he would hire the super-talented 23 year-old Rebecca. Apparently, Randal wasted no time in responding in the negative. And thus the debate began.  Was Randal greedy and selfish or playing by the rules of business that got him to where he was.

From my unscientific poll of unqualified geniuses, Randal left many disappointed in his decision.

I have to ask, what would you do? Not what should Randal have done, but what would you have done? If you felt you had earned the prize, would you be willing to share it? Was Randal justified? By what rules should he make the decision?  By what rules do we judge him? Business standards? Social etiquette? Moral and ethical philosophy? Are these different?