Thomas Hobbes, 17th century English philosopher said of human life that it was nasty, brutish and short, a war of every man against every man.

This pretty much sums up the business ethos that The Apprentice promotes week in week out. Everything is grist to the mill of winning the TV competition: aggression, lying, snitching, evading blame and therefore responsibility, undermining others, sycophancy, farcical hubris bordering on the delusional: and the leitmotif of the whole programme: schadenfreude by the bucketful.

Most of the contestants at one stage or another, take delight in the discomfiture or failure of the other contestants. We watch it each week, including me, to be outraged, angered, amused, even stunned by the idiotic remarks, stupid behaviour, embarrassing egotism of the contestants. We justify our enjoyment on the grounds that because these young people have put themselves up for it, they deserve all they get. Seeing their ludicrously exaggerated high opinion of themselves brought crashing to earth, usually at the hands or mouth of Alan Sugar is, God help us absorbing television. Like rubber-necking a traffic accident.

From candidate selection through off camera direction and manipulative, cruelly tendentious editing, everything is designed at best to make us laugh at the contestants expense; at worst to see individuals humiliated, mocked and in all but one case thrown away week by week.

Does it matter? Its just a TV programme after all. Well with free market capitalism the only economic game left in town, when we need some of our best young people to make British business successful internationally, perhaps we should vigorously attack the corrupting claims of Sugarland: reject the assumption that dog always eats dog, that truth or honesty is always contingent upon making a sale or winning a competition. In essence the philosophy that sees business as an ethics free zone, that honour is a luxury winners cant afford.

Yet without trust there is no business: and without honour, truthfulness, or honesty there is no trust. Of course people lie and cheat and dissemble but this only works as a strategy because most people most of the time tell the truth: that most people most of the time stand by their word, fulfil their promises. It is a matter of logic that not every 5 pound note can be a forgery: because a forgery is only possible when most notes are genuine, without that there is no currency.

What is disturbing about The Apprentice is that almost every fired contestant seems to recover some shred of pride, respect for themselves and others, self knowledge after they have been fired. The received wisdom about the programme is that they have to bury all of these qualities in order to win. As winning requires Alan Sugar to choose them, in so far as this insight is accurate, it implies that this is the kind of ethically blind, frankly dishonourable ethos of behaviour that he wants from his Apprentice.

In my opinion there is more than enough evidence to suggest not only that the received wisdom is correct but that its implication is true. Stuart Baggs this week was Project Manager, personally screwed up the critical negotiation, was outsold 100% by Liz and tried to steal his competitors customers and pitch. He then mounted the most sick-making grovelling, arse licking defense of his own infallibility ever seen in a show famous for them. This guy makes the Pope look uncertain. He is quite simply a prick: and not a very pleasant one. And age is no excuse. He is the Sandhurst of Series 6. He is to business acumen what Anne Widdicome is to the Paso Doble.

So what did the business guru of the Old Kent Road come up with? Lizs empirically demonstrated competence, effective communication skills, business numeracy and acumen, strategic flexibility of though and action, and some clue about the compromises of teamwork, were reduced to the fatuous remark that she did not have the spark he needed for his empire. Some spark. Some empire.

Based upon Sugars past history on the programme Id say Lizs real faults were: being female, competent, self assured without being cocky, strong willed and independent thinking. Our good lord it seems to me is threatened by such women, in the boardroom. As he condescendingly, sarcastically observed to Liz her idea of a treat was hitting a credit card in Harvey Nicks.

So the groveller goes through on the basis of what reeks of capricious, inconsistent prejudice. But at least Lord Sugar (bow, bow) feels safe with Stubags. Well who wouldnt?

Im not saying Liz Locke should have won. But Sugars increasingly arbitrary, whimsical, make it up as I go along judgments are beginning to make a nonsense of a programme with about as much to do with real business and what is important about it as Big Brother had to do social harmony.

Of course The Apprentice is first and foremost a product, a money spinning format. But in everything it does that Alan Sugar goes along with from the most belligerent boss in Britain to his bullying, sarcastic, patronising approach in the Boardroom it seems to me fair to assume that this is the ethos he believes in, these are the values he espouses. If so, to me and to many business people equally or more successful than Alan Sugar, it stinks.

Again does it matter? Well it helped create a Lord, who was supposedly advising the then government on business issues. So yes it does.

One is reminded again, in more than one sense of Hobbes, nasty, brutish and short.

Yay Zettel - great to see you back with another brilliant review - especially loved the last line!
S'ralan isn't, I suspect, looking only for his apprentice at this stage of the game: he's looking for someone to provide entertainment. Baggs will almost certainly be booted out by the interview Rottweilers in next week's programme, after which S'ralan can settle to the serious matter of whether Stella, Chris or Jamie will be the apprentice (I think Jo? will be eaten up by said Rottweilers too).
Didn't you just love the 'whole field of ponies' line?
Susiex

Bravo! A superb analysis - I couldn't agree more. I rarely watch The Apprentice, but I did sit through that episode, and was amazed at what ludicrous twaddle some of these arrogant and obnoxious little idiots come out with.

And I agree, 'Lord Sugar' (even his name sounds absurd) is no better. One reason I can't stand the show is the nauseating sycophancy everyone displays around him. You'd think a gutsy businesswoman like Karren Brady would have more dignity than to pad round being one of his lapdogs.

Yes, agree with this. I always watch because my husband is an ex-BT salesperson and seems to think the sun shines out, as far as Sir Alan's concerned. I used to teach Vocational English in colleges and the only groups I really disliked were students on Business courses. There's something soul-destroying about being in a room with eighteen year olds whose sole aim in life is to make money. I even preferred teaching the cannon fodder - sorry, I mean armed services recruits.

What I ask, as the weeks go by,is why Sir Alan is so willing to expose himself as such a chump? OK , he gets to waggle his chubby digit and say 'You're Fired!' But is he just TV cannon fodder too, and doesn't realise it.

One answer is he's very much aware of how bad a judge of character/business potential he is, and regards it as a learning curve. Except he doesn't seem to learn.

Sheila

Thanks for the comments guys.

As for Stubags SusieA - we know he is a linguist - he can speak Egolish, Allo Allo German and Drivel. If he turns into a nice guy when he's booted off they should test all apprentices for drugs - the ludicrous non-sequiturs, egocentric world-of-my-own rambles suggest a Mary Jane - acid cocktail.

Emma - you are SO right about Karen Hardy. It's not just that she's agreed to be on such a programme but she KNOWS how sexist and gender-patronizing Sugarlump is. But it's even worse - she also has learned to 'trim' the direction of her remarks so that they align with Sugar. Nick has always been willing to be trenchant and critical when monitoring in the field, then he abandons these personal judgments as soon as he's with Sugar. NO ONE disagrees with Sugar in HIS boardroom. he practices FIFO management Fit in Or F*** Off.

Sheila - I think it's because he's a dreadful inverted snob - he loves to be the outsider from the wrong side of the tracks who knows what life and business arereally about. He knows celebrity beats respect every time in our culture and I suspect likes to put one over on people who look down on him. Which is most people (I know - cheap shot but HE'S the one who's 'shortist' - I doesn't bother me at all).

The disreputability(?) of this programme extends beyond Sugar Lump this week. I will bet you there isn't a genuine professional HR specialist in the country who will not shake their heads with horror at the approach this coming week of the nasty, brutish, vindictive 'interviewers' all only too believably, friends of Sugar Lump. They should start a bullies club. Margaret having escaped this dross HOW could you return? OK it's the money stupid. Shame.

Z

<Added>

Well alright FOFO management!

z