On abrasive leadership

Why did Trump choose Kelly Perdew over Jennifer Massey? Kelly wasn’t a truly charismatic individual; indeed, he has often been described as bland or robotic. I suspect that most viewers would say that last year’s Bill, Troy and Amy – maybe even Nick or Kwame – were much more captivating.

Well, there are several reasons that come to mind. One is that Kelly had a greater number of wins on the show. He also has a much higher degree of real-world business experience.

Jennifer frequently emphasized that she has never been dragged into the boardroom by a PM; however, this seems to be largely because she talks a mean blue streak, and aligns herself with the PM whenever possible. She’s good at arguing and debating, which is probably why Kelly says that she is “good in the boardroom.” (Talk about damning with faint praise!)

I think the bigger problem is that she antagonizes way too many people. Her teammates can seldom stand her, and some of Trump’s top advisors didn’t hesitate to say that she was abrasive or otherwise unpleasant. A leader shouldn’t strive to appease people at all costs, and he/she doesn’t necessarily have to be liked. However, a leader that is strongly disliked is unlikely to be very effective.

I think about this one engineering executive that I once knew. He was known for constantly pointing fingers and tearing into his underlings. Did this help get the job done? Sure, but only at the cost of employee loyalty, efficiency and morale. A happy employee is a well-motivated employee, and creating a hostile work environment is sure to jeopardize long-term productivity.

Jenn M was known for being shrill and shrieky. Now, some would argue that she’s simply being assertive, and that such behavior would be applauded in a man. I strongly disagree. Her actions went way beyond mere assertiveness, and any man that reacted that way would be regarded as a colossal jerk.

In addition, consider the way she implicitly took credit for Ivana’s wheel-o-jeans idea. I know that some would deny that she took credit, but that’s nonsense. Moreover, it’s simply irrelevant. Jenn should have known that this would be perceived as credit-stealing; indeed, even Mr. Trump described it that way. These types of actions may not be outright hostile, but they do promote a hostile environment.

On a tangential note, there is plenty of other evidence that she’s overinflates her contributions. She took partial credit for the Red Velvet ice cream idea, for example. I had problems with that, since he was hardly in the driver’s seat on that idea. As far as I can tell, her contributions to that idea were pretty ordinary. Moreover, it was a lackluster idea, so that really shouldn’t count for much at all.

She also claimed to have risen to the top of her law firm. Hello? Excuse me? Is she a senior partner at that firm? No. Is she a junior partner? No. Does she have any sort of vice-presidential position? No. I don’t think there’s any reasonable sense in which she can claim to be at the top of her firm. Now, if she had claimed to be a top performer, that would be another thing, but she said nothing to support such a claim.

So she came across, as viceroy George put it, as “abrasive as hell.” That is a liability, not a strength. Women like Amy Henry know how to be assertive without being outright abrasive. Ditto for Carolyn Kepcher, although I think she pushes the envelope sometimes. Being assertive without being antagonistic—that’s a skill which Jennifer Massey should learn to master.