If you’re not watching the new singing talent show, the X Factor, then you missed the huge controversy that erupted last week. Twitter went ballistic as viewers tweeted their disagreement over the elimination of the talented and old-beyond-her-13-years contestant Rachel Crow. Many focused their anger on judge, entertainer Nicole Scherzinger, who refused to make a decision and identify which contestant she would send home from the save-me singing round competition. Although both contestants gave great performances, many felt that Rachel’s performance was better than Marcus Canty’s (the other contestant).
By refusing to identify who she would send home of the two, Nicole shifted the decision to the tallied votes of the television viewers. Rachel who received the fewest votes was eliminated and after a sad goodbye on television the controversy began in social media. Many are calling for Nicole to be fired from the show, many are vowing to never watch X Factor again, and some have lost it altogether resorting to name calling in their tweets and on Facebook (OK, people calm down on this last one). You might say to me: Robert, this is interesting television drama and probably makes for good ratings, but what does the X Factor elimination of Rachel Crow teach us about management?
It turns out that there are several lessons we can learn when we get beyond the fact that we are talking about a television show. The truth is that X Factor is a business with departments, employees, managers, vendors, suppliers, etc. Given that it is a business, the shocking elimination of Rachel Crow from X Factor mirrors similar decision making dynamics that occur in organizations due to ineffective management. Consider the following lessons:
Organizational design needs to support the overall goals.
X Factor is strictly about competition among a group of talented individuals. The bickering judges want their contestants to win to the point that some judges are clearly trying to shake the confidence of some of the other contestants to help their own. Also, each contestant is doing her/his best to beat the other contestants for the ultimate prize. There’s nothing wrong with this culture of competition–it is a talent show. Given that the core of this business is built on competition, however, it’s unrealistic to expect unbiased collaborative decision making particularly when it’s time to send someone home. There will be instances when talented contestants go home that should have remained. X Factor is not just about merit–it’s about beating the competition.
Lesson: Design your organizational structure and processes to support your organizational goals. Reward the behavior that supports your goals–not the behavior that is contrary to what you want to achieve. Don’t create a schizophrenic organization with a structure or process that is inconsistent with your organizational goals. If you do, that incompatible structure or process will not work effectively.
Management needs to be clear and consistent about its expectations.
The purpose of the save-me round is supposed to be the last chance for one of the two contestants with the lowest votes to demonstrate with their singing talent why she or he should continue on in the competition. X Factor management (the judges- Simon Cowell, Paula Abdul, LA Reid, Nicole Scherzinger) operate from different standards from one week to the next. Sometimes their decisions (when their own contestant is not on the chopping block) seem to be based on the contestant’s body of singing work during the show while other times it is based solely on the contestant’s save-me performance. Which is it?
Lesson: Managers should avoid creating an environment of moving performance targets. It creates confusion and leads to arbitrary decision making. Clarify what you want from your team and then be consistent in your expectations and decision making.
Define realistic roles for your managers.
X Factor is set up where the judges become the mentors, coaches, counselors, producers, surrogate family members, and yes, maybe even friends of the contestants. It is pretty hard to serve all of these roles, be personally invested in individuals and then have to be an impartial judge in the save-me round. Be serious! Each judge will vote for their contestant in a save-me performance regardless of the better performance of the other contestant. Again, it’s not always about merit. If the quality of the performances are close, then who knows what the other judges will do.
Lesson: Senior leaders should define clear roles for their managers avoiding overlapping responsibilities. Managers cannot be all things in an organization. Segregate responsibilities. Avoid creating conflicts of interest by having managers wear too many hats.
So, after all of this analysis am I through watching the show? Are you kidding, I am hooked like everyone else! Rachel may have gone home too soon, but I’ll be watching the next episode. Will I be thinking “this deep” when the next episode occurs? Absolutely not, I want to enjoy the show! I’ll be talking back to my television though whenever Paula Abdul, LA Reid, Simon Cowell, or Nicole Scherzinger make the wrong call. (Right, like what song have I written and who made me a music producer!) Good luck to the remaining contestants Melanie Amaro, Marcus Canty, Josh Krajcik, and Chris Rene.
What are some other management lessons that we can apply from this situation?
If you enjoyed this article, you can share it on Twitter by clicking here
About the Author
Robert Tanner is the founder of the Management is a Journey Blog and Principal Consultant at Business Consulting Solutions LLC. He is a certified change management consultant, management mentor, trainer, and an Adjunct Professor of Management. Robert has a passion for helping managers and leaders fulfill their potential. Connect with Robert on Google+ and Twitter. To join the mailing list, subscribe here.
Revisiting Colin Powell’s 13 Rules of Leadership 
Leading Change (Step 2) – Create the Guiding Coalition 
Organizational Change: 8 Reasons Why People Resist Change 
