Comments on: Survivors, Gut-Toters, and Tea Baggers: Communications Lessons from Roaming through American Popular Culture, Part I http://pr-bridge.com/2010/05/17/survivors-gut-toters-and-tea-baggers-communications-lessons-from-roaming-through-american-popular-culture-part-i/ Connecting public relations academics and professionals. Managed by Bob Batchelor Fri, 18 May 2012 19:15:03 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1 By: Tim Roberts http://pr-bridge.com/2010/05/17/survivors-gut-toters-and-tea-baggers-communications-lessons-from-roaming-through-american-popular-culture-part-i/#comment-13836 Tim Roberts Fri, 25 Jun 2010 22:32:14 +0000 http://pr-bridge.com/2010/05/17/survivors-gut-toters-and-tea-baggers-communications-lessons-from-roaming-through-american-popular-culture-part-i/#comment-13836 You are spot-on when talking about how Survivor illustrates communication lessons. But I respectfully disagree with you about Russell. He is an example that in Survivor or in the corporate world, you have to have a social game as well as a strategic game. I think Russell was the most entertaining contestant in the show's history, but he lost because his quest for power and his actions in his own self-interest turned people off. He ruled by intimidation, bullying and, in his first season, by sabotaging his own tribe. His sins did not go unpunished. I've seen the same thing happen in the private sector - smart, talented people who like to abuse or intimidate co-workers get ahead for a while, but they eventually get their comeuppance. The females in Russell's alliance (Parvati (sp?), Jeri and Sandra) easily could have gotten rid of him. But Parvati, the real leader, wanted him in the final three because she knew he wouldn't get any votes. (Unfortunately, she did not take Sandra into account). If you are up for a promotion, don't you want to compete against the office jackass for it? The jury did vote for the last deserving person, and you hit the nail on the head about Rupert. But I would have voted for Parvati (a past winner). She was a strong, smart player who came up with the boldest move in the game. You are spot-on when talking about how Survivor illustrates communication lessons. But I respectfully disagree with you about Russell.
He is an example that in Survivor or in the corporate world, you have to have a social game as well as a strategic game.

I think Russell was the most entertaining contestant in the show’s history,
but he lost because his quest for power and his actions in his own self-interest turned people off. He ruled by intimidation, bullying and, in his first season, by sabotaging his own tribe. His sins did not go unpunished. I’ve seen the same thing happen in the private sector - smart, talented people who like to abuse or intimidate co-workers get ahead for a while, but they eventually get their comeuppance.

The females in Russell’s alliance (Parvati (sp?), Jeri and Sandra) easily could have gotten rid of him. But Parvati, the real leader, wanted him in the final three because she knew he wouldn’t get any votes. (Unfortunately, she did not take Sandra into account). If you are up for a promotion, don’t you want to compete against the office jackass for it?

The jury did vote for the last deserving person, and you hit the nail on the head about Rupert. But I would have voted for Parvati (a past winner). She was a strong, smart player who came up with the boldest move in the game.

]]>