This might come as a surprise to you, especially given what I had to say about being a chef in this post, but I love Top Chef. In my mind, it is the unquestionable epitome of reality TV competition shows. And that’s for one simple reason: it’s a meritocracy.
Unlike other competitions shows like American Idol, So You Think You Can Dance, and so on, popularity and personality play no part in the judging or ultimate winner. And unlike contestant-driven shows like Project Runway, it’s really what the contestants (I won’t say ‘cheftestants’) are making that is the star of the show. Sure, there’s strategic editing and characterizations of the competitors, but when it all comes down to it, the show is about the food.
In essence, Top Chef is the platonic ideal of a workplace, presented within a vacuum.
All contestants are judged on skill, not their ability to suck up. They are all given the same conditions and circumstances to work under, and while some may flounder, others flourish. There is no inequality in the Top Chef kitchen, besides that the judges seem to really like scallops, and custards never do well in quickfire challenges.
But the even playing field goes beyond the competition to the elimination. Each of the contestants is allowed to plead their case, and more often than not, those who refuse to acknowledge their faults and what landed them in the bottom to begin with are kicked off. Those who show a desire to improve are kept on, and in the case of a fully repentant (or oblivious) group, the judging is based objectively on their performance. Or at least as objectively as one can judge food.
So what does the perfect workplace look like? It’s a place where success is determined by hard work, and those who can’t deliver or refuse to admit their shortcomings are cast aside. While there are egos, arguments, fights and scheming, all are irrelevant to the final results. But while it’s fine to watch this on TV for an hour each week, could it work in the real world?
