The Call Centre Week 2 – SWSWSWN

June 12, 2013 Leave a comment

MP910216392The Call Centre – SWSWSWN

This week at the “Save Britain Money” Call Centre in Swansea the focus is even more on personality.

Last week we got an insight into Nev Wishire’s style of leadership. Nev is an extrovert, and the programme suggests he likes to surround himself with similar outgoing personalities.  Of course, expressive personalities make for better television than the more reflective, introverted style, so it is hard to know how much of what we see is down to editing and how much is real? This week we see examples of how this preference can create issues and burn out. But do you agree with Nev’s approach? Well, as the man himself likes to say “Some Will, Some Won’t, So what? Next (SWSWSWN).

We see Nev’s Paternalistic Leadership Style  in action once again this week but with mixed results. First, he tries to rescue high maintenance, poor attendee, but occasional top sales performer Ania, who has anxiety issues. We saw a similar approach  last week with Hayley, who was promoted (?)  to tea lady after her sales started to slip. Hayley seems to thrive in this less demanding role, so Nev tries to repeat his success with Ania, by making her a tea lady, doing a 2 week holiday cover. This time it doesn’t work out and she ends up leaving.

Nev’s efforts to help Ania are contrasted with his attempts to get George a date. The programme makers would have us believe that George is atypical in Nev’s Call Centre. Nev himself describes George as a hard worker, a slogger and dependable. So, he’s a bit more steady in his sales, but with fewer peaks and troughs than the more excitable Ania. Unfortunately for George, who didn’t ask for Nev’s help, the scheme backfires, with even desperate-for-a-husband Alex turning him down. It is interesting to see how Nev equates George’s lack of success in getting a date (6 years and counting) to his lack of confidence. It is more likely that working in an environment with so many extroverts he is not going to find someone to like him for who he is.

Can we conclude anything from these vignettes? Nev is passionate about creating a “unique atmosphere” in his call centre. This is characterised by energy and enthusiasm, something that extroverts can deliver in abundance. The difficulty is maintaining that energy, and the programme concentrates on the lengths that the management team, led with gusto by Nev, go to keep the energy up; from speed dating, to a rock band, to a Voice of Wales Call Centres competition. It is probably necessary to have a mixture of extroverts (Anias) and introverts (Georges); the former give the centre energy and drive activity, the latter give a solid performance foundation that is more predictable in terms of results.

The third theme of this week is in relation to The voice of Wales Call Centres, and there is success for Save Britain Money, as former actress Heledd is successful, firstly in the centre and then in the whole competition. Heledd is actually somewhere between the extremes of personality seen in Ania and George. She has the confidence of the extroverts and the measured approach of the introverts and is successful with it. The 300 word poem she composes to win the competition is superb and she also demonstrates a knowledge of the fundamental premise of selling; focus on the benefits to the customer, not the features.

Extroverts, like Ania and Hayley bring energy to organisations, but their performance is often characterised by peaks and troughs. Introverts like George provide a steady, but unspectacular performance. But it is those who sit somewhere in the middle, like Heledd, who posibly represent the best bet in sales. Heledd is the current face and voice of Call Centres in Wales and is the perfect choice.

Filed under Influential Communication, Leadership, The Call Centre Tagged with , , , , , , , , , ,

The Call Centre – Smiley, Happy People (Sell)

June 4, 2013 1 Comment

The Call Centre – Smiley Happy People (Sell)

negotiationWelcome to a new fly-on-the-wall documentary series which follows the staff of a Call Centre in Swansea. This programme is going to split opinion, as 10 years on from The Office, we see that David Brent is alive and kicking in the form of Nev Wilshire, CEO.

Although he claims never to seen The Office, Nev appears to have the same leadership philosophy; “Happy People Sell”. Its hard to know what impact the cameras have, but the staff working for Nev appear to love him. I’m sure his approach is marmite, and those who stay thrive in it. Those who don’t leave. We did see Nev’s “gut feel” approach to recruitment in action, where he is apparently more interested in character and personality than ability. This approach is consistent with Nev’s yellow/Expressive Social Style. That the business is thriving suggests he’s on to something.

What Nev does have is a clear vision of the type of organisation he wants (“Happy People Sell”) and the values that spring from this vision; energy, fun, and loyalty. Each of these values is illustrated in the programme;

  • energy with Nev getting the new recruits to start their training with a compulsory karaoke  of The Killer’s “Mr Bright Side”
  • fun with the speed dating set up to get Kayleigh in admin happy again
  • and loyalty to Hayley, who cannot cut it as a telesales agent, but finds her niche as the tea lady

On the evidence of the programme, it is shown to have some success, but encouraging laddish behaviour is also shown to have its downsides. Witness a prank taken too far with Hayley’s teabags, sugar and spoons being hidden from her. The joke is carried on too long and she ends up going to her line manager in tears. Neve states that HR “totally despair of me” and exist to keep him (and everyone else) on the straight and narrow.

This was a good first episode which soon progressed from The Office to a more meditative essay on management and leadership and the cost of running your own business. Nev has had his up and downs (millionaire at 28, business failure at 38, successful but divorced at 53) . It becomes obvious that his work is his life, and he acts like a benevolent parent to his children/staff. I can’t wait to see how this series develops over its 5 week run.

Filed under Influential Communication, Leadership, Social Style, The Call Centre, Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

The Apprentice Week 5 – Dubai These Goods

May 28, 2013 3 Comments

The Apprentice Week 5 – Dubai These Goods

Zee courtesy of BBC

Zee
Courtesy of BBC

Its retail therapy this week in The Apprentice, with the teams dispatched to Dubai to source  and sell items. Zee, who has lived there claims to have a lot of local knowledge. Specifically the teams have to find 8 items for a new hotel.

Leah joins Endeavour to balance the teams, and the pattern for the task is set as she and Zee compete for PM. Zee’s local knowledge gets the nod.

Miles leads the opposition Evolve team, and wants to focus on luxury items, as this is his area of expertise.

Contrasting strategies are adopted by the 2 teams. Zee uses his local knowledge to source items and will not countenance either the need for research or buying items from Malls. For him, the Sukhs are where the bargains will be found. If he has the knowledge, this is a sound strategy. However, over the programme, both the viewer, and his team come to doubt how extensive his local knowledge is. In addition, Zee’s relationship with women, and especially Leah seems strained.

Miles, without the benefit of local knowledge and working against the clock, adopts exactly the opposite strategy, and heads for the Mall. Both teams face time pressures, but where as Zee focuses on negotiation, whilst Miles is focused more on getting all of the items, with negotiation as a secondary concern. Teams will be punished for any items not sourced. Surely, Zee’s local knowledge will come out on top?

Zee and his sub team make a mess of the measurements for a flag and need to re-order, when the item they have ordered proves to be too small. Leah’s team are struggling to get any items, but Neil eventually pushes through a Khandoura at half the price paid by the other team. It proves to be the wrong type of Khandoura

In the boardroom, Zee gets poor feedback from his sub team, especially Leah. His local knowledge is challenged by Sugar, as he made mistakes with the oud and the flag. The wrong sizing of the flag is attributed to Kurt, who accepts the blame. The team’s negotiations are applauded.

Miles is accused of wasting time on research at the Mall, and waiting for the flag to be produced. Their negotiation skills are ridiculed by both Sugar and Karen Brady.

In the end Evolve beat Endeavour, mostly down to the debacle with the flag. Miles more measured approach paid dividends in comparison to Zee’s bravado. Zee looks vulnerable as the team unites against him.

Zee brings back Leah and Natalie. Surprisingly, Kurt is let off despite his mistake with the flag, as is Neil over the Khandoura. Zee justifies his decision based on lack of contribution from Natalie and lack of support from Leah. The girls unite against Zee and accuse him of being sexist. Leah is described as indecisive by Sugar, who also calls Zee arrogant. Eventually, Sugar comments on  Natalie’s lack of contribution. However, he decided to give her one last chance, and it is Zee who is fired, for basically being incompetent. It is the right decision.

Zee proved to be a very ineffective leader. It is crucial for a leader to build up a team, but Zee only succeeded in uniting the team against him. His bravado and the decision to bring Natalie, rather than Kurt or Neil back was the final nail in the coffin of his objectivity. The strong suspicion that he has a problem working with women is also hard to refute, based on the evidence of this programme.

Filed under Influential Communication, Leadership, The Apprentice Tagged with , , , , ,

The Apprentice Week 4 – Muck and Brass

May 23, 2013 1 Comment

The Apprentice Week 4 – Muck and Brass

courtesy of BBC

courtesy of BBC

The teams assemble at Surrey Docks Farm in East London, with the girls desperately in need a win having lost 3 on the bounce. However, the teams are mixed with Uzma and Natalie going one way and 3 of the lads going the other way. At least some of the girls will win.

The task is to open a Farm Shop, source stock and sell it. Biggest profit wins. Both teams seem to miss the point of a Farm Shop and instead go for the more profitable “takeaway” market.

Luisa gets the nod as PM for Evolve, and they go for meat (buffalo burgers), jackets and soup. Neil leads Endeavour, as he’s “a born leader”. As he’s been leading from the back (according to himself) this should be a breeze. Kurt has some experience of dairy and Neil goes for his idea of milkshakes. No discussion allowed.

Each task is always about leadership, and we saw an excellent example of this last week from Jordan. This week we have the autocratic style of Neil versus the democratic / laissez-faire approach of Luisa.

Research and stock purchase follow. Buffalo is different, expensive and high margin at £159. At the dairy, Alex rushes the numbers and everyone is confused. They get it for £40 for 100l of Jersey milk, if they bottle it themselves.

The Evolve sub team is given £40 to buy veg for “window dressing”. They end up spending £146! Miles railroads Luisa, who caves in. Then they go for Apple Juice, and despite Miles wanting to spend more money, Luisa finally says no. There is no clear strategy or communication between the sub teams in Evolve, and Luisa comes across as indecisive.

The Endeavour sub team buys fruit, with a budget of £100. Kurt disagrees but Neil isn’t listening. Kurt is reluctant to spend and only buys a small amount of stock, using only £33! He is banking on the shake being profitable and promises to sell 200 units.

There is no clear strategy or communication in Endeavour, either.

Next day it is all about the selling. The shops are located at Broadway Market. Luisa gives a pep talk at Buffalocal, but Neil is frustrated that the sub team bought so little fruit and veg. The shop (Fruity Cow) is still not ready 45 minutes after opening time. Neil’s leadership style has shifted from dictator to more dictated to.

Early feedback on the Buffalo is that it is expensive and there are no early takers for lunch of soup and jacket potatoes. They have nearly 350 servings to move, in addition to the buffalo, which eventually starts to shift. Miles (of course) suggests the soup etc. is put on display outside of the shop. Eventually they start to move, but Miles is unhappy with the aesthetic of the jacket spuds, and blames Jason. Increasingly, it is Miles, not Luisa who is seen to be leading the team. Luisa recedes further into the background

The milkshakes start to come in thick and fast.  As stock moves, Kurt suggests buying cheap apple juice as a new line. By mid afternoon, Neil is looking to get rid of stock, but is unhappy with Uzma’s contribution (what contribution? I hear you ask). Both teams are left with unsold stock, but Neil is (of course) confident.

In the Boardroom, strategies and tactics are scrutinized, especially the takeaway angle from both teams. Miles sticks the knife into Luisa, and the support from the rest of the team is muted to say the least. Neil’s leadership style is also examined and Kurt is especially lukewarm about it.

The numbers for both teams come in and Endeavour have a profit of £539 to Evolve’s  £630. Neil loses by £91. They didn’t sell enough milkshakes (113 v a target of 200). For Evolve, Luisa was a poor, indecisive PM, and Miles is happy to take the credit for rescuing the team. From the edit, he may be right.

In the autopsy that follows, Sugar questions Neil’s inability to change direction when things started to unravel, but Kurt is given credit for the fruit juice initiative. Eventually Uzma comes under the spotlight as well, and her contribution is deemed to be lacking. Neil principally blames Kurt, but brings Uzma as well as she was the weakest person in the team.

Uzma puts up a spirited defence to Neil, who is accused of being “cocky” by Sugar. Kurt is criticized for offering to sell 200 milkshakes, but he did contribute a lot of the profit. Uzma says Neil should go, and Neil says it should be Kurt. Sugar inevitably fires Uzma, but not before scaring both Neil and Kurt. It is the right decision based on the first 4 tasks, but Neil could have gone for his poor leadership.

This week both PMs were poor leaders, but for different reasons. Luisa listened too much and eventually, Miles took over, possibly rescuing the team. Neil was autocratic, especially over the strategy, but then was weak and indecisive when things started going astray. It was Kurt who adapted the strategy, but he was over confident to get stuck with a large sales target.

Good leadership requires clarity over the task (better in Evolve) with the team pulling in the same direction to deliver the task (both teams failed here) and with every individual contributing. Uzma failed in this respect, but Jason is another yet to show any real talent. Jordan remains the most impressive of the boys, with Leah (quieter this week) the best of the girls. Miles may be annoying and vain, but he did make a solid contribution this week.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Filed under Influential Communication, Leadership, Sales & Marketing, The Apprentice Tagged with , , , , , , ,

The Apprentice Week 3 – Design Flaws

May 15, 2013 1 Comment

Courtesy of BBC

Courtesy of BBC

The Apprentice Week 3 – Design flaws

This week the teams are tasked with designing a new flat-packed piece of furniture. It’s a research, design and pitch task.

The teams assemble along gender lines once again, at the home of the Design Council. Sugar warns the girls as to their behaviour, but for the first time allows both teams to choose their own PM. Business Analyst Jordan leads the boys, whilst Natalie heads up the girls.

The girls go for a multi-functional cube shaped table. Everyone is on broadcast and no one is on receive. The boys go for a folding chair, championed by Alex.

The next day, Rebecca reveals on that she is not in favour of the cube, but finds herself as part of the Market Research (MR) team, along with Sophie who claims to have expertise in this area. Not surprisingly, they hear mixed feedback, but is this due to a poor product, or poorly conducted feedback? The first rule of MR is to be open minded and neutral, which is why we generally use external agencies. Rebecca seems quick to jump on any opportunity to re-design the cube, but Sophie is just too unassertive. Similarly, the boys MR includes doubters, so conflict results in both teams (so we are back to Storming behaviour again (see last week). Divisions become apparent within the sub teams of both the girls and the boys. It is how the 2 PMs handle this situation that proves telling. There is broad consensus in the boys’ team, led by Jordan, and argument amongst the girls’. Natalie ignores the feedback and pushes on with the product.

In terms of design, the girls look for ease of assembly, but struggle to identify an inspirational design they can agree on. Alex pushes the boys with an easy to assemble folding chair, but as time is running out, mistakes are made in both teams.  Nick reminds us that it a camel “a horse designed by committee”, something that could apply to both products.

Once again, there is no agreed process on how the item will be designed and produced. This is the key to success here; role clarity and trust. If you set up a MR team, you need to listen to them. In the end there is a lack of buy in, especially within the girl’s team, because their input has been ignored.

Prototypes are produced overnight. The girls’ “Tidy-Sidy”, but the cushion is the wrong size.  The boys are happy with their product.

At the pitches there is mixed feedback to both products, but the girls get more consistent negative feedback. For the boys, it is the length of the legs that splits opinions, depending on who they are pitching to. Zee in particular fares badly in the pitches for the boys and is removed from further pitches by PM Jordan, but the girls get slicker as the pitches progress, despite having a poor product design (a box on wheels).

Next day, it’s into the boardroom and both PMs are given support from their teams. The orders are counted and it the boys run away with it, thanks to an order of 2,500 units ordered from the catalogue company. The girls lose again.

Sugar tells the boys that Alex’ product is the best he has seen in the boardroom.

Interrogation in the boardroom allows Sugar to be wise after the fact and rubbish the product. The girls look to see who is to blame and the bitchiness returns. Rebecca is quizzed about her dislike of the product. Observer Karen blames the team for trying to incorporate everyone’s ideas. This has to be the responsibility of PM Natalie. The MR is also challenged and rubbished by Sugar.

Natalie brings back Uzma and Sophie. Natalie blames both for hiding. Uzma is blamed for the design and Sophie for the MR. Shouting ensues. Sophie says it’s all unfair, but eventually Sugar makes his decision and it is the PM Natalie who must take the overall blame, but thanks to “gut feel” it is Sophie who is fired, for hiding. Sophie keeps her dignity, but not her job.

In the end, Sophie was fired for “hiding” something that Sugar hates. Her real crime was to be too quiet in a loud team. She had some good contribution, but she was just too nice and too quiet. Natalie probably should have been fired, but she put up a robust defense and survived.  In contrast, Jordan was an effective PM , and led the team well. He looks like one to watch. Zee, on the other hand seems to have lost the fait of the rest of the boys, and is unlikely to last long on this performance.

Filed under Influential Communication, Leadership, The Apprentice Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

The Apprentice 2013 Week 2 – Flat Beer

May 8, 2013 2 Comments

The Apprentice 2013 Week 2 – Flat Beer

MC900441795-1After yesterday’s firing of Jaz before the candidates had even moved into the house, tonight the programme settled into its more regular routine.

Today’s task involved selling Beer. Each team has to come up with a new flavoured beer.

For this task, the girls of Evolve are given Tim as PM possibly as a reward for his speech in the boardroom last week, whilst the Endeavour boys are given scouser Kurt. This is a new twist, with Sugar choosing the PMs for both of the first 2 tasks.

The teams start brainstorming ideas for flavoured beer. and straightaway Tim gets resistance from the girls, who possibly resent him being foisted on them, especially after his speech at the end of the last boardroom session. He responds by agreeing with whoever spoke last!

Kurt appoints Jordan as sub team leader. Zee resents his role in manufacture, due to his religious beliefs.

Both teams are still displaying “Storming” behaviour.

Evolve set off with no clear strategy and an indecisive Tim under pressure from the stronger female egos. The taste boys of Endeavour go for a chocolate orange flavour in amber bitter. Kurt ignores feedback from the manufacturing team who prefer stout to amber.

Evolve go for rhubarb and caramel. Luisa and Uzma clash over the label, in front of the professional. Luisa sulks. This sub team is in full Storming mode, and Tim seems unable to control the egos on display.

The maths of scaling up the recipes proves to be a challenge for both teams, but especially Evolve. In the end they just “go for it”. and get it wrong. Thirty litres wasted. Then another. This will prove to be costly later on.

So, Evolve has no direction, no product and no leadership. “I know it sounds terrible” says Tim, with complete under statement of reality.

Meanwhile, Endeavour are ahead of schedule.

Products finally finished, tomorrow they sell. Endeavour like what they have, Evolve love the packaging, but there is chaos in who is going where and Tim forgets to appoint a sub-team leader. Rebecca is eventually appointed by phone.

Jason is given logistics responsibility and makes a point of confirming this.

Endeavour go for a premium price of £4 per pint at their busy beer festival. Meanwhile at the Kent Beer Festival (actually a pub), evolve find it to be very quiet. By 2pm the festival is in full swing. Sales start to pick up and the product is liked.

Rebecca’s sub-team also has some early success selling to the Trade, getting £300. The Endeavour trade sub-team go to the same pub WITHOUT SAMPLES. Amazing that no one thought of this earlier. Finally armed with samples, the boys pitch high to sell barrels. Jason cannot resist jumping in and undercuts his own team. Then they discover that they have no pump clips with them. Again, the price was dropped to get a sale, reducing profit margin to a minimum.

Rather than drop the price, with no-one wanting to pay £4, the main Endeavour team give it more time. Eventually they decide to change location, but have they left it too late?

When sales dry up at the festival, Tim is persuaded to look elsewhere. Luisa can’t resist having a dig at Tim for not knowing it was a pub. They end up trying to sell in a wine bar.

Frantic activity from both teams. Endeavour turn up late at a food festival and sell it for more than £1.50 less than earlier in the day.

As the clock runs down, prices are dropped to get rid of stock.

Both products have been enjoyed, and there has been some sales success. But Leah saves the best till last, selling 2 casks for £90 each, the best price of the day.

In the boardroom, Kurt is taken to task by Sugar for the debacle over Zee and the lack of samples, as well as the decision to drop prices. Jason is criticised for interrupting negotiations and complains about being sworn at and the use of unfair sales techniques.

For Evolve, Tim, who wants to build a drinks business, is taken to task on the maths problems in the manufacture. He is challenged over the choice of locations to sell, but is generally praised by the team for his job as PM. The task is won by Endeavour by over £400, despite the ego problems and Kurt’d leadership.

Sugar focuses on the maths problems and the wasted ingredients. Arguments ensue  about who was responsible for the Kent Beer Festival and it descends into a bitching match between Rebecca and Luisa. “I’ve never seen such a bloody mess in the first 2 weeks of the contest”.

Tim brings back Francesca and Rebecca. Francesca for her poor maths and Rebecca for choosing the Beer Festival.

Rebecca defends her argument with Luisa and Tim is challenged over his lack of strength with the girls. Tim blames Rebecca for the failure of the task, but Sugar points out that she sold more than anyone in either team. Rebecca and Francesca both point the finger at Tim. In a possibly veiled reference to Stella English, Sugar says he is concerned about Rebecca’s sensitivity but ultimately it is Tim who is fired. He wants to start a drinks business, but has shown very little aptitude for this task.

Tim proved to be a nice guy, but he was too weak and paid the ultimate price. I think his card was marked with his speech in the boardroom last week. He was a weak candidate and was rightly fired. According to John Adair, good leadership requires a balance between clarity of task, building a team, and getting the best out of individuals. Tim didn’t really manage to get any of these right.

Filed under Influential Communication, The Apprentice, Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , , , ,

The Apprentice 2013 Week 1 – Self-Contained Mess

May 7, 2013 2 Comments

The Apprentice 2013 Week 1 – Self-Contained Mess

Your firedThe first task facing our new candidates (you can read my pre-series review here) is to remember who is who as they meet each other for the first time. Same for us really. And what a bunch they are. A mixture of the vain, the lame and downright hopeless. Who is which remains to be seen.

Once again, the aim is to find a business partner, rather than an Apprentice. The first task sees the teams in the traditional Boys v Girls. Midnight. The Boardroom. A brief introduction to the candidates and then we’re off. The first task involves a container of imported products for each team. Aim – to sell from dawn throughout the day. The team that sells the most wins. Jaz volunteers to be the PM for the girls, with real conviction (“I’m only bossy if I’m right, which is most of the time”). Jason also volunteers, but seems to immediately regret it. He gets the job.

Potential Team names are bounced around, and the girls take Evolve and the boys go for Endeavour. Jaz reveals her teaching background and treats the team like kids. Jason struggles to control the egos on display as he is low assertive.

Locations are investigated and pitches are done, giving us a chance to see the typical team in Forming / Storming phase, which all teams go through when they first come together. As there is no formal leader, just a self appointed volunteer, this model (originated by Bruce Tuckman) suggests we can expect the team to hit “Storming” phase quite quickly. So it proves to be. Throughout the programme this is evidenced by ego clashes and arguments (think of your typical teenager and their parents). This is added to by the fact that he teams are not really teams, but individuals who are competing with each other. To support the team through this phase, the leader needs to adopt a strong guiding style. Neither Jaz or Jason, seem to have this in them. There is some politeness in front of the PM, but also occasional bursts of emotion as frustration sets in and deadlines approach. In the boys team, Neil in particular can’t resist taking over.

In the boardroom, the performances of the teams are scrutinised by Sugar, with both PMs getting criticism from their teams, as well as some praise. The winning team is revealed to be…Endeavour. By £58.

Sugar challenges Jaz on her strategy and location choices and her leadership.  After deliberation, PM Jaz decides to bring back Sophie and Uzma, neither of whom sold anything. Uzma protests that she had a “logistics” role. Jaz says she made a big mistake in not finding a buyer for the cat litter. Jaz describes Sophie as a “passenger”.

In the end Sugar decides that Uzma shouldn’t have been brought back. He turns on Sophie and Jaz, and ultimately, due to bad organisation, Jaz should be fired. This is probably the right decision as Jaz showed no commercial acumen and limited applied leadership ability. To me it is risky to take the first PM role when you don’t know the individuals. The first task is always going to be stormy.

Filed under Influential Communication, Leadership, The Apprentice Tagged with , , , , , ,

The Apprentice Series 9 – Meet the Candidates

May 6, 2013 1 Comment

The Apprentice Series 9 – Meet the Candidates

Fresh from unsavoury headlines caused by the industrial tribunal of former winner Stella English  BBC’s The Apprentice returns to our screens this week. Can it really be Series 9 of The Apprentice? How time flies.

Here I give my initial thoughts on the candidates we will meet this week. Of course, being a BBC programme we have a mixture of ethnic backgrounds, with equal numbers of men & women (8 of each).

courtesy of BBC

Alex courtesy of BBC

 

Alex Mills, 22,  hails from South Wales and his catchphrase is “No nonsense, No nothing” which certainly sounds like some nonsense to me. He describes himself as a Company Director, but it remains to be seen what line of business he is in.

 

courtesy of BBC

Natalie courtesy of BBC

Natalie Panayi tells us she is “All about the money” in what sounds like a mis-quote from Jerry Maguire. She is proud that she is half Greek, but it is unclear what this and her catchphrase mean when taken together. It becomes a bit worrying when Natalie, 30,  tells us that she will give “500%”. So, poor with figures, all about the money and half Greek, so expect some interesting negotiation tactics in the tasks ahead.

 

courtesy of BBC

Neil courtesy of BBC

Neil Clough is a Regional Manager (Soccer Centres) and is 32 years old. “Cheating, lying, I don’t care” Neil tells us, but he doesn’t restrict himself to sharing his tactical approach. No, Neil has a sound game plan – “not to get fired”. Sounds like he can’t lose

 

courtesy of BBC

Rebecca courtesy of BBC

Rebecca Slater, 35, is a Medical Representative and describes herself as “difficult to sum up”. In her audition tape, Rebecca uses a whole lexicon of business buzzwords to describe herself, such as energetic, dynamic and focused, but delivers it in a way that suggests the opposite. Is this a clever tactic or is Rebecca out of her depth? Time will tell.

 

Courtesy of BBC

Sophie courtesy of BBC

“Go big, or Go home. And back yourself”. So says 22 year old Malaysian born Restauranteur Sophie Lau. Sophie also tells us that she is prone “to get annoyed”, so expect fireworks and an early departure.

courtesy of BBC

Tim courtesy of BBC

“I’m definitely a team player, I’m not a Lone Ranger in any sense of the word” says Tim Stillwell, 23, a “Mexican” food entrepreneur. This is either a lie or Tim will find he is on the wrong programme. Tim’s video clip suggests it is a lie.

 

courtesy of BBC

Uzma courtesy of BBC

Uzma Yacoob, 32 own her own make-up brand. She says she has no plan and no tactics, but admits she can come across as too confident. “You guys wont be disappointed”. I will if she lasts more than the first 2 weeks.

 

courtesy of BBC

Zee courtesy of BBC

Twenty seven year old Zee Shah describes himself as “an over achiever” (sic) and takes inspiration from Napoleon; “I am here to conquer” and no doubt eventually meet his Waterloo (is that the location for a task in Week 3

 

courtesy of BBC

Francesca courtesy of BBC

Francesca MacDuff-Varley (32) is  Dance and Entertainment entrepreneur. She tells us she is “prepared to fight to the death to become Lord Sugar’s business partner”. As Francesca has more than a passing resemblance to Stella English, Sugar may well take her up on the offer

 

courtesy of BBC

Jason courtesy of BBC

Jason Leech(29) is a “jack of all trades, master of no career”. He compares himself to Machiavelli, but he’d better have a cunning plan if he is to overcome Sugar’s mistrust of posh-boys

courtesy of BBC

Jaz courtesy of BBC

“Superwoman” Jaz Ampaw-Farr (she’s combined raising 3 kids with a career, you know) considers herself  “the Brad Pitt of the Teacher Training Industry”. Its not clear if this performance will be closer to World War Z or Sezen

 

courtesy of BBC

Jordan courtesy of BBC

Jordan Poulton is a 26 year old Business Analyst from “humble beginnings”. Hard to know if he is genuine, if you still refer to the developing world as the 3rd world. Jordan could be a genuine game player, who will tell people what he thinks they want to hear .

 

courtesy of BBC

Kurt courtesy of BBC

Liverpool lad Kurt Wilson likens himself to Steven Gerrard “not the best technically, but he works hard and gets the best out of it”. This is not a good reflection on Kurt, as he is wrong about SG’s technical ability and therefore his judgement is not to be trusted

 

courtesy of BBC

Leah courtesy of BBC

The one question everyone will ask about 24 year old Doctor, Leah Totton is “Why are you on the programme”? There is nothing in her application to explain what she wants to achieve here. Expect Leah to sink or swim in the first few weeks.

 

courtesy of BBC

Luisa courtesy of BBC

Luisa has a thing about pets; ” I have the energy of a Duracell bunny, the sex appeal of Jessica Rabbit “. She also claims to have a brain like Einstein. Presumably she means the dog in Back to the Future.

 

courtesy of BBC

Myles courtesy of BBC

Myles is highly experienced and is co-founder of a marketing company. His experience is evident from his audition tape where he managed to roll out just about every business speak cliche ever heard. It will be interesting to see how he is received by younger candidates and how much of a “bottom line sales guy – the numbers never lie” guy he really is.

Filed under Influential Communication, The Apprentice, Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , , ,

Margaret Thatcher; Saviour or Style Victim?

April 9, 2013 Leave a comment

margaret_thatcherMargaret Thatcher; Saviour or Style Victim?

The death of Margaret Thatcher has brought a deluge of comment and opinion (just try googling her name). But what type of leader was Margaret Thatcher? Was she a Saviour, as some people have suggested, or the Devil made flesh? To me, Thatcher was a victim of Style. Communication or Social Style that is.

A couple of years ago, I wrote a piece on the Driving Social Style, as typified by Lords Alan Sugar. You read about this style here . In that article, I mentioned that Margaret Thatcher is the other (stereo)typical example of the Driving Style; needing to be in control, hiding their emotions, apparently cold and, even, uncaring, with a strong preference to get the job done, even at the expense of relationships. With an expression like “the Lady’s not for turning” you almost get the mission statement for the Driving Style.

Several of the comments from people who actually knew her, rather than just being exposed to her public persona, have said that  although she could appear hard in public, in private she had a caring side. This was evidenced by her apparently personally writing to the families of every serviceman who died in the Falkland’s crisis. Maybe what we saw is not exactly who she was, but it is natural that we judge a person by what they do. This is where the Saviour or Demon labels come in; it depends where you are looking at that behaviour from, and how it relates to your personal values.

Margaret Thatcher may have been disliked by many people (possibly even hated) but the majority of commentators have indicated that, even amongst her enemies, she was respected. Interestingly, she is possibly more revered outside of the UK than in it, and she certainly defined a certain British image associated with her time as Prime Minister.

But what of her legacy? What impact did her style have on those who followed? John Major is the archetypal Analytical Style; Blair is harder to pin down, being either versatile or inconsistent, depending on how you look at it, but probably responds more to “people” than either of his predecessors. As such, Blair is possibly an Amiable, with a strong need for acceptance and wanting to achieve consensus. His body language, is however, ambiguous and hard to read.

Gordon Brown is another Analytical in the mold of Major, and this style is the really cool and aloof one, though attention to detail is a strength, which is why history may say both Brown and Major were better Chancellors than PMs. Neither were blessed with great charisma. Blair had Charisma, but more style than substance? Perhaps.

David Cameron is interesting, as he is somewhere between Blair and Major. Amiable-Analytical perhaps? Like Thatcher, he is leading the country at a difficult time, but seems to want to project an image of someone who makes tough decisions, but with compassion. Time will tell if this genuine, or  not, as the majority of public opinion on Blair seems to believe.

For me, Margaret Thatcher defined my youth and early career. I learned a lot form observing her leadership style. What works and what doesn’t. Thatcher possibly lacked versatility and was a victim of her style, but this undoubtedly helped her to achieve what successes she had. It also probably hindered her from taking more people with her on the journey.

 

Filed under Influential Communication, Leadership, Social Style, Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Why Di Canio may be just what SAFC needs…for now

April 1, 2013 Leave a comment

courtesy of bbc.co.uk

courtesy of bbc.co.uk

Why Di Canio may be just what SAFC needs…for now

Many a football fan will be waking up today to the news that Paulo Di Canio is the new manager of Sunderland Football Club. Di Canio is a character who splits opinion. A genius on the pitch as a player, capable of amazing skill; but a self-confessed fascist off the pitch who was once banned for giving a Nazi-style salute (he described it as a Roman salute). But what do we know about his leadership style and will it help Sunderland to avoid relegation with 7 games left?

Read a full review of Di Canio at his previous, and first, managerial appointment here . He was renowned for demanding very high standards of discipline, which could be broadly summarised in a tee shirt logo as “My ay or the Highway”. Di Canio’s time at Swindon was characterised by frequent outbursts, dysfunctional relationships…and success in the form of promotion in his first season. The approach used is typical of the Autocratic style of leadership, as described by Kurt Lewin back in 1939. And the Autocratic Style is just what Di Canio seems to exemplify.

The Autocratic style of Leadership is perfectly suited to situations where there is great urgency, and time is short. This perfectly describes Sunderland’s situation in the English Premier League today. So, he may be just the right man to help Sunderland avoid the drop. However, as he found at Swindon, he does not have absolute authority, so he is going to have to develop other leadership styles, maybe more collaborative. The smartest Generals, who are rarely on the field of war but observe from the sidelines, know that you need trusted Lieutenants to carry out your orders on the field. Di Canio will need to identify, or bring in, people he can trust.

Similarly, he needs to foster relationship with the Chairman and Board if he is to get the autonomy and funds he needs to succeed.

I won’t be surprised if he succeeds this year (though as a Newcastle fan, I hope it starts after the Tyne-Wear derby). After all, when there is a fire, you need a fireman to take control and douse the flames. But what about when the fire is out  and you need to win hearts and minds  and inspire people? Perhaps Di Canio could do worse that read a bit of more recent Leadership theory. I would suggest a bit of Kouzes and Posner  .

Filed under Influential Communication, Leadership, Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →