The Apprentice 2013 – The Result

July 17, 2013 2 Comments

The Apprentice 2013 – The Result

Apprentice winner, Leah Totton. Courtesy of BBC

Apprentice winner, Leah Totton. Courtesy of BBC

In the end, Lord Sugar surprised us with the brave choice of Leah Totton as his business partner. Brave, not because of Leah herself, but because her idea of aesthetic clinics takes Lord Sugar into unknown territory. The safer option would have been Luisa’s baking wholesale brand. This decision will be seen as just  reward for Luisa who was, frankly, awful for long stretches of this season. Yes, she did improve as the series went on, but when she was bad she was rotten. This possibly accounted for why Luisa only got Neil as her first choice team member ,where as Leah got all of her first choices. I for one am pleased that she lost.

Having said that, we saw a different side to Leah, who so determined and set on getting her way, that she almost ignored good advice from her team around her brand name.

Leah was very clear in her business proposal, and had researched the market thoroughly. She may be new to business, but she has the clinical credibility to see it through. Don’t be surprised to see Lord Sugar get his wish and Leah become not only the face, but the name of her business. “NIKS” could easily become “Dr Leah”. Not only does she have professional credibility, but she is photogenic.

It is probably Leah’s passion and conviction, backed up with solid numbers (something that Luisa was a little vague on) that helped to convince Sugar to go with the aesthetics business. One other factor was Luisa’s vagueness about what would happen to her 3 other businesses. Sugar may be recruiting a business partner, rather than a member of staff, but he expects 100% of their attention in return for his £250K.

It will be interesting to see how this business idea progresses, but don’t be surprised to see The Baker’s Toolkit also become successful, with alternative investors.

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

The Apprentice Week 11 – Final Interview

July 11, 2013 1 Comment

lord-sugar4The Apprentice Week 11 – Final Interview

So we now know that the winner of this year’s Apprentice will be female. Luisa and Leah will contest next week’s final to become Lord Sugar’s Business Partner.

This week the candidates were interviewed by 4 of Lord Sugars’s most trusted advisers; Margaret Mountford, Claude Littner, Claudine Collings, Mike Suter. It is their job to sort out the wheat from the chaff.

The process is great to watch, but must have been tough to go through, and in the end it comes down to how strong the business idea is.

In the Boardroom, Jordan is quickly dispensed with because he does not own his business idea (in keeping with his experience as a Business Analyst). Next to be fired is Neil, the most consistent performer in the series. His plan involves an online Estate Agency, but when it is pointed out that his plan has a fatal flaw in it and he refuses to see it, he is fired. It is with genuine regret that Sugar lets hime go.

Francesca fails because of the (lack of) numbers in her business plan. She has run 3 successful businesses, but couldn’t give Claude the turnover. Nor could she justify her business projections for the proposed new business. So she was fired.

That leaves the final to be contested by Luisa, who has a new baking brand business idea and Leah who has a well researched idea for affordable cosmetic surgery. It is no surprise that Luisa is in the final, as she has the drive and has smoothed off her rough edges in recent weeks. In the clips we saw she came across as confident and assertive, and kept her frustration in check. Leah has little experience, but a well thought out idea. Both produced poor plans, but came across well face to face.

In the end it was the correct decision. Both are strong candidates, and it will be a great final. The only disappointment for Lord Sugar is Neil not being there. In the earlier series of tHe apprentice, Neil would have won and made a good employee. Without a solid business plan he had to go.

May the best woman win.

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

The Apprentice Week 10 – Girls on Top

July 4, 2013 6 Comments

The Apprentice Week 10 – Girls on Top

courtesy of BBC

courtesy of BBC

This week’s task in The Apprentice saw the 6 remaining candidates back in gender team. The task itself was one of Sugar’s favourites, as it replicates his own early success; both teams are given £150 to invest in stock and maximise the return by selling first on a market stall and then in a shop.

For the boys, Myles pips Jordan to be PM, with Luisa’s experience in retail winning out over Francesca. There was an immediate contrast in approach, with Luisa clear in her strategy (“stack ‘em high, sell ‘em cheap”) and her choice of items (fashion). This allowed the girls to start sourcing their items and checking out the market stall pitch immediately.

Myles proved to be indecisive, or maybe out of his depth, and the clear teamwork seen with the girls was missing. The lack of decisiveness led to a delay in getting out to source items. Perhaps not surprisingly, Myles decided to go for luxury items (which he has experience in marketing) for a market stall in Shoreditc! Even his team wasn’t convinced.

At the market place, Luisa blossomed, and the strategy and general choice of items resulted in a steady stream of sales. They reinvested the stock wisely and had enough of it to fill out the shop on day 2. The boys ended up with 16 ceramic novelties priced at £20 up. Their sales were slow, but it was Neil who again managed to pull in the most. An alternative line of greetings cards didn’t sell, so Jordan tried to offload them to local shops, with no success. Myles strategy and products were a mess. They sold so little on the market that they couldn’t fill a quarter of their shop, so they converted it to a makeshift market stall, using the doorway.

Neil suggested a high risk strategy to invest and sell a high ticket item. Unfortunately, the novelty vase that Jordan came back with impressed neither his teammates or the customers and it also didn’t sell.

In the boardroom, it was no surprise that the boys lost. Neil was in the best position to survive, due to his sales, but Sugar (ignoring his previous success as pm) labeled him a One Trick Pony. Jordan had been completely ineffective, but it was Myles who had to go, especially after last week’s lucky escape.

What was surprising, was that each of the boys outlined their business proposal to Sugar, and none of them was inspiring. Jordan, in particular, is unlikely to get past next week as his App idea requires an IT person as a 3rd partner. Sugar will not go for this.

So, its taken a long time, but the girls, and Luisa in particular, came good. If her business proposal is a Retail one, Sugar may be prepared to put aside her obnoxious behaviour in earlier tasks and take her on as a partner.

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

The Apprentice Week 9 – Ready, Steady, Gone

June 27, 2013 1 Comment

The Apprentice Week 9, Ready, Steady, Gone

Alex, courtesy of BBC

Alex, courtesy of BBC

This week, our 7 remaining candidates had to design a ready meal and pitch it to 3 leading retailers. The results were interesting. One team got the packaging right, but the product was poor, and the other team got the opposite results.

It seemed like Karma that the big egos, and even bigger mouths, of Luisa, Neil and Francesca were working together in the Group of Death. Neil took on role of PM, and his first decision was to allow Luisa to convince him that Francesca should do the meal preparation (despite protesting that she never cooks). Luisa, who runs a cake business, claimed she doesn’t do savoury. This was later shown to be untrue. This left Lu and Neil (who don’t get on) to do the brand work.  The team decided on a fusion theme, blending Caribbean and Thai.

Alex finally got a chance to be PM, as he was appointed by Lord Sugar to lead Myles, Leah and Jordan. Myles and Alex worked on the theme and brand, with Jordan and Leah doing the preparation and testing.

Alex pushed hard for an educational geography theme, based on meals from around the world. Myles wanted a horror Theme that would appeal to children. Myles chipped away at Alex, who eventually caved in. Alex reasoned that as Myles has children, he couldn’t ignore his instinct. This proved to be a mistake, as it would cost the team the task.

Over in The Group of Death, Francesca proved she is no cook when she managed to produce the most bland meal, and got feedback in testing that it was neither Caribbean or Thai. Francesca had followed Lu’s recipe (yes, she can cook) but her lack of confidence / experience meant she was unable or unwilling to adjust the flavour. The impossible happened, and I found myself feeling sorry for Francesca! Surprisingly, peace was declared between Lu and Neil and their branding was half decent.

At least there was cohesion in their group. Marketing guru Myles, now leading the brand team, pushed for packaging that the kids loved. The kids also loved the product, so it must be a winner right? No. My sixteen year old son pointed out that it is parents, not children, who buy the food. Going for packaging that appealed to the children, including a skull more usually associated with poison, was a fatal error. So good product, but the wrong packaging.

In the pitches, Neil made the best of a bad job by telling retailers the product would be improved if they placed order! Eh? In the real world, the retailers would say come back when you have a finished product, but this is not the real world.

Jordan saved the pitching for the other team, where PM Alex took a back seat, and first Myles and then Leah were poor.

In the boardroom, Neil’s strategy won as they secured the most orders. Poor product, Good packaging, Clever Pitching. Not real world, but the Group of Death lives on. Luisa was even praised by Karen for her improved / toned down performance.

In the losing Team, Jordan comes out with most praise and is excused from the FInal Three. PM Alex sees Myles as to blame, and wants it to be a Final Two. If only he’d been that decisive in the task. Sugar’s having none of it, and Leah has to come back too.

Anyone watching the programme would agree that Myles was to blame. Alex went against his instinct based on sound logic (Myles experience in marketing and the fact he is a parent). Of course, Sugar has his own agenda and ignores the facts. Alex is fired, less for his performance this week and more because Sugar feels he is too young, and changes his mind / direction too easily. This may be a fair assessment of Alex, but based on the task, it is Myles who should have gone.

Jordan continues to shine, but Neil and Myles took backward steps this week; Neil for putting Francesca in the kitchen (surely Luisa working on her own in her area of expertise was a gift opportunity?). Luisa actually looks a better candidate, but her refusal to work in the kitchen shows that actually the leopard hasn’t changed it’s spots.

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

The Apprentice Week 8 – Functional or Dysfunctional?

June 20, 2013 1 Comment

The Apprentice Week 8 – Functional or Dysfunctional?

courtesy of BBC

courtesy of BBC

What next for The Apprentice? After last week’s double firing and the ongoing personality clashes, the candidates in this year’s programme are certainly standing out, but not necessarily for the right reasons.

This week, it was a case of functional versus dysfunctional.This was in relation not only to the contrasting team dynamics, but also to the website of winning PM Jordan. The opposite team, led by Jason was the epitome of dysfunctional, with 4 individuals all pulling in different directions. Not only did they lost the task, but along the way they lost a PM.

Jordan led a team with clear focus, direction and teamwork, giving a master class in project management and leading form the back through effective delegation. Or as Sugar seemed to categorise it, hiding at the back. The main criticism of their dating website was that it was too corporate and at odds with the rest of the campaign and the light hearted advertisement. This could have been an issue, but in the end Jordan came out as competent if not exciting.

Jason volunteered for the unenviable task of leading the strong personalities of Neil, Francesca and Luisa. He championed the idea of a dating site for over 50s, but wanted it to have the energy of a site for over 30s. The over 50s idea was received with lukewarm enthusiasm by the team, principally due to the fact that they had little knowledge of the market.

Mistake number one by Jason was to pair himself with Luisa. She has proved to be a real snake in the grass, with a massive ego and no scruples. While they worked on  argued over the logo, Neil and Francesca set off to do some market research.

Mistake number two was allowing the research to be done with a blank piece of paper and to a small number of people. Jason had a clear vision, and this should have been tested by offering choices, not asking for general opinions. This reflected the lack of comfort with the idea by the sub team. This led to a conflict between the vision that Jason had and what the poor research suggested the customer wanted. At this point, Jason, seemed to lose interest in the project and stopped fighting his corner.

Mistake number 3 was in Jason’s leadership at this point. He effectively wrote a suicide note when he stepped down as PM due to Luisa’s constant sniping. His time management didn’t help, and brought out the worst in Luisa’s Driving Social Style. I’m convinced this was because the project was going in a direction his heart told him was wrong. He needed to be stronger and stick to his idea. In the end he put the team first, which is praise worthy, but looks weak to Sugar who would never do this. Luisa gets her wish to lead the team, and Jason slips back into the role he is most comfortable with – team player.

The rest of the task proceeds without too much incident, though the pitch from Luisa was a mistake and Neil would have been better based on past experience.

In the boardroom, it is revealed that  the Jason / Luisa experiment  didn’t work and they lose the task.

Mistake number 4 was Jason bringing Francesca instead of Neil. Neil would probably have supported Jason to get rid of Luisa, who he may see as more of a rival in the long term. In the end, the girls gang up on Jason, and although neither comes out well, especially Luisa, who is now in the last chance saloon, it is Jason who is, with regret, fired.

The question is not so much was it right that Jason was fired, but rather whether he should ever have been in the programme. I think Jason allows corporate life to hold a mirror up to itself. The contrast between his thoroughly decent behaviour and that of the more obvious, selfish candidates allows us to decide whether we would want to work in corporate life.

For me, it reinforces my decision to go it alone and set up my own business.

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

The Call Centre – Different Strokes for Different Folks

June 19, 2013 Leave a comment

The Call Centre – Different Strokes for Different Folks

MP910216392Amongst the jolly japes going on in this week’s episode of The Call Centre (organising Strictly Come Prancing, a piss up in a brewery and a football match against a rival Call Centre in Cardiff) we saw that the management of “Saving Britain Money” does have teeth.

The focus of this change of style was Chickenhead and his mate, Griff. Both have been superstars in the call centre, hitting bonus on a regular basis. But in this episode we see that Chickenhead in particular has “lost his Mojo” and is starting to drift. It was reassuring to see this dealt with in an appropriate way, as the Call Centre Manager is brought in to do a bit of Performance Management. his style, in contrast to the paternalistic Nev is much more business like. One can imagine that being called into a meeting with him is a warning in itself. Chickenhead takes his verbal warning on the chin, but it does not appear to make any difference.

This leads to an intervention from Nev.He uses his knowledge of Chickenhead to design an incentive to give him his Mojo back. He uses Chickenhead’s love of football to get him to organise a match with a rival call centre in Cardiff. Although his team loses, in a tight mstch decided by penalties, the process of organising such a prestige event so well seems to have the desired effect, At tleast in the short term.

It will be interesting to see how this classic use of away motivation (stick or in this case, the disciplinary process) and towards motivation (carrot or in this case, trust and recognition to organise the football team) works for Chickenhead. I guess we will finfd out over the next few weeks.

It was reassuring to see that the image of an anarchic organisation that makes up its own rules is not quite the full picture. Nev’s enthusiasm and unorthodox approach is coupled with a clear performance management policy and senior managers who are happy to use it. This is how it should be in every organisation. Individuals need to know what is expected from them and to be held to account to deliver those things.

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

The Apprentice Week 7- Caravan of Love

June 13, 2013 2 Comments

The Apprentice Week 7 – Caravan of Love

Your fired

This series of The Apprentice is really standing out for me. Not for the quality of the candidates, as of the original 16 only a few seem to have anything to offer. No, for me it is the more overt personality clashes. We expect this in the interview segments, but even in the tasks it is clear that some people can barely tolerate each other.

We’re back to a selling task this week. The theme is holidaying and recreation, specifically around caravanning. They have to identify items to sell at a camping and caravanning expo.

Neil joins Evolve as PM to balance the numbers. In Endeavour, Kurt gets the nod, due to experience of caravan holidays, over Alex who also wanted his chance. He is disappointed to be overlooked and displays a bit of immature petulance.

Both teams seem bemused by the choice and function of the available items and can’t disguise their contempt for the whole idea of caravan holidays. They also observe that the demographic at this expo are generally the retired, over 55s.

First task, they have to be able to convince the designers / suppliers to allow them to sell their accessories. Myles in particular excels with enthusiasm and insincerity in equal measures. Luisa performs the same task in Evolve.  Both teams find it difficult to get the designers to move on price. But Leah and Natalie, working with Myles,  push hard for a discount, with no joy.

Eventually both teams go for the same items, an electric bike and children’s box.  Despite Myles charm, Endeavour get both products. Leah’s  lack of enthusiasm and pushing hard for discounts is blamed by Myles. As alternatives, they are left with  the boat box and a camping chair.

In a great example of contrastive analysis, Neil and Jason work together to source a high ticket item. Neither seems able to stand the other. Eventually, they opt for the folding camper. sold on the sales potential by the designer,  as it is targeted at the older customer and sales have been steady at the expo.

Kurt and Jason are also working together. and go for the higher priced retro camper. This is an interesting choice, given that it is aimed at the 35-45 ages group, and there aren’t many of them around.

When it comes to selling, Neil shows his experience and seta targets and wants to see competition. Kurt divides up to team and chooses Myles to sell the camper van, despite Alex’ wanting to do it. Again, Alex is not happy.

Jason’s “camp” style seems to go over well with the punters, who are mostly older, and he makes the first big ticket sales. Myles finds selling the retro camper difficult, but even his charm can’t sell an item aimed at 35 year olds to an audience of over 50s.

Both PMs struggle to get their own sales going, as does Jordan, but Natalie and Jason flourish selling their accessories. Leah sells one of the boat-roof boxes and towards the end of the day, she is drafted by PM Kurt to try and sell the retro camper. His strategy here is to use Leah as eye candy, but she is brought in too late.  Leah nearly gets a sale, but runs out of time. Neil gets a late sale for the folding camper.

In the boardroom, Myles blames Leah for them not getting their preferred items and is supported by Natalie. Alex reiterates his unhappiness about being frozen out. Endeavour is clearly not a happy ship.

In Evolve, Neil reviews his sales plan, in particular why he rejected the retro camper because it was wrong for the demographic they were selling to. He is proved to be correct,when it is revealed that they sold 3 of the folding campers and outsold Endeavour on the accessory items. Not surprisingly, Endeavour sold no retro campers.

So Evolve wins, and Neil has to be given credit on a number of fronts; his business skills in rejecting the the retro camper, and his overall team management. Despite getting neither of the accessories they wanted, they still outsold Endeavour.

As Evolve are leaving, Jason is called back to be congratulated by Sugar for selling one of the folding campers. We’ve waited a long time for Jason to be anything other than good TV, but he did well in this task.

Back in the boardroom, the dysfunctional nature of Endeavour is revealed. Kurt realises his position is weak,  and is rightly criticised for choosing the retro camper over the folding camper. Fingers are pointed in every direction. Leah is horrified when Nick reveals that she was brought across to sell the retro camper as “eye candy”. Maybe this is why he makes the bizarre choice to bring back Natalie and Alex into the final 3, despite the fact that Leah was blamed for scaring the designers off with her pushy negotiations and Myles sold nothing?

Sugar wonders if Kurt is bringing Natalie back for tactical reasons (she is in the last chance saloon) and challenges Kurt on this. Both Alex and Natalie put up a robust defence, but Alex is partly blamed for the choice of products.

Not surprisingly, it is Kurt who is fired. Not only did he bring the wrong people back into the boardroom,  but his choices throughout the task have been poor. Sugar does spring a late surprise and Natalie is fired also, just when she may have thought she had got away with it.

This week has been a bit of a leveller, with Neil looking a strong candidate. His instinct for business is good, and he is a strong leader. Jason has also finally shown he has a little ability, but both Jordan and Myles were poor and Alex’ lack of maturity came through. For the girls, I’m losing confidence in my early favourite Leah and Luisa still has plenty to prove.

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

← Older posts

Newer posts →