Atomic Bomb With Flawed Over 50’s Plan in Week 4 of Young Apprentice

November 15, 2011 2 Comments

Atomic Bomb With Flawed Over 50’s Plan in week 4 of Young Apprentice

It has to be said that the kids in Young Apprentice are learning. Unfortunately, just as some of the candidates learn one lesson, their character flaws became exposed in this week’s task. Week 4 of Young Apprentice gave us some clear insights into most of the candidates and, maybe, some indications as to who can win it.

The task this week was to identify 2 products (from 8 ) to sell to the over 50’s market (worth over £250 bn per year) at an exhibition at Olympia. Lord Sugar mixed up the teams again; Atomic consisted of Haya, Hayley, Lewis and (mister popular) Harry M. Just to reinforce how unpopular Harry M is no-one supported his bid for PM, and Haya got the job.

Kinetic had Gbemi, Zara, James, Lizzie and Harry H, and James was given near-unanimous support to be PM.

Lord Sugar gave his now customary hint about how to succeed – “You’ll be judged on sales volume, so you need to get your pricing and products right”. Simple as that, so get a good product at a reasonable price and you have the formula for success.

Immediately we saw the different styles of leadership on show; James adopted a more consultative approach but showed real leadership by reminding his team to get the cheapest price, but be confident and enthusiastic about each product, even if you don’t like it! Oh, how we’ve seen teams come a cropper before by not following this simple advice. James went on to demonstrate this perfectly across the task, even revealing that he blatantly lied about liking the pie maker. It proved to be a sound tactic, but I hope his future girl/boy friends and customers weren’t watching, as no-one will believe anything he says ever again!

Haya, no doubt buoyed by having trounced Harry M to become PM, was very direct in her style, making it clear who was in charge. Listening was not to be her strong point, and she partnered with Lewis, who seemed happy just to be away from Harry.

As usual, the task hinged on a couple of decisions. The first involved a colourful shopping trolley that both teams had their eye on, but James’ (now trade-marked) charm and good haggling skills secured it for Kinetic. Atomic went with Harry M’s enthusiasm for the camera-bird-box, which for most of the task was to prove to be a bit of an albatross. Haya reinforced her no nonsense style of leadership (read: not listening to Harry) by opting for the pie maker over his preferred cushion.

At the exhibition, Haya took on the role of sales leader, with Lewis happy to demonstrate “who makes all the pies”; whilst Harry and Hayley battled gamely to sell box-camera, with no success. Haya had obviously been listening to Lord Sugar last week as she attempted to sell the pie-maker ABOVE the manufacturer’s recommended price, and quickly dropped the price when she realised it wasn’t selling, eventually dropping to the reserve price of £14.99. By the end of the day, the pie maker had sold steadily and the high ticket item bird-camera-box (£125-£150) had sold preceisely NONE until Harry took the initiative and sold 5 to one of the the other exhibitors for £80 a go. Hayley finally sold one before the close of the exhibition.

For Kinetic the much desired trolly was not moving many items, but their other choice, a hand held vacuum cleaner, failed to cleanup sales as Harry H and Zara had ignored James’ advice and not haggled a discounted price to sell it. Eventually, necessity is the mother of invention and they started demonstrating the cleaner and sales started to come in. This task was proving hard to read in terms of the likely outcome, but a few things had become obvious:

For Atomic – Harry had pulled one out of the bag again at the end of the day; Haya was a single-minded leader; Lewis is a liability who prefers to follow; and Hayley did… what?

For Kinetic – James was a revelation as a leader, equally adept at playing the game to manipulate his team as he is at manipulating customers / clients; Harry H failed to negotiate prices with clients. but has the personality to sell; Zara was also at fault for the poor negotiations, but lacks any personality; we saw very little of Gbemi, Lizzie, so they’ll probably go on to win it.

In the boardroom it became apparent that even Harry M’s last minute sale of the camera-box-bird thing couldn’t save Atomic as they were trounced by Kinetic. With only 4 in the team, it was more a case of who wouldn’t come back with Haya, and, once again, she demonstrated that she had been listening last week. Wisely, Haya chose not to bring Harry M back and instead brought in the weaker performers of Hayley and perennial side-kick Lewis. The only question was whether Haya’s poor leadership outweighed the lack of contribution from Lewis and Hayley. In the end, Lewis was fired, probably for being the regular fall guy and always owning up to his mistakes (bless). Hayley knows that she has to be more assertive to survive beyond next week.

So this week the unpopular boys James and Harry M looked good. They are single minded, ruthless, but able to adapt to different situations. Hayley, Zara and Haya look weaker and Gbemi & Lizzie could be the stalking horses.

Filed under Influential Communication, Leadership, Sales & Marketing, Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , , ,

Flower Power – poor decisions and poorer tactics in Young Apprentice

November 8, 2011 2 Comments

Flower Power – poor decisions and poorer tactics in Young Apprentice.

Week 3, and for the first time the teams were mixed up;

Kinetic – Lizzie PM with James, Harry H, Haya and Hayley.

Atomic – Hannah PM with Harry M, Gbemi,  Lewis  and Zara, a team of strong personalities.

The task this week was to arrange and sell flowers to both corporate clients and the general public. Both PMs were from the previously unbeaten girls team, and there was a clear contrast in styles. Lizzie’s more direct, no nonsense style with the quieter team Kinetic, and Hannah’s more democratic listening style for the egos of team Atomic.

Lord Sugar once again reiterated the key point “The team with the biggest profit will win”

For Atomic, Zara and Lewis did the Corporate pitches. Zara interpreted Hannah’s instructions on pricing as a minimum and put the prices up. They still won 2/3 pitches, but did lose out on the Hotel because of this tactic. The Kinetic sub team of Harry H and James lost out because of poor pitching (Harry talking and not listening, James and his “Rainforest Chic” pitch to the Salon). Not having a girl in the sub team probably cost them the Salon pitch. Although they did win the Hotel pitch, they ended up having to reduce their profit because the product was so poor.

In selling to the public the advice both teams had been given was to double or triple their costs when setting prices. Hannah adopted a strategy of doubling their prices to general agreement, with the vocal exception of Harry M who declared to camera “we only doubled prices, could have tripled them. We’ll see in the boardroom.” Lizzie and Kinetic went for the tripling of costs at Hayley’s suggestion.

Out on the street it was the usual dynamic action with both teams selling frantically. Gbemi and Harry M of Atomic went door-to-door in Spitalfields, with Harry desperate to sell the trifid-like (but high profit) Heliconia. He succeeeded at the last minute by bullying a bar owner into taking the monstrosity, and immediately made sure the team knew it was his success.

In the boardroom, amazingly (only if you’ve never watched the programme) Kinetic came from behind (with the corporate pitches) to win by £12. The failure of Atomic seemed to rest on Hannah’s choice to double not triple costs and on Zara’s Rouge Trader costing the team the hotel. Seizing on Harry’s claiming the Heliconia for himself, Hannah decided to bring back the 2 strongest performers; Zara and Harry M; Zara for ignoring her instructions and losing the Hotel pitch; Harry for being himself. This proved to be a crucial, and another poor, decison. Tactically it was also risky, as she targeted Harry and his selfish approach to teamwork. This tactic backfired spectacularly as Sugar listened with a bemused expression to Hannah’s reasoning.  Not surprisingly, she was fired.

The lesson here is that this is not a Team prgoramme. Perhaps Harry M has it right, being open and honest about his ambition. Nice guys (and gals) finish last, they say. This was true for Hannah who was a decent PM , but put team loyalty (and friendship?) over a desire to win. Hannah could have brought Lewis in with her; he admitted that he made mistakes, but she got her tactics completely wrong. This is reflective of many corporate environments, especially  sales, where people play at being a team to further their own ambition. Given an opportuinty to take the credit, these individuals will take it. It may  not seem fair to good team players, but it is this drive that often makes entrepreneurs successful. Good team players can always work for a charity.

In the house, there was general disappopintment that Harry M had survived at the expense of Hannah. Lewis ran out of the room (guilt? anger? romance?) and everyone else looked shocked, especially the previously unassailable girls. In truth Harry M and Zara may be annoying but they are emerging as the strongest candidates so far. For me, Hayley continues to impress in a quiet way, and she may prove to be the dark (or stalking) horse.

Filed under Sales & Marketing, Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , , ,

Young Apprentice Week 2 – Pitched into a Sea of Troubles

November 1, 2011 3 Comments

Young Apprentice Week 2 – Pitched into a Sea of Troubles.

Having lost out last week, the boys went into week 2 no doubt hoping for more success. There are strong personalities in both camps, but the boys in particular have some egos to contend with.

This week our Dark Lord of the Sith (or Alan Sugar to you and me) continued on his quest to identify his “Young Apprentice” and get them to join him on The Dark Side (no, not banking; BUSINESS ENTREPRENEUR). Remember, in the Sith there are only ever 2; Master and Apprentice. This is worth remembering when we watch this competition as the candidates (to quote voice over man) “must work as teams, but shine as individuals”. Sugar tells us that this is “not a talent show” and this week, the majority of the candidates went some way to proving him right. There was very little talent on show.

So, to this week’s task. The teams remained the same as last week, split along gender lines. The task? To design a new product for the lucrative parent and baby market and pitch it to 3 large retailers. The winning team would be the one that gets the most orders. As usual, the task is a Macguffin (to quote Hitchcock) and almost incidental to what really matters – entertaining TV.

From an influential communication perspective there was a lot to learn here. If we focus on the task as a whole we saw two poor PMs; Gbemi (“I’m quite in your face”) Okunlola for the girls and Lewis “Cocktail of Success” Roman for the boys.

Roman was completely out of his comfort zone and was unable to control the bigger egos in the boys team (Harry M and James). He was also a poor delegator and effectively cost the boys the task by his decision to pitch to the first 2 customers (told you the task isn’t what really matters).

Gbemi (a younger version of Edna from last season’s Approentice, sort of Anakin Skywalker on the road to becoming Darth Vader) was a poor listener and control freak who also made the erroneous decision to pitch. The girls would have lost if a coup d’etat hadn’t resulted in Gbemi being replaced for the final crucial pitch by Haya. This resulted in a large order which rescued the girls and won them the challenge, as it was to the largest retailer.

So, the boys lost, despite taking orders from two retailers to the girl’s one. Their product was a hippo cover to carry baby drinks bottles in. The girls idea of a sleeve with a cushion to help support a baby’s head comfortably won the day, but only in the final pitch.

For some top tips on how to pitch, check out my previous post from Dragon’s Den. The tips about creating the right impression a practice makes perfect seem most apt here. What you don’t want to do is read it out (Lewis) or be unclear about what your product does (Gbemi).

In the boardroom both PMs got muted support, but once it was clear the boys had lost, Lewis had to decide who to bring in with him. He played a political game, bringing back opinionated Harry M and the anonymous Ben, both of whom had been singled out in the boardroom by Lord Sith, I mean Sugar.

Any one of the three could have gone;

  • Lewis for being generally useless as PM and putting himself forward to do the pitching. I mean, they have a whole evening to decide and prepare for this and decide the best person (probably Harry H on the basis of his rescue pitch).
  •  Harry M could have gone for his appalling attitude. He does have good things to say, but no idea how to go about doing it.
  • And what about Ben? Well, what about Ben.?We have seen nothing of him, and he was there because he made so little a contribution. Was this real or editing? Everyone agreed that it was real, and he was fired.

The take home message this week? In Young Apprentice it is better to be obnoxious and disliked but occasionally correct (Harry M) than to be the strong silent type. Ben was fired because he did nothing. One suspects that Lord Sith sees something of himself in terms of Harry M’s attitude, and that has held sway. However, Harry was warned that he needs to change. This isn’t a team competition, but you need teamwork to survive it. Most telling was the reaction of everyone back at the house.  Lewis was greeted and hugged by everyone, except the unfortunate Lizzie. Harry M cornered Lizzie and she seemed reluctant to congratulate / hug him. The final shot was of Harry M declaring that he must change. And change he will, as he has the ruthless determination to go on and win the competition.

Filed under Influential Communication, Leadership, Sales & Marketing, Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , , ,

Young Apprentice – Britain’s Future Entrepreneurs Revealed

October 25, 2011 2 Comments

Apprentice – Britain’s Future Entrepreneurs Revealed.

If the motley crew revealed in part one of BBC’s Young Apprentice represents the cream of the UK’s future Entrepreneurs, it may be time to emigrate. Over the next 8 weeks we will get to know these individuals a bit better, but on last night’s showing I thought I was watching the wrong show; more Big Brother than The Apprentice. The title’s changed from the last series (Junior Apprentice), and in my mind at least Young Apprentice has connotations of Star Wars. It was the Emperor (Lord Sugar?) who used the term when trying to persuage ambitious Jedis to The Dark Side. Maybe the change is deliberate…

The editing may have been cruel, but the personalities on show last night were, for the most part, not attractive (hence the Big Brother reference);  James, Northern Irish, economist. Gbemi, gobby fashion designer; Zara, film mogul; Ben – Richard Branson fan; Harry Maxwell, pushy and Harry Hitchens, nice guy; Mahamed, small but with a great line in sharp suits; Lizzie and Lewis, scousers; Hannah, nice girl; and Hayley and Haya, mostly anonymous.

And so to the first task, which involved making ice cream and selling it. The teams were set up along gender lines, but who would stand up to be the first Project Manager (PM). It is interesting to hear all the aggressive sound bites from each candidate; you could reasonably expect everyone to want to be the leader. But no, it fell to “nice guys” Hannah and Harry H to step forward in the absence of any other volunteers.

Both PMs attempted to be democratic and good listeners, but it was like herding cats. The real personalities immediately started to emerge amongst the teams. James made an immediate impact – as highly opinionated and annoying to everyone else. Having agreed on team names (Kinetic for the girls; Atomic for the boys) they set about making frozen products. The girls came to a consensus quite quickly, but the boys descended to bickering. Harry did a good job of remaining calm, especially as James disagreed with everything! James came up with a pirate theme, with a contribution from Mahamed. Harry M was good with the numbers and came up with profit targets and aiming to make 60 litres of ice cream. Meanwhile, the girls demonstrated an inability to do basic maths (“Three fours are twenty eight”) and guessed at an amount to make. They then instructed the other half of the team to buy specific amounts of the fresh fruit (through dubious negotiation). Suffice to say, the girls got the wrong amount of fruit (didn’t listen) and the team had to write off 3o litres of product. Gbemi refused to go back to get more fruit and Hannah was unable to assert her authority.

The boys chose Southend to sell their product, but economist James suggested selling well below the market prices. The price they chose was still too low, and this was to prove to be a crucial mistake. The girls went to Chessington World of Adventures, and were forced to mark the prices up, and include some built-in upselling (sprinkles, cones), to compensate for the material they had to throw away.

In the board room, it was revealed that the girls had made the better profit and won the challenge. Harry was forced into deciding who to bring back. It did not prove to be a difficult decision, with Mahamed and James competing to take full credit for the failed task. It was tough for Lord Sugar to decide which of these prats should go. In the end it was sharp dressed man Mahamed who was fired, but it was a close thing. in fact,  James was warned by Lord Sugar that he was on the radar. I can’t see him lasting long.

So, who are the early favourites? Both PMs did well under trying conditions, and Harry M, despite some horrendous sound bites, showed good business sense. He also managed to avoid any obvious mistakes and is my early favourite. He certainly impressed Lord Sugar

Filed under Leadership Tagged with , , , , , ,

How referee body language affects the perception of performance

August 27, 2011 3 Comments

How referee body language affects the perception of performance.

I recently watched the new documentary “The Referees” which follows a number of FIFA referees through the Euro 2008 finals. The film is a great record of the stresses and pressures put on the top officials in the modern game at the highest level. It also reveals some mighty large egos!

As a referee at a local level, I can identify with the challenges of getting it right in every game. The film gives some insights into what is in the minds of the officials at key moments in games as we can here their miked up conversations. Yet the top officials keep their doubts (for the most part) hidden. How do they do this? Through confident non-verbal communication.

In the Empire Magazine review of the film, the reviewer says the defining shot in the movie is “an Italian linesman practising his flag-waving in front of a dressing room mirror. Absolutely priceless.” The reviewer has got it completely wrong. The assistant referee is actually checking that his flag technique is clear, unambiguous and, most importantly, delivered with confidence. Every decision that assistant gives is going to be scrutinised. He has to convey that he is absolutely sure of the decision (even if some of the conversation we hear suggests he is not).

Check out this clip of research into what footballers want from a referee;

 

The research confirms that players want the referee to be;

  • competent
  • dependable
  • respectful

Notice how players decide on this based on a number of verbal and non-verbal (mostly visual) clues. This is consistent with the work of Albert Mehrabian, who showed that body language and tone of voice are the most important factors in someone hearing the right message and,crucially, believing, it.

So, how do we do this? Here are a few tips to help;

  1. Make strong eye contact when you are speaking to a player.
  2. Once you have made a decision, be quick and clear with your flag or hand signals.
  3. Talk to players as you expect them to talk to you – be firm but respectful. Never swear. Use your tone of voice to convey authority, not arrogance.
  4. Where you can, give players clarification on your decisions, but state this as fact from your point of view. Don’t allow your doubts to surface. Then move on, whatever you have decided it has gone.

Follow these few rules and we can all be perceived as more competent, dependable and respectful referees. Whether we are or not depends upon accurately knowing and applying the Laws of the game.

Filed under Influential Communication Tagged with , , , , , ,

The Apprentice Week 11 – Fast Food Firing

July 14, 2011 4 Comments

And so we reach the penultimate week of The Apprentice 2011. Last week I predicted that Jim, Natasha and Helen couldn’t win. After this week’s task I have revised my opinion of one of those 3, another only just survived and the third got fired.

This week’s task involved setting up a new “fast food” franchise. Tom and Helen were paired, and Helen volunteered to be PM, no doubt to ensure she could lead from the front rather than be the back seat driver she apeared to be last week. Tom was happy to be led by the most successful candidate this series. Over in Venture, Jim took the lead, despite Nat having told us several times that she has a degree in Hotel and Management.

Both teams had 2 days to set up a franchise from idea to shop design to menu, ultimately serving to a group of industry experts who would assess their idea.

The difference between the 2 teams was evident from the start. Its arguable that Logic even needed a PM with only 2 members, but they divided the task evenly; Tom doing the creativity and branding and Helen the recipe., and having the final say. Not surprisingly, Helen went for pies (is it Greggs that she worked for?) and a british food theme. Helen was nervous about giving some control to Tom, but let him have his own space.

Over in Venture, Jim went off to do research  and design recipes for a “new” Mexican franchise (is there need or room for one?) and left the bickering Nat and Susan to work on the branding. Jim learned that “the system is key”. Its all about getting people through as quickly as possible (as many as 85 orders per hour). Having learned this, he then went on to forget it.

Logic went with My-Py as the name and a British theme Drake, Nightingale and er Colombus who apparently discovered potatoes). Venture went with Caracas  because it sounded Mexican, but they thought they had invented it (Its a place in Venezuela).

Day 1 ended with trial runs and learnings. Logic got good feedback; they had a system for 3 minute turnaround of orders and that eating out of a box is hard. Venture learned that they had no system, poor quality food (cold) and some people left without being served. Enter Susan, who identified that changes were needed. Jim agreed.

Onto Day 2, and the expert panel. The teams were asessed against 4 criteria: customer service; quality of food; restaurant branding; demonstrating a long term plan. At the pitch, Jim got his sums wrong, and failed to demonstrate any clear business plan. Logic had a tight analysis of figures and calaculated margins on each item, as well as profits based on expected throughput.

In the Boardroom, it was no surprise that Logic won, scoring 7/10 against 4/10  for Venture. Tom and Helen are through to the final, and Helen had redeemed herself. She and Tom were a good team, complementing each other’s skills set and working well together. Venture was described as having no business plan (Logic had even produced a document).

For Venture, let the fighting begin. We knew that Jim wouldn’t give in without a fight, as he has shown himself to be a  real street fighter in these situations. Susan emerged last week as having real backbone.  The girls ganged up on Jim and he blamed both of the girls, but gave a bit more emphasis to Nat. Susan blamed Jim’s poor research. Natasha looked vulnerable. In truth Natasha had done very little on this task, one that she should have taken a leading role on. I think she was still bruised from last week.  In the end it was no surprise she got fired. Natasha has become the weakest candidate.

So, the final will be between Tom, Helen, Jim and Susan. Tom continued his late strong performances and contributed at least as much as Helen, who put herself back in contention. Susan may not be popular, bur Sugar likes something about her, especially her strong character, which has come to the fore in recent weeks. Jim got through by the skin on his teeth, but again, Sugar likes his “spirit”.

Next week we have the interviews and possibly something else? Will Jim be found out for the manipulator he is? Will Helen be able to break out of the “corporate” image she has? Can Susan avoid annoying the interviewers? Will Tom show he is more than a nodding dog? Remember, we have yet to hear their business ideas.

My money is still on Tom or Susan. Who do you think will win?

Filed under Leadership, Sales & Marketing Tagged with , , ,

The Apprentice Week 10 – Sorting out the wheat from the chaff

July 7, 2011 2 Comments

The Apprentice Week 10 – Sorting out the wheat from the chaff

This week we were down to the last 6 candidates. By the end of this episode, only 3 candidates are still in with a realistic chance of winning.

Tom, Helen and Melody made up team Logic, with Natasha, Jim and Susan in Venture. For Logic, Melody insisted on being PM, something she hadn’t done since week 1, and no one seemed prepared to argue. In Venture, Susan and Natasha vied to be team leader, with Jim eventually siding with Natasha as she had more passion. Yet again, Susan appeared to be dismissed. For many people it is amazing that Susan is still in the programme, and yet many “stronger” candidates have gone by the way.

The task was interesting, as it duplicated how Lord Sugar got started – buying items and selling them. The aim is to see what sells and keep replenishing stocks to keep the product moving. Neither team seemed to grasp this, despite being told.

“Strategy” such as it was involved deciding where to find suitable punters to sell to. Natasha packed Susan off to sell door to door in Knightsbridge, whilst she and Jim worked a market. Not surprisingly they had the greater success, but were they just trying to get Susan out of the way?

In Logic, Melody & Helen targeted retailers, surely a flawed plan, as they will want to make a margin of their own? Tom (also sidelined?) was sent off to the South Bank, selling “nodding dogs”, with good results.

So here is where the teams lost track of the tasks, with both Jim and Tom telling their PMs they needed to replenish the fast moving items and being rebuffed by their conservative PMs. Chaos ensued.

By the end of Day 1, Susan was off doing her own thing, buying jewellery she knew would sell, but without permission. Over in Logic, things were even worse, with Helen attempting a coup early on Day 2 suggesting that Melody step aside as she had no “strategy”. Helen’s alternative was to target retailers and to try and sell larger volumes. This completely missed the point and the brief that Lord Sugar had given the teams! True to her character Melody refused to step aside. The lady is not for turning.

It was noticeable that both teams were fractured, with people looking out for themselves. Remember my favoured leadership model (Adair – Action Centred Leadership) is about getting the balance ringht between the Task, the Team and the Individual. Both Natasha and Melody were found wanting. It seemed this week’s challenge would be decided by which team lost least.

In terms of individuals, Jim came back in to contention. The man is a natural salesman, and performed best on this task. Helen, who had previously not lost a task, looked out of her depth. Susan and Tom performed well on Day 2. Susan’s jewellery sold well. Natasha appeared to do very little, and Melody too much, as is her style. Neither PM were good at listening, and in terms of “influential communication” scored zero.

So, to the Borardroom.

Neither team endorsed their PMs, with Helen in particualr laying in to Melody and Tom finally fighting his corner and laying the blame on both of his colleagues for not listening to him.

For Venture, Jim blamed Natasha for not reinvesting in stock. Lord Sugar agreed and promptly fined the team £100. The thing to remember here is that Sugar is looking for an entrepreneur. He has this belief, clearly stated in his autobiography “What you see is what you get” that entrepreneurs are born, not made. This task is one that allows Sugar to find someone who has the same instincts as himself; able to “smell the sell”.

In many ways, this task has helped sort out the wheat from the chaff. The result was almost immaterial, it was how individuals rose to the challenge. In this respect, only Jim, Susan and Tom, came out well. Helen was shown to be lacking the instinct for the role, and almost being too “corporate”, something Sugar detests. So far, she has done well on tasks that required good planning, coordination and leadership. I thought at one point Sugar was going to describe her as a secretary, but he stuck with “executive assistant”. Helen has been found out and won’t win. Similarly Natasha. She was completely clueless.

In the end, despite the fine, Venture still won, so Natasha was saved. She surely would have gone otherwise. However, her card is marked, and the team were denied a reward because of Natasha’s decision not to replenish items. Back in the house, Susan bared her teeth and rounded on Natasha. The girl finally became the woman, or maybe a man she certainly showed that she has balls! Susan is one to watch.

Meanwhile back in the boardroom, Sugar focused on the losing team. Once again he reminded Tom that he had been told to be more assertive in backing his ideas. Yet Tom survived. Tom is slowly getting stronger in this process. Sugar sees something in him that he likes, but seems to fear that as a business partner he would be hard work.

It was Melody who eventually went, mostly because no one has any idea what she does. As a consultant myself, I know that you have to be able to reduce what you do to “tangibles”. Clients might like the idea of a “bespoke” solution to their problems, but they like to see evidence of how you operate. Melody couldn’t do this and coupled to her appalling interpersonal skills (she works in communication?) she was fired “with regret”. I’m sure Sugar likes her drive, and if it could be bottled in, say, Tom we’d have the perfect Apprentice. The rest of the nation let out a collective cheer to see Melody go.

So, the winner will likely come from Jim, Tom or Susan. In my opinion, Natasha and Helen are out of it. My money is on Tom or Susan now, as they already have businesses and in the end this may be the deciding factor.

Filed under Leadership, Sales & Marketing Tagged with , , , ,

Apprentice Week 9 – Getting in tune with Lord Sugar

June 30, 2011 1 Comment

Apprentice Week 9 – Getting in tune with Lord Sugar

I think I’ve been missing the point in this series of The Apprentice. Lord Sugar is not looking for someone who is a good team player, has persuasive, influential communication and is a natural leader. He’s looking to back an entrepreneur, someone who is so driven and single minded that they won’t allow anything to get in their way. Meet Melody, who seems to fit the bill. If this is what Lord Sugar is looking for, then she is tailor made. I’ve obviously been singing from the wrong hymn sheet in this blog. Time to get in tune with Lord Sugar and understand the Melody.

According to Lord Sugar’s autobiography, “What you see is what you get”, entrepreneurs are born not made. It comes from within, not from outside. Natural entrepreneurs see opportunities where others don’t, and have the drive to see it through. Lord Sugar must see something in Melody that I don’t, because she represents everything I despise in business; she’s been shown to change the facts to suit herself and she doesn’t care about anyone else. Notice how she always positions herself at the front when Lord Sugar is present. Last night, she even insisted on quickly getting dressed and looking presentable when Lord Sugar descended on the house unexpectedly. It amazes me that Lord Sugar’s lap dogs, Nick and Karen don’t seem to see what the TV audience sees. Perhaps they do ,and it’s me who’s got it wrong?

And yet, Melody does have some good business instincts. She was quite correct last night that Zoe’s team Logic biscuit “Bix-Mix” had unclear marketing – the messages were contradictory, and the target customer confused. However, Melody contributed to Logic losing the task. She and Tom were despatched to a biscuit factory to produce a recipe and try it out on a focus group. The pair could not agree on a recipe, so took several choices to a focus group. Melody’s idea of “biscuits are the new popcorn” bombed and she sulked. Tom’s second choice of a 2-in-1 biscuit prevailed. Melody declared “I don’t like that”. She was right; it was poor, but her abrassive style failed to get her point across, and Melody was this week’s most hated person for Zoe (she has a new one every week) so she was over ruled.

Zoe, as PM had wanted to go to the factory, after all this is what she has been successful with before The Apprentice (a drinks factory). Zoe allowed herself to be bullied out of this, and when team Logic lost the task, it was due to a poor product. I suspect that Zoe and Melody were happy to be as far apart as possible. The decision not to go to the factory ultimately cost her, as none of the 3 supermarkets placed any orders and Zoe was fired. The fact that Logic had used a bizarre role play to start their pitches, another of Melody’s ideas, didn’t help.

Tem Venture were led by the redoubtable Helen, now undefeated in 9 weeks and outright favourite. Helen has the drive of Melody, but has the influential communication skills to bring others with her. Helen and Jim seemed to be on the same wavelength, but Natasha seemed to be pushed to the margins. Ultimately, the task to design and sell a biscuit was won by Venture thanks to some outrageous promisess made at a pitch to Asda, who demanded exclusivity and ordered 800,000. Lord Sugar seemed unhappy with Jim’s tactics, but he couldn’t disagree with the outcome.

Was it right that Zoe was fired? Yes, because she never got to grips with Melody. She should have put personalities to one side and gone with Melody to the factory. She would have been in an environment she is familiar with, and could have kept an eye on Melody. But Zoe is very emotional, and quite prepared to challenge others. Except Melody, who she disliked but couldn’t bully.

So, the series is shaping up ino a battle of the driven ladies. The contrast in styles between Helen (influential communicator, assertive) and Melody (single minded, win at all costs) is plain to see. But which style is best suited for Lord Sugar’s business partner?

Time will tell.

　

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

The Apprentice Week 8 – See Paris and get fired

June 23, 2011 Leave a comment

The Apprentice Week 8 – See Paris and get fired

The most amazing thing about this week’s Apprentice, was trying to work out who would get fired. Most of the candidates were in the firing line. Only Helen looked truly safe.

The task this week was to identify 2 items to sell in Paris. Tom got his first chance as team leader of Logic. Helen joined Venture, where team leader was Susan. Half of each team headed to Paris, to find retailers to sell to. The PMs and one colleague stayed behind to choose 2 items 10 products currently not on sale in France.

Susan managed to demonstrate how young, naive and ignorant she is, and gave us the quote of the week; “Do people in France love their children?”

Melody, part of team Logic demonstrated that she is not a good team player. She influenced PM Tom’s choice of preferred product because she did not fancy it (despite not seeing it) – a car seat that could be carried by the child as a rucksack. Melody didn’t like this and backed it up with some very dubious market research (sample of 4) suggesting no one in Paris drives their children! Melody wanted the teapot / light, not the rucksack. Melody also lied about how the teapot would be received, so rucksack rejected. Leon, who was with Melody did nothing because of language problems(most people spoke English, but he still did not do anything!)

So Venture took the rucksack and a device for attaching a phone / iPod to car vents. Logic took the teapot and some postcards that folded out into 3D models and cress was produced from.

Once the teams were reunited, Melody bullied Tom and gave him and Natasha only 1 out of 8 appointments. She and Leon had also done no research on La Redoute, the lead set up for them by Lord Sugar. Melody went off and did a good job selling to her appointments, with Leon doing virtually nothing. Tom and Natasha played “rock-scissors-stone” for the honour of pitching, and promptly made a mess of it. They did not realise how big an outfit LaRedoute is (the minimum order they asked for was 10. La Redoute expected to order thousands). Helen, on the other hand, did a brilliant job with the rucksack (yes that rucksack) for Venture.

Susan, for all of her naivity, had a good team and especially Helen, the only decent candidate, to save her and she did, gaining the biggest order in Apprentice history from La Redoute, worth £240K!

Tom was very democratic, clear in his instructions and laid back. His biggest problem was not raining in Melody, who both cost the team the task, and was also the only person to sell anything of note!

So to the Boardroom. Venture gave good feedback on Susan, but for Logic, Leon complained about Melody taking over the team. Melody defended her “market research”.

In the end, it was Helen’s success at La Redoute (Tom and Natasha sold nothing there) that won Venture the task. Tom chose to bring Leon and Melody back to the Boardroom.

Tom put the blame on Melody. Lord Sugar said he should have gone with his gut instinct over the rucksack. Lord Sugar then rounded on Melody for her approach to the task, and on Leon for not contributing. Things looked bleak for all 3, but surely Melody was most vulnerable? After all, she had contributed most to the team’s failure. But no, Lord Sugar praised Melody for this and she was saved. Tom was given a reprieve and told to be more assertive. Leon was sacked. Even his defence in the boardroom was weak and his cumulative failure (3rd visit to the boardroom, vs 1 for Tom) proved decisive.

Once again, Lord Sugar went with his gut instinct and contradicted previous things he has said about team work. Melody did not perform well, but maybe her unscrupulous approach (win at all cost and damn the consequences) is what Lord Sugar is looking for in a business partner. Time will tell.

Favourite: Helen’s position seems even more certain now, as she is the only decent candidate.

Filed under Influential Communication Tagged with , , ,

Lord Sugar – Social Style Profile

June 21, 2011 3 Comments

  Lord Sugar – Social Style Profile

In Social Style terms, Lord Sugar is often used as the typical example of the Driving Style. This is borne out when profiling him. Lord Sugar (AMS) is high on the “tell assertive” axis, with strong eye contact, a direct approach to communication and a tendency to tell you what he thinks, rather than ask what you think. His verbal communication is relatively fast, and the voice is used to emphasise key points, often in combination with hand gestures, such as finger pointing. Generally, tell assertive people are relatively higher energy in their body language, in comparison with more ask assertive types.

When we focus on the responsiveness axis, we see that AMS is towards the Task rather than People side. This is evidenced by relatively smaller size of gestures, a more monosyllabic vocal style and a tendency to get right down to business without the need to “get to know you” first.

This combination is called the “driving” style, and AMS shares it with Margaret Thatcher.

The Driving Style has a need for results. They like to have options, are willing to accept risks and want to move quickly. They also need to have the final say in decisions. In relationships they may appear uncommunicative, independent and competitive. Drivers seldom feel the need to share personal motives or feelings. They tend to initiate action and like to provide direction. This is part of their nature to seek control over their environment.

To get the best from the Driving Style;

Let them feel they are in control

Don’t work around them

Focus on the issue or objective

Get to the point

Minimise excuses by others

Make their life easier

Realise they are impatient

Be timely in all things.

Filed under Leadership, Social Style Tagged with , , , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →