I can only assume that SAS decided that Simon was too weak in some way (he also seems to take a dim view of soldiers) and in Claire he saw some fire that he thinks gives her potential.

But it is indeed very hard to know what he is after.

Tom.

The boardroom ceases to be an effective threat to the backstabber, schemer or underminer if the firing decision is made on the person’s effectiveness. If Sir Alan chooses to overlook lying, buckpassing and bullying (despite Margaret for once speaking up to nail both Alex and Claire’s failings), then he’s effectively rewarding that behaviour.

I thought the worst behaviour this week was actually Helena’s – her treatment of Lucinda showed both intellectual and emotional f***wittage.

In contrast to what I said last week about the candidates having too much self belief, Simon actually seems to have too little. He seems to genuinely think that many of the other candidates are more talented than him – although I have yet to see any evidence.

When does ‘knowing your limitations’ cross over into ‘holding yourself back’?

Helene shocked and disgusted me when in the boardroom she blatantly lied to Sir Alans face when he asked Lucinda why she hadn’t brought her lack of technical knowledge to the attention of her team mates. At this point Helene confirmed what I thought all along – That she had set Lucinda up to fail whether it was through spite or to try and make somebody do a worse job than her in order to get her head as far from the chopping block as possible!

All in all I think what we have is a group of people using schoolground politics to play a game that is clearly way beyond their mentality!

Roll on Next Week!!!!

I could not believe what I was seeing last night. All the contestants (with the possible exception of Simon) seem to have no grasp of how to work in a group or even how to communicate like normal human beings. They seem to talk in text book and motivational buzz words with no delivery and no honest appraisal – unless it is to blame others.

I do wonder though whether the BBC went for people who they knew would cause disruption (turn it into a more credible version of BB – which is a joke) or whether the quality is frighteningly that poor. I have worked and do work on a daily basis with people who would put these to shame. True sales people and business people.

Any MD / CEO out there must be thinking there is no way they would hire any of these guys at the moment. And to be honest, I would agree with them all.

Why do people not realise that being part of the team, doing your task and striving to win is going to stand you in great stead even if your team loses. Yes have an opinion and state it to the Project Manager but do not sabotage and negate the team with destructive negativity.

It is amazing to me when you apply these imperatives to the candidates just how bad they score here – basically I agree with you Gavin, I see no one here who is capable of leading a good team.
Looking closer at the imperatives then…

Inspiring Trust
Covey says the fastest way to get anything done is have trust between all parties. If there is trust that things will get done, people will work honestly towards a win/win etc. If there is Trust you are already ahead of the game.
Watching the look on some of their faces when people (particularly Simon) put themselves forward, it was clear that trust was going to be a problem. OK this is a competition, but surely the most effective way of winning is to stay out of the boardroom as much as possible – and if you do find yourself in the boardroom to be able to honestly say, “I did everything in my power to make our task a success”.
Trust here was abundantly lacking and boy did it show.

Have clear objectives
The mission was clear, make a profit from selling photos in the shopping center.
It was clouded, warped and distorted however by the candidate agendas, egos and personalities. Again it goes back to working as a team – which they didn’t. I’m pretty sure that the clash of personalities in Helena’s team clouded the objectives. I am also sure that some of the team members in Simon’s group saw him as a threat, and decided to sabotage their own team to bring him down.
In real life this happens all the time. Bosses trying to protect their position don’t credit their team members. Team members feeling they have no part to play in the company spend all day playing online poker. You get the picture.

Align Systems
Systems make you or break you as a leader. Sure you could be that reactive hero that steps in to take control over everything – but what happens when you go on holiday? It is the system not the person that makes you an effective leader. SAS had plenty to say on the subject, so I will not elaborate on what is turning out to be a monster of a comment, save to say clearly the leaders were so busy focusing on people they neglected the systems – which then went all wrong.

Unleash Talent
Again, Covey says unleashing talent is about recognizing, positioning and developing talent within your team.
The only talent the candidates seem to be able to recognize is their own (misjudged in my opinion). Actually that is not entirely true Helena for example has the knack of knowing who is not talented in one area (Lucinda) and ordering them to do that task. OK Lucinda’s talents may not seem immediately obvious. However, surely if someone is clearly failing in one role, then as a leader it is your job to reassign her – front desk admin perhaps? That is positioning of talent. Position badly for political reasons and you may win in the short term – but this will surely come back to bit you.

So, for me it provided a really good practical demonstration on how NOT to implement Coveys leadership imperatives, and gave a great example of what will go wrong if you don’t.
Thanks Gavin for the extra insight from a sales perspective and I look forward to your next post.

Tim Jackson

Also far too many big ego’s, as you rightly said ” a good salesperson will let the figures do the talking for them”

It just goes to show that the nice guy doesn’t always win!

What frustrates me most about watching the program is that we don’t know
what SAS is looking for in terms of an apprentice (bar the throw away
comments, “drop dead shrewd, not a schmoozer” etc.). Fine, we can all
sit and cringe at what goes on during the tasks, but for me it’s
meaningless given that we don’t know his end game.

As an employer, would I employ Simon – from what I’ve seen, I’d employ
him tomorrow. Would I employ him to head up my company – again from
what I’ve seen, no way….. but what a fantastic, enthusiastic, diligent
2ic or team member in general.

Is SAS looking for a ruthless, win at all costs individual, or a more
rounded individual? I suspect that there is too great an emphasis on the
former, hence his decision to send Claire back to the house, because he
sees something in her that he’d like to explore further. If it is the
latter, then the rules of the ‘game’ need to be changed to reduce the
‘game playing’, hidden agendas and egoist behaviour.

Alternatively do the producers of the program have too great a say in
who gets through and what the rules of the game are? Is the formula over
egged in terms of making a TV spectacle?

You can’t help but ask yourself how you would have achieved the
unachievable and managed the team in question. For me, given the
benefit of hindsight, I would have kept Alex, Claire and Jenny apart
(certainly one or two of them working closely with me) – all strong very
individual characters, who working together created a pretty malevolent
team within a team, seemingly intent on destroying Simon’s efforts. I
would have been very tempted to completely sideline anyone who seemed
intent on destroying the team effort – but hey, that wouldn’t make good
TV viewing!!!

Did SAS make the right decision? Yes, probably. Simon failed to organize
his team effectively and failed to get the best from them – not an easy
task I concede. Both Alex and Claire (and Jenny in a silent manner) had
destructive game plans, but perhaps SAS quietly admires their single
minded ruthlessness. Would I have made the same decision, no, but then
again I would have been looking for a different kind of character.

Cheers,
Tom

For once I was surprised that Margaret actually chipped in what she thought, and told Sir Alan exactly what had gone on. She really doesn’t like Claire, does she?

Simon would never win this, but the first half of the series is usually about losing the dead weight, chancers and nutters, and he’s none of them. Claire was certainly conspiring to kill the task. I could just imagine her saying to herself as she stomped her cankles back to the so-called processing room “What, in these heels? Stuff him, he’ll swing for this”

In the boardroom, Alex certainly did an abrupt volt-face, when Sir Alan was rounding on Claire. Clearly deciding to back a different horse after initially betting on Simon going down. She will now crucify him for that, given the chance.

Lucinda dodged a bullet again, I see. Some people have “victim” written them, and the others have sensed weakness and smelt blood.

Lastly, aren’t these the cream of entrepreneurial flair in modern technologically advanced Britain? How come so many of them couldn’t work a bleedin’ PC with photoshop, even after training? Typical though. I know several IT Consultants, who don’t know their backside from their elbow on PC’s, and could barely setup their own broadband, nevermind partition a drive or run a network.

I have a 6 year old who could print those pictures. In fact he printed some pics from my phone via bluetooth only yesterday.