Options
Reflections on the interviews...
![[Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/c56ace33356104d6701fd6e58eaea2b8.svg)
[Deleted User]
Posts: 414 Forum Member
✭
Some points.
First off with Stuart whilst he clearly did deserve to go, the whole full of shit thing simply on the basis of him getting caught out on the license was not massively conclusive evidence he is bullshitter. They never dug into what he did as the director of the company he was involved in and he was not questioned on what role he has in the company. They focused on his own company, His interviews were awful, but the whole leap to your full of shit was not really borne out in the highlights show.
Secondly, the whole thing with Jamie having a blame culture is interesting. Not really with his parents and education but with the business saying he feels he does all of the work and his partner wants 50%. He did not come across well at during this part of the interview, nor in the boardroom when he had the chance to defend himself as well. The point on adapting to somwhere else when the going was good and re-investing was also a good one.
Jamie also is not very good at expressing his strengths IMO because he does communicate in meaningless cliches. He's always done that in the boardroom when he has to summarise his strengths. He's probably the worst one in the competiiton for it. Joanna's not great at being concise but at least she can in clear and practical terms get a point across and exemplify it without descending into pretty meaningless rambling on breaking down barriers, being on the forefront of everything key or giving daft metaphors.
Thirdly, they never showed in the highlights Joanna being questioned on basic business fundamental but I don't doubt that must have happened because she more or less agreed with that in the boardroom with her explanation and defence of herself. They cannot be referring to when she was quizzed on what Sugar does as this. The example given was spreadsheets and balance sheets, etc.
As Jo refers to herself as Jo the cleaner, it seems to me that she may well have secued the contracts and do all the work herself with no employees or one or two employees. It's possible to run a pretty lucrative business, relatively speaking, without having much staff, especially in cleaning which is normally daily work, which can be phased throughout the day. When I was a student I managed to do three daily cleaning jobs and all the companies were pretty flexible about when the work was done and you could go in whenever you wanted.
It is entirely possible that if she does most of the practical work herself that she would have missed out on learning business fundamentals but it would have been nice to have seen what they actually were. I actually think that did happen the way it was presented going on her answers in the boardroom. Claude is right in a way, she has shown enterprise and a good thing for her to do might be to employ more staff and focus on that side of things to expand it. Alot of speculation as we do not know the in and outs of her business
I think Stella and Chris did interview the best and out of the five left are certainly the best at expressing their points. Chris does have a droning voice but his points are perceptive and intelligent compared to the rest and Stella answers always convey the right point to the question asked. The others really seem to struggle with communication.
First off with Stuart whilst he clearly did deserve to go, the whole full of shit thing simply on the basis of him getting caught out on the license was not massively conclusive evidence he is bullshitter. They never dug into what he did as the director of the company he was involved in and he was not questioned on what role he has in the company. They focused on his own company, His interviews were awful, but the whole leap to your full of shit was not really borne out in the highlights show.
Secondly, the whole thing with Jamie having a blame culture is interesting. Not really with his parents and education but with the business saying he feels he does all of the work and his partner wants 50%. He did not come across well at during this part of the interview, nor in the boardroom when he had the chance to defend himself as well. The point on adapting to somwhere else when the going was good and re-investing was also a good one.
Jamie also is not very good at expressing his strengths IMO because he does communicate in meaningless cliches. He's always done that in the boardroom when he has to summarise his strengths. He's probably the worst one in the competiiton for it. Joanna's not great at being concise but at least she can in clear and practical terms get a point across and exemplify it without descending into pretty meaningless rambling on breaking down barriers, being on the forefront of everything key or giving daft metaphors.
Thirdly, they never showed in the highlights Joanna being questioned on basic business fundamental but I don't doubt that must have happened because she more or less agreed with that in the boardroom with her explanation and defence of herself. They cannot be referring to when she was quizzed on what Sugar does as this. The example given was spreadsheets and balance sheets, etc.
As Jo refers to herself as Jo the cleaner, it seems to me that she may well have secued the contracts and do all the work herself with no employees or one or two employees. It's possible to run a pretty lucrative business, relatively speaking, without having much staff, especially in cleaning which is normally daily work, which can be phased throughout the day. When I was a student I managed to do three daily cleaning jobs and all the companies were pretty flexible about when the work was done and you could go in whenever you wanted.
It is entirely possible that if she does most of the practical work herself that she would have missed out on learning business fundamentals but it would have been nice to have seen what they actually were. I actually think that did happen the way it was presented going on her answers in the boardroom. Claude is right in a way, she has shown enterprise and a good thing for her to do might be to employ more staff and focus on that side of things to expand it. Alot of speculation as we do not know the in and outs of her business
I think Stella and Chris did interview the best and out of the five left are certainly the best at expressing their points. Chris does have a droning voice but his points are perceptive and intelligent compared to the rest and Stella answers always convey the right point to the question asked. The others really seem to struggle with communication.
0
Comments
They show clips where they are tryring to catch the candidates out in a bullyish way and never seem to ask positive questions.
Only Claude is really very intensive and negative in his line of questioning.
The lawyer and Bordan are pretty laidback in their questioning and Margaret was in a similar vein.
BTW - What is a positive question?
Precisely.
But for me, the lawyer, Borden and Margaret do.
Bordan's pretty nice at the beginning. It's only if they come across something specific and someone is trying to dodge answering the question they get assertive. Margaret likewise, was right to ask Jamie about the daft Cog in the wheel metaphor.
It's only Claude who vigariously questions people and then jumps to harsh conclusions before they have fully answered his question which they have to then defend. He does dictate the terms of the interview. There is nothing that bad about the manner of the others.
Well for a start with Stuart they could have pressed on how he made his first million (if indeed he had)and why he wanted to start his own business etc., same goes for Joanna.
Steve Buscemi (The Lawyer) is perfectly fair. Margaret seemed a little too obsessed with manners, but she is a fablously entertaining TV presence and I'd love her back in her aide role.
Borden is ok, his job is to delve into the CV's, thats why he is there, and he quizzes people without shouting them down
So basically you agree that 3/4 quarters of the interviewing panel do treat them like humans and not like a piece of shit
Stuart's never said he's made millions. He is a director of a company who had a 3 million turnover last year. I wanted to know what his role in this company was(a director is a highly variable description for someone in a company) but they never asked or we did not get shown it. What they showed with him was fair game though.
The subject of Joanna's business was discussed and she said she started it because she wanted her own business and it was the simplest one to start. She was praised for her enterprise but criticised abit for not having ambition to develop it furhter. I can't remember if it was specific or in a roundabout way but the subject was discussed and most of it revolved around her choosing the simplest business and wanting to better herself by getting into something new.
Well...yeah. I did say above it was only Claude that was a pri*k.
But I still don't think any of them treat them with any kind of pleasentness.
Well if he is the director/owner of the business and the turnover is 3 million then he is effectively worth that amount if the business were to be sold. There should have been much more scrutiny in whether that was true and if so did he do that all by himself etc., If it is true then that is commendable for a 21 year old.
A director of or in a company does not mean he owns it. I'm sure Stuart said he was a director in a company(and if they are turning over 3m a year I think they would be a company) and not a business and the two terms are distinct and mean different things. Being a director could mean he owns the company, but then it could mean he is a director because someone gave him their holding in the company.
A company only really takes the leap to company from business by registiering with companies house so if they are protected by limiting the liability of the company so if things ever go bad the individual possessions and money of the key people are not threatened. Stuart could play no active role in that company at all.
It is disappointing they did not ask him what his role was in the company and what he actually did for it. The whole discussion with Bordan was about his own telecoms business and he said he set that up himself as well as being a director in this company which turns over 3m a year.
Then he patronised Karen in the boardroom!
Stuart can be daft but I thought it was unfair to harp on so much about the licence. A small exaggeration against his achievements.
I'm glad Stella got through, but dislike the harsh interviews.
You can be an active company director ... I have a limited company, with my brother as the other director. He does nothing.
do you not get the point of this round? It's all about penetrating the bullshit that is put forward on their CV's - it's about seeing how they can stand up to interrogation. If they can't survive Claude's interviewing techniques, how on earth are they going to survive in Sugar's cut throat corporate world? Why on earth are they going to get an easy ride when they talk the talk? Oh yes Stuart, here you go, you say you are good, the job is your's. Does that happen in the real world? No and I don't see how they are talked to like shit. Claude is the best interviewer and without him tonight, the programme would have been boring. Well done Claude, even better than last year when you rode through the 'village idiot's CV when all he stated was techno stuff in other words, geek language.
Stuart did contradict himself on his CV so surprised it wasn't pick up on earlier something isn't right about how he presents his company on it; as fully licenced near top, but applying for more licences on last paragraph on it.
But the reason that they have to be harsh and full on is to see how they act under pressure and Joanna and Jamie completely crumbled and Stuart did no better either. He just tried to blagg himself through the interviews like he had the whole show and in the boardroom and the harsh questioning and moor delving brought out his lies for all to see, although I suspect that Lord Sugar was already aware of his lies before and just made out he wasn't to make good telly!
Very often when their questioning is rather harsh they then go to speak to Lord Sugar and have a good feedback about the same person that they have given a hard time to. They want to see what they are made of, how strong they are and if they can take a bashing on the chin because no doubt Sir Alan will do that plenty of times when they are working for him!
Spot on, when it comes to business some people do not live in the real world!
In the real world no decent interviewer, nor those on the program, would behave like that. It is for the purposes of your 'entertainment'. Interview like that and you firstly won't find the best candidate. Secondly you run foul of both the employment laws and the slander ones too. They avoid this by means of the contract the candidates have to sign, which waives all rights.
Sugar's cut throat business world?? You have any idea of what he does? Apart from property it's selling to the corporate and govt and related customers. Viglen got a massive contract in the dying days of the last Labour govt. To which party Sugar was one of their biggest donors. The Coalition govt froze IT contracts. Sugar's 'cut throat' response was to whine and try and use twitter and Facebook about buying British. Not once mentioning the biggest Viglen contract in history. £6 billion of tax payers' money, early March 2010.
http://www.viglen.co.uk/viglen/about/File.aspx?ID=2391&GUID=