Why so much fuss over Lee telling 'lies' on his CV?

12346»

Comments

  • brangdonbrangdon Posts: 14,090
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I think Helene is underrated and Alex overrated. I've posted plenty of times in other threads explaining why; do we really want to revive it all again here?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 19
    Forum Member
    He did look at their CVs - there were all sorts of references to what they had done before throughout teh series . What SAS did was to look at the CVs and then informed by that he looked for a dogsbody who could sell his giant TV screens. Very few tasks apart from the selling ones in fact mattered, the final one certainly didn't and it didn't matter that Lee was pretty dim if he could sell stuff to people who didn't need what he was selling.In the SAS world it doesn't matter if the guy isn't the sharpest tool in the tool box or is dishonest about his abilities or poor at most management skills - he just needed to be able to flog TV screens and lead a group of similar people.

    ...
    .

    If SA had have looked properly at the start (or told the production company his requirements for input into the selection process) he'd have identified that Lucinda was:
    (a) a contractor; and
    (b) into aromatherapy
    and therefore not appropriate for his organisation!!!

    I'm not sure if suitability for the end-role is the top criterion during this process. It's not a real interview process it's a game show, and fair play to Lee for winning. (I still believe in a real interview process he'd have been rightly out on his ear if a company who had bothered to check his details then found out there was something amiss.

    Most game shows have rules, on this one the host selects the rules depending who he want to win that week.

    "Oh, you've got all your darts in treble 20? Well I'd like to give the speedboat to them this week rather than you...".
    (although if anyone won it would never have been the speedboat)

    :)
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 196
    Forum Member
    soulmate61 wrote: »
    Echoes of John McEnroe as Wimbledon fortnight is here again -- "You cannot be serious."

    Why next year Alex will no longer be 24, and so will have lost his one and only claim to fame.

    LOL! I just wondered why on earth Brangdon did not want Alex to win over Helene? And Soulmatey-mate, well done for the McEnroe quote at the right time where the brilliant Wimbledon is finally here - you have done us proud! :D

    P.s. Alexus has signed a big deal with one of the leading modelling agencies in London. He was inspired by David Beckham's Armani shoots *shudders at the thought of DB in those awful photos* therefore, we may see him in some ad campaign.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 803
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    He did look at their CVs - there were all sorts of references to what they had done before throughout teh series . What SAS did was to look at the CVs and then informed by that he looked for a dogsbody who could sell his giant TV screens. Very few tasks apart from the selling ones in fact mattered, the final one certainly didn't and it didn't matter that Lee was pretty dim if he could sell stuff to people who didn't need what he was selling.In the SAS world it doesn't matter if the guy isn't the sharpest tool in the tool box or is dishonest about his abilities or poor at most management skills - he just needed to be able to flog TV screens and lead a group of similar people.

    The job essentially choses the man. Claire was going to be more difficult to handle and is going to find the job incredibly dull. Lee will go off and try and sell the TVs just ike he sold pants and found people with more money than sense to hire his cars.

    In a more rational world SAS would have recruited an advertising manager from some cheap radio station and a TV salesman from Dixons to get more of the required skill set for half the money .

    SAS didn't use the CVs as way to judge the candidates' suitability for the job for the simple reason that SAS himself didn't know the job description at the beginning of the process. After seeing the cadidates in action and selecting the best from his point of view, he creates the job for them. For example, all the tasks (except the final task) last year were unrelated to the job description.

    Lee can convince people from very different backgrounds to buy from him. Therefore, he is certainly not dim. Lee managed two projects, and planned them very very well. Therefore, he definitely has good management skills. Lee has been the most consistent performer in all the tasks regardless of their nature - selling tasks or not!!!
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 3,877
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    SAS didn't use the CVs as way to judge the candidates' suitability for the job for the simple reason that SAS himself didn't know the job description at the beginning of the process. After seeing the cadidates in action and selecting the best from his point of view, he creates the job for them. For example, all the tasks (except the final task) last year were unrelated to the job description.

    Lee can convince people from very different backgrounds to buy from him. Therefore, he is certainly not dim. Lee managed two projects, and planned them very very well. Therefore, he definitely has good management skills. Lee has been the most consistent performer in all the tasks regardless of their nature - selling tasks or not!!!

    In spite of the fact that I've always been the academic one, I believe there are many different types of intelligence, some more intuitive than others. Lee has proved himself well able to read other people, in order to find the best way of selling to them. He was less good as a project manager because he was a bit chaotic in Marrakesh, although his attention to detail and listening to the others in his team and his enthusiasm won through. He found it difficult to go against Alex in the car tax. I think he might have set Alex up with the car on his own, then they could have joined forces later on to really sell the expensive car. However, Alex wanted to be with Lee and not out on his own with the cheaper car. Lee didn't know what to do with Lucinda on that one.
  • soulmate61soulmate61 Posts: 6,176
    Forum Member
    peely wrote: »
    In spite of the fact that I've always been the academic one, I believe there are many different types of intelligence, some more intuitive than others. Lee has proved himself well able to read other people, in order to find the best way of selling to them.

    Yes, he sold thongs to females by suggestion one size too small, without having been taught this at this College of Technology. He found the product name "atiSHOOO" without ever learning to spell "tommorow".

    Yes, he got there intuitively, better than Michael and others who debated for 3 hours over

    National Single's Day
    National Singles' Day
    National Singles Day
  • 2LO2LO Posts: 1,512
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    soulmate61 wrote: »
    Yes, he sold thongs to females by suggestion one size too small, without having been taught this at this College of Technology. He found the product name "atiSHOOO" without ever learning to spell "tommorow".

    Yes, he got there intuitively, better than Michael and others who debated for 3 hours over

    National Single's Day
    National Singles' Day
    National Singles Day

    This iz wat arm talkin abart!
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 196
    Forum Member
    Lee managed two projects, and planned them very very well. Therefore, he definitely has good management skills. Lee has been the most consistent performer in all the tasks regardless of their nature - selling tasks or not!!!

    I agree on both things. Lee was the most consistent and the same cannot be said for the rest who won for chance reasons alone as project managers, except Lucinda who was very good, and Raef who was very good on the laundry task. Therefore this begs me to ask the question of why the likes of Claire, who obviously lied on her CV with a blatant lie, made the final even though she came across as a really unorganised project manager on both occasions?
  • soulmate61soulmate61 Posts: 6,176
    Forum Member
    pogo ogo wrote: »
    Therefore this begs me to ask the question of why the likes of Claire, who obviously lied on her CV with a blatant lie, made the final even though she came across as a really unorganised project manager on both occasions?

    Claire was court-martialed 5 times in the boardroom. Each time she had made sure someone else demonstrably more culpable would take the bullet ahead of her, usually the project manager. Claire did not make the mistake that Jenny C made, of trying to usurp SAS's role as judge.

    On the photography task she provoked volcanic fury from SAS, who predictably spotted that Claire had not an ounce of respect or courtesy for her manager. After that encounter Claire deduced that Silence Was Golden.

    On the Ethical Card task Claire came closest to a firing by SAS. She was the one person in the team whose day job was making or watching sales presentations. The ever-vigilant SAS saw immediately that Claire was the one who studiously stepped back, some believed intentionally, to watch Kevin make an almighty ass of himself and his project, with his team thus going down in flames. Had it been an Amstrad project, then Amstrad would have gone down but Claire would have looked sweet and innocent -- "Who? Me?"
  • brangdonbrangdon Posts: 14,090
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    pogo ogo wrote: »
    Lee was the most consistent and the same cannot be said for the rest who won for chance reasons alone as project managers, except Lucinda who was very good, and Raef who was very good on the laundry task.
    Even Lucinda was only OK. She lost once, partly through inadequate leadership, and the time she won, she had by far the better team (Lee, Claire, Raef). If she'd had the other team (Michael, Sara, Alex) she'd have lost (in my opinion).

    Raef also won one and lost one. He won the laundry task partly because he was gifted with Simon, who was a good second-in-command and who had experience in laundry. Admittedly he lost because he missed the point of the advert, rather than because he was a bad leader.

    On Morocco Lee did well as leader as anyone, really. Arguably he was the one who got the best out of Lucinda and Sara. On Cars he did less well, effectively wasting half his team members. (Some blame Alex for that, but Lee was leader and shouldn't let one team member undermine another. However, I do accept that Lucinda was found to be unmanageable time after time.)
    Therefore this begs me to ask the question of why the likes of Claire, who obviously lied on her CV with a blatant lie, made the final even though she came across as a really unorganised project manager on both occasions?
    Claire also did OK as project leader. She won twice, neither time through luck, although both times the other team was worse. Alex's team was a mess, and Lucinda's team turned on itself.

    I don't agree she lied on her CV/interview in the same way that Lee did. As I recall, we're talking about the difference between saying "I achieved X" and "I led a team that achieved X"?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 3,877
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    soulmate61 wrote: »
    Yes, he sold thongs to females by suggestion one size too small, without having been taught this at this College of Technology. He found the product name "atiSHOOO" without ever learning to spell "tommorow".

    Yes, he got there intuitively, better than Michael and others who debated for 3 hours over

    National Single's Day
    National Singles' Day
    National Singles Day

    lol...I think there's a bit more to Lee's selling techniques than that. Yes its intuitive. He couldn't do my job, then again, not even knowledge of all the techniques in the book would help me learn to sell. I just don't have the knack. Not sure there is more to Michael though.
  • soulmate61soulmate61 Posts: 6,176
    Forum Member
    brangdon wrote: »
    I don't agree she lied on her CV/interview in the same way that Lee did. As I recall, we're talking about the difference between saying "I achieved X" and "I led a team that achieved X"?

    The latter claim was in my view comparable to Michael's, who sitting next to Raef in the board room said to SAS with soul-baring sincerity,

    "Everything good on that (advertising) assignment was due to me...."

    implying everything bad was due to Raef.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 196
    Forum Member
    brangdon wrote: »
    Even Lucinda was only OK. She lost once, partly through inadequate leadership, and the time she won, she had by far the better team (Lee, Claire, Raef). If she'd had the other team (Michael, Sara, Alex) she'd have lost (in my opinion).

    I don't think Lucinda was just 'Ok' as project manager - nearly all the team members she led looked very very impressed indeed by her efforts as project manager. Only Jenny McGuire (correct me if I'm wrong), who was completely deluded to this fact complained after the ice cream task.
    brangdon wrote: »
    Raef also won one and lost one. He won the laundry task partly because he was gifted with Simon, who was a good second-in-command and who had experience in laundry. Admittedly he lost because he missed the point of the advert, rather than because he was a bad leader.

    I never said that Raef won both tasks. I said that his management on the laundry task was faultless. Yes, he was gifted with Simon, which shows that Raef delegated well based on team members' individual strengths/weaknesses, which in turn contributes to Raef being a good project manager in the laundry task.
    brangdon wrote: »
    On Morocco Lee did well as leader as anyone, really. Arguably he was the one who got the best out of Lucinda and Sara. On Cars he did less well, effectively wasting half his team members. (Some blame Alex for that, but Lee was leader and shouldn't let one team member undermine another. However, I do accept that Lucinda was found to be unmanageable time after time.)

    I thought Lee was a very good project manager on the Morocco task. He really got the best out of his team, and planned well. There was a bit of a muddle up towards the end with the time the electronics market shut, but he was compensated for this through having his team on his side and trying their utmost to get the juicer within the few minutes they had.
    brangdon wrote: »
    Claire also did OK as project leader. She won twice, neither time through luck, although both times the other team was worse. Alex's team was a mess, and Lucinda's team turned on itself.

    I think on both occasions Claire won by luck, due to the other team messing up on the fish task and just managing to clinch a final deal on the ice cream task last minute. She and her team completely ballsed up getting appointments the previous day to see potential clients (only had 3 booked to see the next day) and went through the next day chancing. Lucinda's team looked much more organised.
    brangdon wrote: »
    I don't agree she lied on her CV/interview in the same way that Lee did. As I recall, we're talking about the difference between saying "I achieved X" and "I led a team that achieved X"?

    I think she did lie on her CV. Even if she didn't lie in the same way that Lee did, she told a complete untruth about her bonuses from the amount of profit she raised. Do millions of pounds of profit equate to only a £27,000 bonus? In the real world, I think not.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 196
    Forum Member
    soulmate61 wrote: »
    Claire was court-martialed 5 times in the boardroom. Each time she had made sure someone else demonstrably more culpable would take the bullet ahead of her, usually the project manager. Claire did not make the mistake that Jenny C made, of trying to usurp SAS's role as judge.

    On the photography task she provoked volcanic fury from SAS, who predictably spotted that Claire had not an ounce of respect or courtesy for her manager. After that encounter Claire deduced that Silence Was Golden.

    On the Ethical Card task Claire came closest to a firing by SAS. She was the one person in the team whose day job was making or watching sales presentations. The ever-vigilant SAS saw immediately that Claire was the one who studiously stepped back, some believed intentionally, to watch Kevin make an almighty ass of himself and his project, with his team thus going down in flames. Had it been an Amstrad project, then Amstrad would have gone down but Claire would have looked sweet and innocent -- "Who? Me?"

    So would you still say that Claire was a good finalist?
  • brangdonbrangdon Posts: 14,090
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    pogo ogo wrote: »
    I don't think Lucinda was just 'Ok' as project manager - nearly all the team members she led looked very very impressed indeed by her efforts as project manager.
    I'm not sure how far we want to go in discussing other candidates on Lee's thread. I think Lucinda's members were impressed partly because their expectations were so low, and partly because she just didn't get in their way much. She let them do their own thing. The half with Jennifer, Raef and Lindi seemed to think they'd won despite her, not because of her. Lee was the only one who really praised her, and that's partly because he's a nice guy.
    Only Jenny McGuire (correct me if I'm wrong), who was completely deluded to this fact complained after the ice cream task.
    Jennifer M said Lucinda was OK but not great, which is exactly right. The task seemed well-organised partly because Jennifer's half had got the the focus group organised and some appointments booked. Lucinda's side went smoothly partly because it was over-seen by the farm, and partly because she was with Lee and Helene, two finalists.
    I think on both occasions Claire won by luck, due to the other team messing up on the fish task and just managing to clinch a final deal on the ice cream task last minute.
    On the fish task she made 5 times as much money as the other team, and avoided their mistakes. It was the hardest task to manage so she did OK. That her big deal on the ice cream task came late in the day does not make it any luckier than deals made earlier in the day.
    She and her team completely ballsed up getting appointments the previous day to see potential clients (only had 3 booked to see the next day) and went through the next day chancing.
    They had 3 good leads booked. Lucinda's team had 3 good leads and 3 useless leads, so the difference wasn't that great. It's not true that the spend the next day chancing. The winning order, for example, came from a meeting that had been planned and booked earlier that afternoon. It was no more luck than if it had been booked the previous day.

    Claire's team suffered because they picked ingredients which proved difficult to source, probably because of filming restrictions. That was just bad luck, and used a lot of time.
    I think she did lie on her CV. Even if she didn't lie in the same way that Lee did, she told a complete untruth about her bonuses from the amount of profit she raised. Do millions of pounds of profit equate to only a £27,000 bonus?
    It depends on whether your position is based on bonuses. For example, if I have an idea which makes my employers millions, I don't get a bonus at all. This is starting to sound like people just assuming Claire lied without hard facts proving it. As opposed to Lee himself admitting what he said wasn't true (although he tried to gloss over it later as a "miscommunication").
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 196
    Forum Member
    brangdon wrote: »
    I'm not sure how far we want to go in discussing other candidates on Lee's thread. I think Lucinda's members were impressed partly because their expectations were so low, and partly because she just didn't get in their way much. She let them do their own thing. The half with Jennifer, Raef and Lindi seemed to think they'd won despite her, not because of her. Lee was the only one who really praised her, and that's partly because he's a nice guy.

    I'm sure Raef has also praised her on numerous occasions. Also, I think it was because Lucinda had let the group split on team strengths, that Lucinda was a very good project manager on the task. I think if Claire hadn't have got the last deal through chancing throughout the whole day, Lucinda's team would have won easily due to good project management.
    brangdon wrote: »
    Jennifer M said Lucinda was OK but not great, which is exactly right. The task seemed well-organised partly because Jennifer's half had got the the focus group organised and some appointments booked. Lucinda's side went smoothly partly because it was over-seen by the farm, and partly because she was with Lee and Helene, two finalists.

    Well that's what you call teamwork and good delegation based on the team's strengths - that is sales. I think you're extremely misguided to the fact that Helene got to the final through appearing to contribute. She didn't do nothing to anything and didn't even demostrate anything memorable - look at how uneventful her highlights were on YF.
    brangdon wrote: »
    On the fish task she made 5 times as much money as the other team, and avoided their mistakes. It was the hardest task to manage so she did OK. That her big deal on the ice cream task came late in the day does not make it any luckier than deals made earlier in the day.

    The fish task looked an absolute mess on both sides of the court. I don't think she was a particularly good project manager, just lucky that she made more money then the boys.
    brangdon wrote: »
    Lucinda's team had 3 good leads and 3 useless leads, so the difference wasn't that great. It's not true that the spend the next day chancing. The winning order, for example, came from a meeting that had been planned and booked earlier that afternoon. It was no more luck than if it had been booked the previous day.

    At least 6 leads is better than 3 leads. Even if 3 of them were useless, that's no fault of Lucinda as it was just down to the sales team who apparently had experience in this field. If I remember correctly it was Lindi or Jenny that had made those appointments and being experienced in sales, they should have known that those leads were rubbish. But it was Lindi that thought she knew better so the sales team continued. I think Lucinda had told Lindi that they were useless at some point, but Lindi etc. continued.
    brangdon wrote: »
    Claire's team suffered because they picked ingredients which proved difficult to source, probably because of filming restrictions. That was just bad luck, and used a lot of time.

    Maybe they should have looked for ingredients that were easier to get hold of then? I don't think oranges, avacados and cider are particularly hard to get hold of anyway.
    brangdon wrote: »
    It depends on whether your position is based on bonuses. For example, if I have an idea which makes my employers millions, I don't get a bonus at all.

    But Claire said she did get a bonus? :confused:
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 196
    Forum Member
    deleted
  • brangdonbrangdon Posts: 14,090
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    pogo ogo wrote: »
    I think you're extremely misguided to the fact that Helene got to the final through appearing to contribute.
    Helene was praised by Margaret (in the "unseen" clips) for her contribution on that task.
    At least 6 leads is better than 3 leads. Even if 3 of them were useless, that's no fault of Lucinda
    You can't have it both ways. If it had nothing to do with Lucinda, you shouldn't be using it as evidence of Lucinda's brilliance.
    Maybe they should have looked for ingredients that were easier to get hold of then? I don't think oranges, avacados and cider are particularly hard to get hold of anyway.
    That's probably what they thought. Normally they wouldn't be, but (it looked like) the places you'd normally buy them from refused permission to film, so it suddenly became a problem. It wouldn't have happened in real life.
    But Claire said she did get a bonus?
    Yes. And that may have been a reflection of her unusual contribution. We don't know. We shouldn't just assume she lied because we don't like her much.

    This is all off-topic here, so I'm going to try not to comment on points which aren't Lee-related in future.
  • Digital SidDigital Sid Posts: 39,870
    Forum Member
    Thing is, the mistake he made was doing it for such a large company. If he was applying for a job at a local office, I'm pretty sure he'd of got away with it. Some business just wouldn't be arsed to check.

    What he should have done, is just bigged up his achievements in business, Sir Alan himself (as far as I know) isn't educated (or at least wasn't when he started).
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 196
    Forum Member
    Thing is, the mistake he made was doing it for such a large company. If he was applying for a job at a local office, I'm pretty sure he'd of got away with it. Some business just wouldn't be arsed to check.

    Yes, you're right. Lee was extremely unfortunate that only his previous history was checked. If others' were checked, it wouldn't just be Lee being questioned about this later and made to be the only one with the porkies. Roll on next year's interviews.. :cool:
  • brangdonbrangdon Posts: 14,090
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    pogo ogo wrote: »
    Lee was extremely unfortunate that only his previous history was checked. If others' were checked, it wouldn't just be Lee being questioned about this later and made to be the only one with the porkies.
    What makes you think the other's didn't have their CVs checked? I am sure they were all checked well in advance. The date on the letter that gave the lie to Lee was from before filming started. What reason would they have for checking only Lee at that stage?

    Most of them were pretty open about any dark secrets in their past. Eg Simon was upfront about his drug issues. They were all checked, and Lee was the only one who lied.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 196
    Forum Member
    brangdon wrote: »
    What makes you think the other's didn't have their CVs checked? I am sure they were all checked well in advance. The date on the letter that gave the lie to Lee was from before filming started. What reason would they have for checking only Lee at that stage?

    You're making me use the example of Claire again on a Lee thread so I will only trail off the subject of Lee one final time. Why did they only have to write to Lee's university for? Could they also not have written to Claire's former place of work until they'd got the truth on her bonuses if all of this research was done before the show? Lee was singled out.
    Most of them were pretty open about any dark secrets in their past. Eg Simon was upfront about his drug issues. They were all checked, and Lee was the only one who lied.

    What has the openness of candidates' personal lives and 'dark secrets' got to do with the openness of the candidates' employment/educational histories?
  • soulmate61soulmate61 Posts: 6,176
    Forum Member
    In a previous series, was it Syed or Tre, who said he was a "global businessman".

    During Interviews Week it came out that he was buying and selling a few items from India -- one back room in the home dealing with another back room in the home.
  • brangdonbrangdon Posts: 14,090
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    pogo ogo wrote: »
    Why did they only have to write to Lee's university for?
    Why do you think they only wrote to Lee's university? I am sure they followed up all the references in every candidate's CVs. It's just that Claire didn't claim she was educated for longer than she was.
    Could they also not have written to Claire's former place of work until they'd got the truth on her bonuses if all of this research was done before the show?
    Salaries and bonuses are usually private (the company might not want anyone else to know what big bonus Claire got). Education records are more public because the point is to get a qualification you can show to other people.
    Lee was singled out.
    No; he was caught out by routine checks which the others passed.
    What has the openness of candidates' personal lives and 'dark secrets' got to do with the openness of the candidates' employment/educational histories?
    They are both openness.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 196
    Forum Member
    soulmate61 wrote: »
    In a previous series, was it Syed or Tre, who said he was a "global businessman".

    During Interviews Week it came out that he was buying and selling a few items from India -- one back room in the home dealing with another back room in the home.

    It was Tre and it was hilarious! I especially liked it when the interviewer wasn't particularly taken by his comments and kept asking Tre again and again!
    brangdon wrote: »
    They are both openness.

    I agree they're both openness, but I don't think they are one part of your life, two separate parts. We didn't need to know about Simon's drug habits, because they were irrelevant and off the point of the job in hand. He is not going to be completing a project on drug habits now is he!
Sign In or Register to comment.