Yet she stuck out her neck about being more flexible for the price and dropping it rather than sticking to the set price for each page, so she does get off the fence. She was fairly vocal and loud about that, but she still wasn't listened to.

And she was arguing with Glen for the more 'action based' photographs that would have made the cover look less like a 1970's knitting pattern.

It might have been too little, too late. I'm not saying it's right that they shout her down and don't listen, but I think it's because she hasn't had any confidence in herself to say "No, I am right". She's too easily swayed by other people's opinions.

Trouble is, it's a vicious circle; the less she is listened to, the less confidence she'll have.

I wouldn't say I'm a great fan of Susan, but at least I can see some thought process going on with her in comparison to other candidates.

As much as I enjoy watching The Apprentice it is obviously a very contrived process which rarely brings out the best qualities in people. It seems to favour domineering personalities who ultimately are good at covering their own ass - not necessarily good long-term business qualities.

I have noted in real life that often, though not always of course, people who are good at thinking things through with reasoned consideration and intuition can sometimes happen to be more reticent than people who aren't very good at doing that. Its as though people who haven't been blessed with a logical thought process are rewarded / develop a stronger personality to compensate - and this seems to give you an some advantage in The Apprentice, such as it is produced.

But it is a generalisation as I say.

I think I've sussed her tactics. She complains about various aspects of each task, but not vociferously enough to get the team to change whatever it is. Then, if the team loses, she can claim she was against the idea or various aspects of it.

In short, she's just covering her backside.

But having confidence is AN atttribute thats required. Its no good being 'right' if no-one either hears you or listens to you. Or do you think its only her fellow colleagues that just happen to not listen to her and out in the real world everyone will bow down to what she says? Heres a novel idea ....... maybe in the real world she would struggle to get people to listen to her and fail at that too? Ever considered that remote possibility?

Its quite handy that if the team do win, she can just sail on through ..... if the team loses she can say 'oh look, see I did say that!' Perhaps thats why no-one likes her. Because she has not once in this series put her neck on the line and said 'Im going to live or die by this decision'.

I don't really blame her to be fair given people's reaction her for former objections. They simply don't hear her or she's aggressively shouted down or belittled by the more forceful candidates. In the real world, you will come across the latter but few and far between in a professional context.

Out of curiosity, what do people think of Tom? I think Tom is very similar in that he often has valid points, but is also not listened to and dismissed. Yet, he doesn't get the same backlash (or doesn't seem to). It will be interesting to see him as PM.

Er - yes. I don't think Susan's the best candidate, and she certainly wouldn't be my winner. There would be too much of a parent/child relationship between her and Sralan, and apparently what he wants this series is a business partner.

I've already said that I think she should stick her neck on the line. But what I don't agree with is the unreasonable dislike, calling her a dumb, whiny brat. Slightly whiny, I grant you (although not on a par with Zoe), but I don't think she's dumb, or a brat. Just too young.

Good question. I think he's very bright, probably a good business partner but only in respect of having the ideas, not in the business sense.

What I don't like about Tom is his tendency to brown-nose.

That's part of it but it's also the bizarre circumstances of the tasks.

What Sugar would want from either an apprentice or a business partner is someone who can think things through, do meticulous research, play around with ideas and, when they have done all that bring those ideas to fruition.

The structure of TA is such that it highlights exactly the wrong approaches.

People have to rush in blindly, are prevented from doing proper research and the result is, basically, a coin toss.

In virtually any real world situation things would be completely different.

I'll be the only time Sugar has had to make a decision under as much pressure as the TA candidates is when he had to decide whether or not to leg it with his suitcase of aerials when the local police came round the corner.

here's my tuppence worth
If instead of saying I don't agree but I'll get behind it she said i don't agree but here's my idea (in a short cohesive sentence) people would listen but she just seems to moan your not doing it right she has no leadership skills therefore this is the wrong job for her .

ps if she sacked everyone who didn't listen there would be noone there

Tasks she led: 1
Tasks she won as PM: 1

Looks like an adequate record to me.


ROFLMAO.

It doesn't work like that in the real world.

When someone is paying your salary you tend to listen to them so that you can continue to indulge in life's little luxuries; like eating!

Yes the task was won I never saw much leadership

I have never worked for a boss like that and if she was continually swayed by her employees opinions the business would likely fail .
and i do live in the real world but the apprentice is not the real world she needs to speak up if she actually has an opinion without whining

You don't get it do you?

She is working in a peer to peer environment where there is no competent oversight of the teams efforts until the end.

She is not being swayed by employees, she is having to go along with people operating at the same level as herself.

When she was PM she handled the team well and led them to victory.


This is the eternal dichotomy for Apprentice candidates:

1) Mention any fault you see in the task too often and get labelled a whiner and someone who is not a team player.

2) Make your point once or twice and be accused of not 'speaking up'.


I've seen it happen time and time again. If you don't agree with any direction a task is taking you are shafted one way or the other if you lose.

Yes I get it I just don't agree with you

It may be the edit but I have not seen her do anything productive. She moaned at Zoe she moaned at Jim and don't even get me started on the beauty task.
The apprentice is not the correct arena for her skill set. She may be good in her own business but would fail to inspire others to work alongside her.

Whether your colleagues are peers or management it is important to listen but also to be able to allow your own opinions to be heard she is not effective at this imo

Of course you are entitled to think she is doing a grand job and at least she is being noticed an discussed unlike some of the candidates

That is definitely how I saw it last night with Susan. I havent been her biggest fan thus far, but I was impressed with how she stood up for herself in the boardroom. It's a process, she's learning from it, and I hope that from this point on she will be more assertive with her decisions (without being too whiny ). I'm actually reminded a little of Debra from a few seasons ago who also learned during the process, in her case to tone down her assertiveness.

Agreed. It seems as though you can't win in this sort of situation. And then if you do make your point and you try to ask other people to back it up you're being labelled as though you can't make a decision by yourself!

So you missed her doing the photography last night?

And you missed her identifying three areas where the task was being prosecuted badly? (Title, choice of photograph and discounting the rate card.)

It seem that often, people who have a major downer on a particular candidate become completely blind to anything that candidate does - unless thy can use it to attack her (and the haters usually seem to pick on the women for some reason).


You see, this is where you don't get it.

The reason why management is a hierarchical structure is so that you do not continually have problems with aggressive, mouthy people, having undue influence.

When Susan was PM it was agreed, both by the observers and the team members themselves, that she did an excellent job of managing the task.

And she won.

Good ol Susan 'I could sell 60 bottles by myself in just one morning' Ma ........ although to be fair, that task was about beauty products, something she knows nothing about.

this is so patronising and that's twice now

You like her I get it I find others more productive with better leadership skills. There is nothing to get just different opinions on a discussion forum

How loudly do you have to tell someone that Hip Replacement isn't a good name for a magazine? I mean, it's bloomin obvious ferchissakes.

Also I didn't see anyone take her up on her objection, and ask 'Why, what's wrong with it? What don't you like about it?" They just tutted and went on their way, majority rules.

All these people who say Susan was wrong not to object more strongly - can you actually imagine Jim, Zoe and Glen to all changing their minds and abandoning the idea after being told to by Susan?

Just try to imagine that panning out. You can't because it would never have happened. They would have overruled her, and moved on regardless of how 'loudly' she spoke up.

The whole 'you didn't speak up loud enough' is an excuse that has come up a lot this series. It is a lame excuse used by people who didn't listen to someone, who was later proved right.

Ignore Jepson, she's determined not to listen to anyones point of view or even admit the merits in it.

And when in doubt she pulls out the misogyny card.

The fact of the matter is that you can't just say 'Oh well Susan being meek isnt an issue since she'll be running the company' .... as if somehow that makes everything all better.

I can only assume Jepson doesn't have much life experience, as Ive known plenty of 'owners' of businesses who have been pushed around by their employees because they were too weak or timid and Ive also known plenty of owners who have made bad decisions because they were unduly influenced by the opinions of their employees.

Susan's meekness can't simply be dismissed with a 'oh it doesnt matter in the real world'.

And as long as you keep missing the point, I'll keep saying it.


Except that it isn't just a matter of opinion.

Management is hierarchical in nature for a reason.

You seem incapable of understanding the difference between the dynamics of a peer group and a formal management structure.

thanks, I agree with you too. I have experience that shows meek and mild does not cut it in business especially during a recession recovery .
Anyone can set up a business it is very easy to do and there is a lot of help out there for those who do. This does not always equate to success though .

You seem to be another person who does not understand the difference between a peer group and a formally managed department or company.

In a peer group there is nothing you can do short of becoming a disruptive nuisance if people wilfully ignore you,

When you are in a management position you have various tools at our disposal to ensure that those who work for you acknowledge the chain of command.

Yes, there are poor managers who get pushed around but there was no evidence of that happening when Susan was team leader. It was agreed by both the team and the external observer that she was a good and effective manager. And she won.