has to offer?

Susan - Whiny, not a single ounce of knowledge about the outside world. Staggering considering her travels in life.

Tom - One of these days hes going to wake up, look downstairs and find he's grown a pair. but until that day happens ....

Jim - Mr Slick. Wouldnt trust him as far as I could throw a slippery eel.

Helen - Glorified PA. Organised and errmmm....... thats about it.

The apprentice candidates are chosen for "good tv" and NOT as great business candidates.

In the same way that celebrity big brother does not contain any celebs

Many of these people are rather competent. However, with selective editing, rushed (sometimes ill thought) tasks, and a high pressure environment, they often appear to be worse than what they might actually be outside of the process.

And, yes, usually some are placed on for entertainment purposes. This year, however, I don't think there were that many clowns. Vincent maybe, and the earliest guy boots I don't remember, but nobody else was really out there.

If you think you can do better, OP, go ahead.

Because she's not a PA as in secretary - she's more of an executive assistant. Thats where you would put your young high flyers in an organisation to sort out problems that reach the top level. The next step would be a significant management job.

Oh, the joys of corporate bullshi... She probably does blue sky thinking, gets ballpark figures and does imagineering as well

Ive worked with plenty of 'executive assistants' funnily enough most were on 15k a year.

Dont let the seemingly fancy name fool you.

(by the way this wasnt directed at you Unreality, cant be bothered to go back and quote the proper message)

I think we're in agreement, Dave

In my experience in the mult-national I worked in, there were Executive Assistants like you describe who were assigned to Vice Preidents and above.

The problem when they were assigned those managment jobs after their EA roles was often that they were a bit lost.

They understood all the stratgic questions to ask and the process of management at a senior level but like many MBA's who had not previously done any grunt jobs, they had no idea of the practicalities of getting work done because they'd never done it themselves.

So for example, they were not very good at all at the action planning side of things where setting realistic deadlines for the stages of the work would set the tone for everything which followed.

The worst senior manager I worked with was one such animal who was a quite evil human being and I cheered long and loud when I heard they had been inceremoniously fired a few years after I had left the organisation.

Of course, not all are like that individual and the problem with such a system is often the system itself and not the individuals.

I refuse to package Helen as 'just a this or that', as I made my start in the above organisation in a sales job and I had had almost no sales experience at that time and the job was advertised as requiring sales experience.

My first boss took a chance with me and thankfully we were both rewarded for this.

I was also given a chance when I switched away from the corporate world and decided to become a tennis coach. My first boss in this industry also took a chance on me for a job coaching kids; I had no experience in either coaching or working with kids at the time.

Things worked out very well, so good luck to Helen.

Although I did think that her attempted coup of Melody was the ultimate No No. Still the results of the tasks which she has clearly contributed to, including the last one are hugely apparent.

She thinks clearly (other than the coup!) and asks the obvious and usually the correct questions as they develop their work, as far as I can see.

Finally, she does seem organised and although this is just one component of any work, in my experinece, most people are extremely disorganised and what customers usually love is exactly the opposite, organised delivery of propositions, whatever they might be.

Job title are just that not restrictive labels limiting people to only one set of skills/abilities.

Its pretty standard practice in many big organisations and the civil service to put your brightest young high flyers in jobs near the top of the organisation and make them executive assistants so they learn about the organisation. indeed, with some organisations like BT the only way to get the organisation to do anything about any complaint is to get that level of competent management, backed up by their position near the top, involved by complaining to the top. Its entirely different than with small companies, or the old mindset where the PA made the tea.

As tennisman said its another question whether it works and whether people can then do the nuts and bolts job down below - or wheher its a good idea having Foreign office policy made by the least experienced people. On the other hand, if you don't make the job look interesting and give high flyers the big picture, they may fly somewhere else.

Since when have people who take part in The Apprentice been considered the best this country has to offer?

The best out of the sixteen who are taking part in the competition this years, perhaps. Certainly not the best this country has to offer. The best this country has to offer wouldn't dream of embarrassing themselves on a Reality TV game show.

John Lloyd, unable to reach Wimbledon stardom, retired and opened a chain of tennis clubs nationwide, at one time worth tens of millions. It was the right idea at the right time. He did it well, but he couldn't do it now.

There would be recognition and rewards more or less for those who get all the answers right and no demand was too much for them. After Amstrad passed a certain size Sugar was never a one-man soccer team. He depended on engineers and staff to deliver on their targets, and deliver better than market rivals. In the case of Tottenham FC he made the wrong choice.

Not Yes I Can but Yes We Can.

Much as he may be tempted to relive by proxy the golden rise of 18yo Alan Sugar, he would not underestimate the value of a solid dependable lieutenant.

The thing is, Helen isn't a PA, glorified or otherwise. some people see the word "assistant" in her job title and conclude "female, assistant, must be a glorified secretary". That's an assumption, not a fact to base an argument on. It appears she's already held regional management positions and had been head-hunted from a rival food chain by Greggs. You don't normally head-hunt PAs.

The current CEO and chairman of Xerox, Ursula Burns was an Executive Assistant who got promoted in 2009, and Xerox are a Fortune 500 company.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/21/bu...pagewanted=all

"He offered her a job as his executive assistant. It was January 1990, she was 31, and the offer felt like a dead-end. “Why would I ever want to do that?” she answered, assuming that the title meant secretary. The job was much more, of course. She would travel with Mr. Hicks, sit in on important meetings, help get things done.

She accepted, and, Mr. Hicks remembers, they talked a lot about leadership. Mr. Hicks, a vice president overseeing marketing and customer operations, explained the need to manage people in different ways, not to intimidate them, and to make them feel comfortable by listening carefully.

As she absorbed some of these lessons, Ms. Burns continued to speak her mind inside Xerox — particularly on an occasion in mid-1991 when the stakes were unusually high. At the time, Paul A. Allaire, Xerox’s president, held monthly meetings with top managers, and Ms. Burns and other assistants were invited to sit in (but off to the side).

Ms. Burns noticed a pattern. Mr. Allaire would announce, “We have to stop hiring.” But then the company would hire 1,000 people. The next month, same thing. So she raised her hand.

“I’m a little confused, Mr. Allaire,” she said. “If you keep saying, ‘No hiring,’ and we hire 1,000 people every month, who can say ‘No hiring’ and make it actually happen?”

She remembers that he stared at her with a “Why did you ask that question?” look and then the meeting moved on.

Later, the phone rang. Mr. Allaire wanted to see her in his office. She figured that it was not good news. But Mr. Allaire wanted to poach her from Mr. Hicks, so she could be his executive assistant.

They, too, would talk about leadership during down time. He didn’t want to discourage her candor, but, like Mr. Hicks, he offered tips about how to be more effective — “like giving people credit for ideas that they didn’t have, but you sold to them, to give them ownership,” Mr. Allaire recalls advising her."

Actually it was David, not John Lloyd, Soulmate and I worked for him and knew him. The clubs are stil worth millions by the way.

But that's ok. I'm a modern history graduate and I thought Columbus was Spanish

All that aside, is your point that teamwork is what is reqired to make such businesses work or, if not teamwork, then more than one person?

oh pulease, the term 'head hunted' is the most overused term ever ........ usually used by people who also describe themselves as 'work hard, play hard' people.

Oh pulease (), Dave, the term was used about her career in the show. I can only assume this was in a factual sense. If you are approached directly by a company or agency for a job you're being head-hunted. It's not just about macho business speak.

Anyway, disregarding whether she was head-hunted or not, she's no ordinary secretary or PA.

Well done David Lloyd. I hope John has some shares, and your good self.

Lord Sugar often reiterated his antipathy towards working for a salary, with his own track-record illustrating the high rewards from overlording an entire show rather than working as a cog and be under-rewarded according to the whim of the CEO or the bureaucracy.

However Sugar is that rarity of an all-rounder. Others may be outstanding specialists who are uncomfortable when going beyond their own gifts. Or it may be they have high ability but not Sugar-like ambition to match. I am saying a 30-year-old CEO's sidekick may not necessarily be a limited bureaucrat. Perhaps the test should be, what was the task assigned, and what was the outcome?

Apropos of nothing, after Djokovitch beat Nadal in the Final, John Lloyd discussed every aspect except the one that mattered: Djokovitch craftily always hitting the ball to Nadal's backhand, never to the lethal forehand when Nadal was expecting it. Before the Final BBC aired an interview with Nadal, posing the question: "What is the strongest part of your game?"

"My forehand," said Nadal. After that even a layman like myself noticed how his forehand shot was like a canonball.

I can't take it any more! I have to speak up for secretaries and PAs everywhere!

Glorified phone answerers? That's quite insulting, isn't it? It is! Most are pretty much unsung heroes in the business world. They put up with a lot of crap, work long hours--sometimes longer and harder than their bosses, often know the companies inside out, and some single-handedly run their bosses' companies, particularly small- and middle-sized ones. I have never been a secretary or PA, but from where I sit, most seem to work their guts off. It's not that hard to see some would and do have the capabilities and experiences to run businesses of their own.

I have no doubt Helen would do well if or when she has a business of her own. She obviously thought landing Sugar's investment and connections would be a good start and if she didn't achieve that, she can always continue with her plan and why not? It's unfortunate that she didn't think of doing it earlier, but it's never too late.

I understand your point.

Off topic I know, but how Djokovic exploited the relative weakness of Nadal was the type of calculated risk that these guys have to take at this highest level.

They always run the risk that extended focus on what is only a relative weakness (in that it is marginally less good than an even better strength - the forehand) may well get that stroke into the groove and cause them even more problems.

Your original point above is very valid; that David chose absolutely the right time to place the right type of product into the market when the need was ready to unleash the cash from the customers very pleased to be able to play indoors all year round.

I had a great 14 years which finished in 2007. I never got involved in shares in the company as that just wasn't really my agenda there but I know a few key people who did seriosuly well out of their involvement.

Interestingly, David was reported to have walked away with just over £20m after he sold out to Whitbread but I always felt that in answer to Harry and Paul's character Lance's question, 'Was 'e 'appy', that quite probably he wasn't, as he had gained a stash of cash but had lost his 'baby', the thing he had created and in his head and heart still wanted to be involved in and develop.

He seemed like the type of guy who would never be happy going off playing golf every day but he has been lost to business since, so I gather, despite a few ill fated projects like the one at Hull City.

Nobody denies that secretaries and PAs can work hard. The question is can they work smart in the very different role as CEO.

Helen did not enhance her credibility when in week 10 she showed she probably has never heard of cash-and-carry and how retailers go there weekly.

In week 11 she undermined herself further when agreeing with Tom without hesitation that Christopher Columbus that upstanding Englishman brought back the potato. Columbus has no bearing on a Sugar business. The question is what else she doesn't know and doesn't check.

Exact-a-mon my learned friend. I think there are more than enough instances where Helen got 'lucky' on several tasks that just happened to go her way, more through good fortune than good management.

And I love the way Helen was like 'Columbus? Tom .......' as she clearly shifted the blame entirely onto him ....... err, who's the PM again Helen?

In context of The Apprentice, yes Helen and Tom, just like other apprentices, lost a bit of their credibility but only as all-rounders. I'm sure that they wouldn't be that clueless in their chosen field or industry. Same for other apprentices.

The thing is executive assistants shadow senior executives and sometimes act for them. Apprentice executives in other words. They lead projects, manage people. Secretaries and PAs don't have that responsibility. The PA to a CEO is an important position but they are at the top of their career path. An EA is only just beginning theirs.

I agree with the rest of what you say, except I'm sure Helen was aware of cash and carry wholesale. Also Sugar had stressed re-stock frequency of 2-3 times a day, not once a week. Her big mistake was in missing the far greater profit potential of selling at retail prices. I suspect she was misled by her success at selling booster seats to a retailer, and felt a few large retail orders would be better than messy and tiring street sales.

Ok, Susan, Jim & Tom were probably picked up because they were "good for TV". How about Helen? Helen, "good for tv"? I didn't know which one was Helen for the first 5 episodes.

A good point.

And especially in the US version, I'm always mildly amused at how Lord Combover sets them all sorts of tasks in various areas and then the winner always ends up as a Project Manager on either one of Trumps' new Hotels or appartment blocks - Trump Tower #347.

They should change the name of the programme from The Apprentice to The Property Developer.

Then they should just put them in a hard hat in episode 1 and see who looks best.

Simples