If you make a decision and stand firm your team mates will say that you are not listening to them.

If you listen to others or ask for others opinions they will say the PM is not stong enough to make a decision on their own and asks others for help. Im talking Apprentice through out all the seasons.

In the last series and this Alan Sugar has caught onto blaming the PM for everything but its still ridiculous you really cannot please everyone as PM.

Agreed.

sir Alan can justify any decision.with some argument or other

the truth is that he has picked the wrong guy in virtually all series (assuming there was anyone worth picking)

I don't think that's true. When Sugar asks "Good team leader?" the team often give a resounding yes. It wouldn't make sense to be seen to rubbish strong team leaders all the time; it would make you look like a poor judge and probably someone with a poor attitude too.

Well in this series, the PM hasn't been fired for the last 2 weeks. Also, last series, the PM was fired in weeks 1 (Edward), 3 (Gavin), 4 (Felicity), 5 (Vincent, but as part of a double firing and he was the second fired candidate), 9 (Zoe) and 10 (Melody). So one in every 2 shows I think, less if you don't count Vincent. (I use the whole series rather than a certain week as interviews etc change weeks)

Looking at the older series:
1 - weeks 2 (Lindsay), 8 (Ben), 10 (Miriam) = 1 every 4 shows
2 - weeks 1 (Ben), 2 (Nargis), 4 (Alexa), 9 (Tuan), 10 (Syed) = 1 every 2.4 shows
3 - weeks 1 (Andy), 2 (Rory, as part of a double firing and was second to be fired), 5 (Natalie), 6 (Paul), 7 (Adam), 8 (Ghazal) = 1 every 2 shows
4 - weeks 3 (Ian), 4 (Simon), 6 (Kevin), 7 (Jennifer, as part of a double firing and was second to be fired), 9 (Raef), 10 (Michael) = 1 every 2 shows
5 - weeks 2 (Rocky), 4 (Paula), 5 (Kimberley), 10 (Howard) = 1 every 3 shows
6 - weeks 1 (Dan), 3 (Shibby), 5 (Paloma), 6 (Alex), 7 (Sandeesh) = 1 every 2.4 shows

Atm, it's looking like a series 4/5.

Not to forget that Sugar can change the reasons he "fires" someone week to week... for example (and this is generic)

Week 1 Fired for being too quiet
Week 2 Fired for being too loud
Week 3 Fired for not listening to advice
Week 4 Fired for not having their own opinions

The PM is supposed to lead the team, that means keeping the rest of the team onside. It's not simply expecting blind loyalty as some Apprentice PMs think. A good leader will get people willingly going along with decisions they originally didn't agree with. Bad PMs force their own views on everyone else. A good PM will listen to the team and make a value judgement on what's best, regardless of who suggested it. If it's a fair decision the team will go along with it.

The tricky part in the tasks is delegating responsibility and keeping tabs on how progress is going. The Apprentice teams almost always fail while divided into two sub-teams and communications break down. When they are all in the same place working together things are usually more harmonious. No doubt that's why the teams get split up, to test their skills as leaders.

Unless they are bad leaders, it's rarely just the PM's fault, but the PM is still responsible for delegation and making sure the people delegated to do things deliver. If they delegate the numbers but don't check the results they are as much to blame as the person who messed them up.

However, the question "Good team leader?" is never going to get a straight answer from the team in the boardroom for the reasons you mention. Better to ask Nick or Karren.

Speechless, wish some of them were!

They may be right. You should listen to their reasoning before dismissing it.


Again, they may be right. Some PMs are too wishy-washy.

Simplistic extremes are often wrong.


And all can be justified. All of those can be wrong. Much depends on the boardroom performance. For example, Jane rejected the focus group research, as per your week 3, but she had a plausible reason (ie that the tap-cozy could not be designed to fit the wide variety of taps that exist).


I would only count the first 10 tasks, because the 11th is interviews with no PM, and the 12th is the final where PMs is all that remain. So 3 out of 10 in the first year, 5, 6, 6, 6, 4, 6, in the next years, 33 out of 70 altogether in the first 7 series.

So it's close to 50:50 on any given task. That's higher than the 33:66 we might expect. I think that's partly because when someone does poorly on a task, they often insist on being PM on the next task, so PMs are often people who have already failed once and are likely to fail again. Also, the people who put themselves forward are by definition confident, and they often turn out to be over-confident and have too high an opinion of their own ability. Personally I think being PM ought to be an advantage, because you get to pick which other two candidates to bring in. If you can't find two candidates worse than yourself you deserve to be fired.

im not simply saying the PM gets fired. That was only Mr Sugars mistake. Even if the PM is said to be a good manager when it gets down to business that all goes out the window. if the team looses, people tactically may say good PM so to get on the good side of the PM so they do not get brought back into the board room.

I agree, even though they lost a task, it often depends how they perform in the Task. some PMs were downright incompetent like Rory, others were just bad, others because they used the "make me PM & i'll show you what i can do" excuse to avoid a firing one week, & failed miserably.

This really annoys me when he tailors his reasons for firing someone by whether he actually personally likes or dislikes a candiate rather than the inconsistent excuse he uses of whether he likes/dislikes loud, quiet, or whatever types of characters. If he has a soft spot for a person, like he seemed to have for Baggs, he'll let them through for as long as he can try and justify keeping them. So even if they stuff up he might eg say well he's young. But then with another young candidate he'll turn around and say eg "too young, job is too early for you".

Totally agree!!! His inconsistencies are the worst things about the Apprentice. That said I still love it....