I didn't use the grammatical error as the basis of my argument, I just cited it as an indicator of why the poster may be prone to falling for inept delusional candidates whose only positive feature is their relentless and misplaced optimism.

Sugar doesn't seem to have a grip on the English language either, hence he failed to get into the top league of the business world and presided over numerous business failures.

Has LS actually fired any PMs in this series yet?

But that's not how the game works. You can be in the losing team every week and still be the best individual. Tom was never out of that board room, but he never got fired for valid reasons: he was ultra keen, always the one brimming over with ideas, a good team player, didn't pick fights with people.

I agree with every word of that. It seemed wildly wrong that those three were in the board room at all, just because a fitness chain saw something in the other team's pitch that they had never even thought of themselves.

Your description of Duane was fair enough, but this isn't. 'Did good' is just a colloquialism and conveys its meaning perfectly well. I'm pretty sure none of us mistook Ricky for St Francis of Assisi.

I thought Ricky was a good PM and definitely didn't deserve to be fired. His pitches were excellent if you consider the absolute tranwrecks that a lot of the candidates come out with. He might be kind of cocky but I find him entertaining TV and not absolutely unbearable like Baggs.

That said, I love Duane and don't reckon based on overall performance he deserved to go. Sadly neither did Laura although I'd have loved it if she really cocked up as I found her so abrasive and passive aggressive in the last two episodes. I reckon if Jenna had been brought in she'd have been out.

Alan cringing as soon as Jenna spoke in the board meeting. She is a nightmare though.

I must be the last to know that Duane has a famous brother.

On YF Duane admitted that he had made mistakes, that he was too aggressive and did not listen and did not work well in a team and said that he had learned from them.

It is semantically incorrect, why not use the correct word? Why use some street-style phrase that would be more appropriate for an LA gang member describing a successful stabbing.

yawn. language evolves.

There is no excuse for diluting meaning and grammar.

I did good there.

No one needs an excuse or your permission, you don't own the english language.

Some might say there's no excuse for utterly patronising rudeness.

And others would say there are lots of good excuses if one is faced with abuse of the English language.

Jenna should have gone, what did she do? . Her accent should be enough for dismissal.

It's against DS rules to criticise other poster's grammar. You should read them.

Oh my goodness - so anyone supporting the opinion that Duane left too early is;[LIST][*]feeble minded,[*]unable to appreciate the intellectual merits or business acumen of a candidate,[*]assured of supporters but alas who are confused by decision-making, numbers, logic and business and the early downfall of their hero.[/LIST]
In other words, those who don't share your opinion show a deficiency in the ability to assess a candidate's suitability for a role.

Now strange as it may seem, many of us are very experienced interviewers and furthermore we have been very successful in the avoidance of placing a square peg in a round hole.

How do we do this? We probe beneath the surface to seek out strengths and weaknesses: we're not duped or befooled by a bright smile, effusion and/or a loud voice. We've learnt through experience to spot the skills needed to further develop the careers of the applicants.

There are times when over confidence masks inadequancy and diffidence hides ability and potential; it is the job of the interviewer to separate the wheat from the chaff.

I suspect my wheat is your chaff - but be assured my record proves that I am more often right than wrong.

I have no alternative but to dismiss your self congratulationary analysis as flawed.

But from what we were shown this is not what he was fired for. Nothing in the tasks or boardroom this series stack up.

Not necessarily. He could have 6 viable projects there that interest him - unlike last year when he had 2 or 3.There could be a real competition later on. Until he's down to that 6 or whatever, he can get rid of everyone else who he doesn't want to work with , or who has a plan thats not interesting to him or which would cost too much. I can see why he would not want to work with everyone who has gone so far so they may have all failed at stage one.

The dynamics have changed, but it doesn't matter as long as he's not decided on his winner at the start - as he may have last year. its always been the case that the job largely determined who won - Simon couldn't do Lee's job or vice versa. All thats changed is that some quieter people may last longer, and some people there for entertainment value may have to go earlier to preserve some with viable ideas.

This week, i don't think it mattered. He didn't seem to like Duane. Duane was solely responsible for the area with biggest problems . Laura hadn't done anything wrong. No one else had been made responsible for anything that went wrong. Ricky's basic idea was seen as being a good one (and better than the opposing one which won by sheer luck and dodgy figures and might have lost if costs were counted)

Still think Ricky Martin should have been told to shake his bon bon out of the boardroom. He looks a bit like Chucky from the horror movie with those creepy eyes.

Exactly....

I'm slangy! Can't fault your logic. Perfectly fair shout, and looking stupid is the risk I run in writing conversationally, so more power to you... but I'm not gonna get into too much of a tizz about it. Sorry!

WRT personality v. talent, I think it's a mixture. If I like a candidate as a person, I want them to impress with their talents - but more crucially, it's a team game. Management, motivation, and sales are all personality-led traits; it's all very well to work out your targets, but to achieve those targets a good salesperson will need rapport, charisma, and a team who are willing to support them to the hilt. All the talent in the world can mean nothing at all if you don't inspire confidence in your colleagues and your buyers alike.

I'd actually argue that once all the preparation's been done, there'll still be a little bit of margin-watching involved as far as haggling goes, but the actual act of selling has a lot more to do with personality than it does to do with mathematics.

Well said, Flossie. Couldn't understand why people were going overboard on Duane. A likeable with a pleasing personality and...absolutely nothing else.

Actually, he was never in the final boardroom until task 8, when there were 3 or fewer people in the team so he had to be there.


Agreed. This week was remarkable in that all the final three were strong. Ricky was lucky not to get fired for that reason (ie for not identifying the weaker candidates).

And I have no alternative to dismiss your analysis as content-free as Duane's inane spoutings.

Obviously I have no idea what you interview for, but I suspect it is not for a professional or technical post, because any experienced interviewer for such a post can see that Duane lacks necessary basic skills. For instance, his lack of analytical skills and logical approach to problems was highlighted by his attempts to defy reality and pronounce a chutney as tasting wonderful, just as it started to tear at his insides, because he thought delusional positivism was more important than objective analysis. He was only stopped from venting more drivel because the chutney deprived him of the power of speech. He is barely numerate and he is linguistically challenged and doesn't seem to have a single worthwhile skill.

If you were employing Duane in some undemanding, non-decision making role, or in hard selling then his inane drivel spouting tendencies and relentless delusional positivism might be advantageous for a happy existence.

Feeble-minded people are taken in by his noisy, positive, thrusting personality delivered with big smiles, and can't see the skill shortage at his core.

I agree with the broader point, but he was in the Boardroom on task 8 as PM of a team of four, and on task 9 he was brought back by Zoe over Susan as part of another team of four.