It appears the more you can shout and scream your points across, the better the chance Alan will allow keep you in. Its unfair to those candidates who are naturally more introvert and have more of a conservative nature. In the real business word, people would be a lot more sophisticated.. Whether its for ratings or whatever still makes it questionable.
Loudest most obnoxious Candidates have the better chance.
I think that he likes people who are passionate, but not necessarily those who are really aggressive. There is a difference. He has often fired those who are aggressive and nothing else - Melissa in Series 6, for example.
There is generally a passionate girl who gets far, and he does like the fiery girls. This person generally doesn't win though.
There is generally a passionate girl who gets far, and he does like the fiery girls. This person generally doesn't win though.
Originally Posted by george.millman:
“I think that he likes people who are passionate, but not necessarily those who are really aggressive. There is a difference. He has often fired those who are aggressive and nothing else - Melissa in Series 6, for example.
There is generally a passionate girl who gets far, and he does like the fiery girls. This person generally doesn't win though.”
“I think that he likes people who are passionate, but not necessarily those who are really aggressive. There is a difference. He has often fired those who are aggressive and nothing else - Melissa in Series 6, for example.
There is generally a passionate girl who gets far, and he does like the fiery girls. This person generally doesn't win though.”
Yeah I see your point, but theres some who do not express passion in the same way as those who cry out or go OTT. Again, some people are more reserved, but can still be good business people. I just feel its unfair for those who have different personality traits
Originally Posted by Shrike:
“I gather Lord Sid runs the kind of operation where being loud and obnoxious is seen as a virtue
”
“I gather Lord Sid runs the kind of operation where being loud and obnoxious is seen as a virtue
”
Nick and Margaret worked with Lord Sugar for thirty years. Are they loud and obnoxious?
Originally Posted by chackalacka1234:
“Yeah I see your point, but theres some who do not express passion in the same way as those who cry out or go OTT. Again, some people are more reserved, but can still be good business people. I just feel its unfair for those who have different personality traits”
“Yeah I see your point, but theres some who do not express passion in the same way as those who cry out or go OTT. Again, some people are more reserved, but can still be good business people. I just feel its unfair for those who have different personality traits”
I think he likes people who are passionate over people who sit back and don't feel the need to speak up for themselves. He likes good talkers, ultimately. That's why he liked Zara in YA2. She didn't shout and scream - she was one of the most composed people ever on the programme - but she could really talk the talk and speak up for herself. Sugar loves that.
Originally Posted by lammtarra:
“Nick and Margaret worked with Lord Sugar for thirty years. Are they loud and obnoxious?”
“Nick and Margaret worked with Lord Sugar for thirty years. Are they loud and obnoxious?”
They're not candidates are they? How else will the ratings go up without at least one 'stupid', one 'loud', several 'bitchy' and 'arrogant' candidates,
Originally Posted by chackalacka1234:
“Yeah I see your point, but theres some who do not express passion in the same way as those who cry out or go OTT. Again, some people are more reserved, but can still be good business people. I just feel its unfair for those who have different personality traits”
“Yeah I see your point, but theres some who do not express passion in the same way as those who cry out or go OTT. Again, some people are more reserved, but can still be good business people. I just feel its unfair for those who have different personality traits”
Tom P the nail whatever dyson-esque guy won the past series, so don't write the quiet ones off. Remember Ricky Martin? He wasn't loud. He was trying to stand out with his unfortunate name he was given since birth, and both he and Tom won because they convinced LS they had the best business plan!
Originally Posted by SCD-Observer:
“Tom P the nail whatever dyson-esque guy won the past series, so don't write the quiet ones off. Remember Ricky Martin? He wasn't loud. He was trying to stand out with his unfortunate name he was given since birth, and both he and Tom won because they convinced LS they had the best business plan!”
“Tom P the nail whatever dyson-esque guy won the past series, so don't write the quiet ones off. Remember Ricky Martin? He wasn't loud. He was trying to stand out with his unfortunate name he was given since birth, and both he and Tom won because they convinced LS they had the best business plan!”
Tom did not win because of this, as he didn't go with his business plan. Tom won for being Tom. Susan had the best business plan of the final four, but at the time she wasn't experienced enough in Sugar's mind. He has gone into business with her since though.
Originally Posted by george.millman:
“Tom did not win because of this, as he didn't go with his business plan. Tom won for being Tom. Susan had the best business plan of the final four, but at the time she wasn't experienced enough in Sugar's mind. He has gone into business with her since though.”
“Tom did not win because of this, as he didn't go with his business plan. Tom won for being Tom. Susan had the best business plan of the final four, but at the time she wasn't experienced enough in Sugar's mind. He has gone into business with her since though.”
My point is he wasn't loud. But he won, obviously LS must have heard of that nail thingie he invented.
If I recalled correctly, all those who won the Apprentice as a business partner to LS were NOT shouty, aggressive, obnoxious ones.
Originally Posted by chackalacka1234:
“It appears the more you can shout and scream your points across, the better the chance Alan will allow keep you in. Its unfair to those candidates who are naturally more introvert and have more of a conservative nature. In the real business word, people would be a lot more sophisticated.. Whether its for ratings or whatever still makes it questionable.”
“It appears the more you can shout and scream your points across, the better the chance Alan will allow keep you in. Its unfair to those candidates who are naturally more introvert and have more of a conservative nature. In the real business word, people would be a lot more sophisticated.. Whether its for ratings or whatever still makes it questionable.”
Loud and obnoxious candidates often get further than they ought to, but how often have they won?
Look at the previous winners: Tim Campbell, Michelle Dewberry, Simon Ambrose, Lee McQueen, Yasmina Siadatan, Stella English, Tom Pellereau, Ricky Martin. None of them were obnoxious, and only Lee and Ricky could be regarded as even vaguely loud.
Most of the really 'big' and obnoxious characters tend to be eliminated a week or two before the final: Paul Torrisi, Tre Azam, Stuart Baggs, Adam Corbally.
Originally Posted by slouchingthatch:
“Loud and obnoxious candidates often get further than they ought to, but how often have they won?
Look at the previous winners: Tim Campbell, Michelle Dewberry, Simon Ambrose, Lee McQueen, Yasmina Siadatan, Stella English, Tom Pellereau, Ricky Martin. None of them were obnoxious, and only Lee and Ricky could be regarded as even vaguely loud.
Most of the really 'big' and obnoxious characters tend to be eliminated a week or two before the final: Paul Torrisi, Tre Azam, Stuart Baggs, Adam Corbally.”
“Loud and obnoxious candidates often get further than they ought to, but how often have they won?
Look at the previous winners: Tim Campbell, Michelle Dewberry, Simon Ambrose, Lee McQueen, Yasmina Siadatan, Stella English, Tom Pellereau, Ricky Martin. None of them were obnoxious, and only Lee and Ricky could be regarded as even vaguely loud.
Most of the really 'big' and obnoxious characters tend to be eliminated a week or two before the final: Paul Torrisi, Tre Azam, Stuart Baggs, Adam Corbally.”
Same with the Young Apprentice winners - Arjun Rajyagor, Zara Brownless and Ashleigh Porter-Exley. Arjun was quite quiet, Zara was passionate but composed and articulate, and Ashleigh could be a little loud, but not in the same way as the ones who have been really noticeable for it.
Originally Posted by slouchingthatch:
“Loud and obnoxious candidates often get further than they ought to, but how often have they won?
Look at the previous winners: Tim Campbell, Michelle Dewberry, Simon Ambrose, Lee McQueen, Yasmina Siadatan, Stella English, Tom Pellereau, Ricky Martin. None of them were obnoxious, and only Lee and Ricky could be regarded as even vaguely loud.
Most of the really 'big' and obnoxious characters tend to be eliminated a week or two before the final: Paul Torrisi, Tre Azam, Stuart Baggs, Adam Corbally.”
“Loud and obnoxious candidates often get further than they ought to, but how often have they won?
Look at the previous winners: Tim Campbell, Michelle Dewberry, Simon Ambrose, Lee McQueen, Yasmina Siadatan, Stella English, Tom Pellereau, Ricky Martin. None of them were obnoxious, and only Lee and Ricky could be regarded as even vaguely loud.
Most of the really 'big' and obnoxious characters tend to be eliminated a week or two before the final: Paul Torrisi, Tre Azam, Stuart Baggs, Adam Corbally.”
This series though he doesn't have anyone like those past winners - apart from Myles and Jason who fit categories he usually sends home. . The rest are all loud and sometimes silly.
Originally Posted by george.millman:
“I think he likes people who are passionate over people who sit back and don't feel the need to speak up for themselves. He likes good talkers, ultimately. That's why he liked Zara in YA2. She didn't shout and scream - she was one of the most composed people ever on the programme - but she could really talk the talk and speak up for herself. Sugar loves that.”
“I think he likes people who are passionate over people who sit back and don't feel the need to speak up for themselves. He likes good talkers, ultimately. That's why he liked Zara in YA2. She didn't shout and scream - she was one of the most composed people ever on the programme - but she could really talk the talk and speak up for herself. Sugar loves that.”
Luisa is doing some of what Zara did - summing up what happened perceptively , saying what went wrong, and getting it right. Or, more importantly, getting it into a story that he agrees with, or adopts. She's not as good as Zara, though, at telling him what he wants to hear . Her anti-corporate statement might match his own view, but she would have done better not to say it as bluntly as he would have.
Originally Posted by thenetworkbabe:
“This series though he doesn't have anyone like those past winners - apart from Myles and Jason who fit categories he usually sends home. . The rest are all loud and sometimes silly.”
“This series though he doesn't have anyone like those past winners - apart from Myles and Jason who fit categories he usually sends home. . The rest are all loud and sometimes silly.”
Some louder than others, though. Neil, for instance, looks increasingly like Ricky Martin in terms of his arc: too keen to get in his quippy soundbites early on, calms down a bit, a few wobbles along the way but steadily becoming more credible. I'm not saying he'll win, but when you stack him up against, say, Luisa or Boardroom Natalie (as opposed to Task Natalie) he seems quite calm by comparison.
Maybe we'll even see someone like Kurt finally step out of the shadows as numbers dwindle (though I doubt it).
I think the one thing we can be sure of is that Luisa won't win. Anyone who enters the process thinking they're a genuine contender will be smart enough to know that ultimately Sugar backs actions rather than words and will tend to behave accordingly.
Originally Posted by slouchingthatch:
“I think the one thing we can be sure of is that Luisa won't win. Anyone who enters the process thinking they're a genuine contender will be smart enough to know that ultimately Sugar backs actions rather than words and will tend to behave accordingly.”
“I think the one thing we can be sure of is that Luisa won't win. Anyone who enters the process thinking they're a genuine contender will be smart enough to know that ultimately Sugar backs actions rather than words and will tend to behave accordingly.”
I wouldn't say he backs actions rather than words. I would say he backs both simultaneously. He doesn't back people who just talk and talk about how good they are without proving it, but at the same time he doesn't back people who do well on the tasks but don't stick up for themselves in the boardroom. To do well you need to find a balance between the two.
Originally Posted by george.millman:
“I wouldn't say he backs actions rather than words. I would say he backs both simultaneously. He doesn't back people who just talk and talk about how good they are without proving it, but at the same time he doesn't back people who do well on the tasks but don't stick up for themselves in the boardroom. To do well you need to find a balance between the two.”
“I wouldn't say he backs actions rather than words. I would say he backs both simultaneously. He doesn't back people who just talk and talk about how good they are without proving it, but at the same time he doesn't back people who do well on the tasks but don't stick up for themselves in the boardroom. To do well you need to find a balance between the two.”
I agree with that, although I do think that the balance shifts as a season progresses.
At the beginning, words carry a lot of weight as he has few actions to judge people on. As the tasks pile up, he has more of a track record of task history to work on, so someone who bullshits well in the boardroom will find it more difficult to win him over than someone who has proven in the tasks they can be effective. If you see what I mean?
Originally Posted by slouchingthatch:
“I agree with that, although I do think that the balance shifts as a season progresses.
At the beginning, words carry a lot of weight as he has few actions to judge people on. As the tasks pile up, he has more of a track record of task history to work on, so someone who bullshits well in the boardroom will find it more difficult to win him over than someone who has proven in the tasks they can be effective. If you see what I mean?”
“I agree with that, although I do think that the balance shifts as a season progresses.
At the beginning, words carry a lot of weight as he has few actions to judge people on. As the tasks pile up, he has more of a track record of task history to work on, so someone who bullshits well in the boardroom will find it more difficult to win him over than someone who has proven in the tasks they can be effective. If you see what I mean?”
Hmm, yeah I suppose. But there are still people at the later stages who are fired for not speaking up enough in their favour - Miriam being an obvious example, as he liked Paul's demeanour for some reason.
Originally Posted by george.millman:
“Hmm, yeah I suppose. But there are still people at the later stages who are fired for not speaking up enough in their favour - Miriam being an obvious example, as he liked Paul's demeanour for some reason.”
“Hmm, yeah I suppose. But there are still people at the later stages who are fired for not speaking up enough in their favour - Miriam being an obvious example, as he liked Paul's demeanour for some reason.”
One of Sugar's more baffling decisions, that one.
Obviously I'm not suggesting it's a hard and fast rule, but it makes sense to me as a general approach in life as well as Apprentice tasks. If you're trying to make a decision about something - buying a car, say - and you don't have hard data, you start by listening to what other people are saying. Then once you do have hard data (some brochures, a test drive etc), you base your decision on a combination of data/actions and words/opinions.
