They couldn't both be PM

^^Thats true, but not seen anyone this series really fight for PM, they sort of mention they'd like to do it, then go quite if someone else pops up, except and his "Pole".

Mark seems like the cooperate politics type, more worried about manoeuvring himself into a good position than making sure a good job gets done.
To an extent the format of the show encourages that sort of behaviour, but it comes so naturally to Mark that I can't help but suspect he engaged in such politics in his normal job.
I've worked with that sort and in some ways they can be more of a problem than the obvious buffoons like James and Dan.
No one is going to give James any serious sort of responsibility, he's to much of a clown, but some people will be convinced by the charisma of Mark types. There's organisations where theyre able to drip their poison, undermining other people's reputation for their own gain.
At least that's the impression I'm getting from the edits. And it seems I'm not the only one.
There's no danger of James or Dan winning, but it feels like Mark has a small chance, which makes me watch hoping for his demise and makes me cheer Dan when he calls him out.

I thought based on the failure of the brand he had to bring back Daniel and you never pick two people from the same team if you weren't in it to come back because they'll have each other's back and have the same defence.

Based on Felipe and Lauren's contribution he made the right choice, even though Lauren was a far stronger candidate.

It's Daniel who moved up in my estimation, he absolutely gave credit to Mark and showed class that Mark didn't as well as showing he's way above a grudge and puts business first.

I so wish the other team had lost as I'd have loved to see Bianca try to defend bringing in the branding team when their's was the only successful part of the campaign. If she'd lost I think Bianca would have gone.

The bonus of Daniel staying must be the others must be terrified of how amazing his business plan is.

The old style show with Sugar keeping someone less brilliant was more because he liked their personality or thought they had something but he'd usually always get rid.

Now he always has a thought on the biz plan outlines so it must worry the others when someone useless gets so far that seemingly is not too good.

This. Some might see Mark as playing the game but where Lauren suggested using a link in the advert and Mark dismissed her by stating he'd already thought of that was done in a very negative and undermining way. If this was a work environment, that shows an insecure and weak manager - it creates de moralisation, frustration, stress. He could have said that he'd already thought of that, great minds think a like etc and praised her idea. He put her down instead. People like that create negative working environments - and that comes down to insecurity. People like that are horrible to work with, you have to watch your back constantly and never know when they'll turn on you.

Yes but he wasn't actually Lauren's Manager. They are of course involved in a competition for an amazing prize and that produces immense tension all of it's own which is hardly conducive to a caring environment as we see demonstrated by all the candidates just about all of the time.

If the situation played out how it was shown it seemed Lauren was just picking up on things that those responsible had already dealt with. It came across to me that she hadn't found herself a role and was desperately trying to do so.

As for Mark being a good manager, Nick went out of his way to say that he was and he knows what Sugar likes and wants so I think for all intents and purposes Mark is a good manager.

For that task he was her manager - a good manager needs motivated staff, put downs and manipulation create a negative team, that makes him a bad manager and a bad team member. A demotivated team and a non trusting atmosphere won't create a productive environment longer term.

He may have managed the components of the task well but he wouldn't be good a good manager to work with, that would show quickly in a proper work environment.

He showed one element of irritation and as I said it appeared she was being irritating. He was very good elsewhere, backing Daniel and Katie and supporting Felippe when he went on one.

Are there any other examples of Mark being a bad manager when he was PM or just this one comment in the heat of the moment?

Thats the trouble with the show, even though your PM you don't really have any powers, you can't reprimand people, you can't send people out of the room etc. In the real world you wouldn't get these problems as much, because at the end of the day you do as your boss says, end of. You may not agree with it, you may bitch behind their back, but there's a clear ranking system in day to day business. And if something fails, you then at least can turn to your boss and tell them "I did what you asked".

I think Rory did, didn't he? Although he is remembered as being one of the worst managers of all time.

I personally think that a good manager shouldn't need to send someone out, whether in the real world or for the purposes of this show. A good manager is able to utilise the skills of all their co-workers, make everyone feel appreciated, get on with people but get the job done.

Well I would expect that too, but in the real world your not fighting for your survival (most of the time) and don't have people constantly arguing the toss with you, just to get a good edit and or make themselves look good come the boardroom.

For example if I ask one of my designers to make the background red on a poster, I don't expect any answering back and arguing, they may say "don't you think blue's better", but at the end of the day I pay the wages, it's my pocket that gets the hit should the customer not agree with me.

But there have still been numerous managers that have been able to do it on the programme. Surprisingly, Katie Hopkins was one of them - she was absolutely able to work really well as a team leader, get everyone behind her, enjoying working with her and praising her highly in the boardroom.

Admittedly that happened more in the early years, and since people have learned that it is all about scapegoating that is harder to do, but still possible. The Katie in this series did it quite well, if I remember correctly, as did Solomon. They may have had a couple of people grumbling to camera behind their back, but when working with people both seemed to manage pretty effectively, and get everyone to get the work done without complaint.

I think a lot of the time, if the team think the PM hasn't got a chance of winning they tend to work quite well, as they themselves can shine on task. But when you have a possible winner being PM do they subconsciously or even overtly drag their feet.

I suppose, but that can massively backfire. If someone has been really strong, then despite the loss they will be able to defend themselves in the boardroom, and that will make it harder for anyone who ends up in there with them to deflect the blame from themselves.