From tonight's show: Lucinda - praised as being a good team leader - won 8/10 ten tasks and fired for being quirky?
Is this a good enough reason?
Is this a good enough reason?
Is being quirky a good enough reason to fire someone?
1 of 2
Absolutely not, especially when you state that "one can't argue the facts" and proceed to fire the best candidate according to the facts. At least give non-bullshit reasons Sir Alan.
Originally Posted by Katenutzs:
“But she was hopeless unless she was in command so I think she was the right candidate to go tonight”
“But she was hopeless unless she was in command so I think she was the right candidate to go tonight”
She can't have been that hopeless. We were down to the final 5. If she was that bad, surely she would have gone weeks ago?
Give me quirky any day over those brain dead, back stabbing morons.
but Lucinda is better off out of it!
but Lucinda is better off out of it!
I think it is if you know that you're not going to be able to work with her. Remember TA will be working very closely with SAS and if that type of person grates on him then it saves a lot of heartache in the future. To be fair I have more respect for his reasons for firing Lucinda than those given to some of the other candidates this series.
Originally Posted by Mamaboogie:
“Give me quirky any day over those brain dead, back stabbing morons.
but Lucinda is better off out of it!”
“Give me quirky any day over those brain dead, back stabbing morons.
but Lucinda is better off out of it!”
Hello old mucker!!!! (IDA forum)
I agree with you. Lucinda is better off out of it. I really liked her.
Yes it is a good enough reason, if it's just an interview - and basically that's what The Apprentice is. It is wrong for Sir Alan to say "You're Fired" because in fact they haven't yet been "hired" and so how can they be "fired"?
In a real job, there is usually a probation period after which you are offerered a permanent position. The probation period is to ascertain whether or not you will actually be good at the job and in this period you can be fired without reason. Most of the time unless you're very out of order you'll be kept on (in part I believe this is because companies do not want the reputation of hiring and firing too many people because it can put people off).
Once you're a permanent employee it becomes more difficult to sack you, although there are always ways and means. Unless industrial law's changed very much in the past 12 years, if you're in an organisation of more than 500 people they have to have a damned good reason to sack you once you've been there a year on permanent contract. If you're in an organisation of less than 500, this period becomes 2 years.
Breaking the terms of your contract are the only things that would be considered a good reason. Unless your contract says you must behave like a small grey person thought your working day, then being a bit "zaney" would not be classed as a good reason!
In a real job, there is usually a probation period after which you are offerered a permanent position. The probation period is to ascertain whether or not you will actually be good at the job and in this period you can be fired without reason. Most of the time unless you're very out of order you'll be kept on (in part I believe this is because companies do not want the reputation of hiring and firing too many people because it can put people off).
Once you're a permanent employee it becomes more difficult to sack you, although there are always ways and means. Unless industrial law's changed very much in the past 12 years, if you're in an organisation of more than 500 people they have to have a damned good reason to sack you once you've been there a year on permanent contract. If you're in an organisation of less than 500, this period becomes 2 years.
Breaking the terms of your contract are the only things that would be considered a good reason. Unless your contract says you must behave like a small grey person thought your working day, then being a bit "zaney" would not be classed as a good reason!
I think Sir Alan probably likes to play safe with his employees. So no-one is allowed to be too different.
Originally Posted by ewoodie:
“Hello old mucker!!!! (IDA forum)
I agree with you. Lucinda is better off out of it. I really liked her.”
“Hello old mucker!!!! (IDA forum)
I agree with you. Lucinda is better off out of it. I really liked her.”
Ey up ewoodie!
If you're not allowed to be quirky in 'business' then I'm glad I'm not in it!
All the people I vaguely liked are gone - I'm the kiss of death on the apprentice!
Lucinda was not just fired for being quirky. I don't know why people think SAS is basing his decision solely on her appearance just because he used the word zany in the same sentence when he fired her. For me, the show showed several reasons why Lucinda was fired, the biggest one being she did not convince him(or herself) that she actually wanted the job on top of generally doing poorly in the interviews other than her one good interview with Karen Brady. She hardly sold herself and offered no defence to being branded unemployable. It did not look like her heart was in it and she seemed completely overawed by how tough the normal three interviewers were.
Originally Posted by JonSkinnups:
“Lucinda was not just fired for being quirky. I don't know why people think SAS is basing his decision solely on her appearance just because he used the word zany in the same sentence when he fired her. For me, the show showed several reasons why Lucinda was fired, the biggest one being she did not convince him(or herself) that she actually wanted the job on top of generally doing poorly in the interviews other than her one good interview with Karen Brady. She hardly sold herself and offered no defence to being branded unemployable. It did not look like her heart was in it and she seemed completely overawed by how tough the normal three interviewers were.”
“Lucinda was not just fired for being quirky. I don't know why people think SAS is basing his decision solely on her appearance just because he used the word zany in the same sentence when he fired her. For me, the show showed several reasons why Lucinda was fired, the biggest one being she did not convince him(or herself) that she actually wanted the job on top of generally doing poorly in the interviews other than her one good interview with Karen Brady. She hardly sold herself and offered no defence to being branded unemployable. It did not look like her heart was in it and she seemed completely overawed by how tough the normal three interviewers were.”
It wasn't just her appearance was it? She rides a scooter and likes scented candles. She didn't seem to like those which others hanker after like boys toys such as expensive fast cars and the high-life successful business person life-stlye. She also didn't do the tedious agressie I AM rhetoric. She remained calm and articulate. she was just different.
If anyone did badly in the interviews it was Lee and Alex.
Originally Posted by ewoodie:
“It wasn't just her appearance was it? She rides a scooter and likes scented candles. She didn't seem to like those which others hanker after like boys toys such as expensive fast cars and the high-life successful business person life-stlye. She also didn't do the tedious agressie I AM rhetoric. She remained calm and articulate. she was just different.
If anyone did badly in the interviews it was Lee and Alex.”
“It wasn't just her appearance was it? She rides a scooter and likes scented candles. She didn't seem to like those which others hanker after like boys toys such as expensive fast cars and the high-life successful business person life-stlye. She also didn't do the tedious agressie I AM rhetoric. She remained calm and articulate. she was just different.
If anyone did badly in the interviews it was Lee and Alex.”
It is obvious that SAF based his decision on more than her accent, and appearance from the discussions he had with the interviewers and what he said in the boardroom. It seems alot of Lucinda's supporters have latched onto the word zany and ignored the rest of his discussion. After learning in the spoilers Lucinda went over Helene this week I was looking for her in particular tonight and at the end of the show I was not surprised she went, especially as this followed on from her performance in the car task.
1. She did do badly in the interviews as she hardly defended herself especially from the accusations that she was unemployable. In fact, the interviews left her second guessing whether she wanted to actually be SAS's apprentice and this is an impression she left on the other interviewers.
For me that is far worse than Alex's very defensive and insecure interviews even though he was also poor and Lee's lie. She never managed to convince the interviewers that she could work in a team effectively other than a leader. She did well with Karen Brady who asked easier questions and was more Lucinda's type of person but the damage had already been done as all of the interviewers bar Brady gave negative feedback back to SAS on her suitability for the job. This has nothing to do with her appearance, or accent.
2. SAS had grave doubts over her ability to work as part of a team if Lucinda is not team leader before the interviews and her performance did not allay those concerns. All the interviewers feedback further endorsed those doubts and his two advisors also made such comments. I also think he could not pin down Lucinda motivations for wanting to work for him as she was basically saying she wanted to work for him for the challenge and stimulation as she is not motivated by money. With the others it is easy, they are motivated by money and wanting further experience so he would no question marks over their commitment. With Lucinda not only is he finding it hard to pin down why she wants to work for him, he has Lucinda herself saying she does not know if she wants or is right to work for him. She is not doing herself much good here after the likes of Michelle and Katie. Alex understood that and brought it to his attention in the boardroom, although I would imagine SAF would have known of this anyway in a similar way he found out about Jennifer and Micheal]s bribe.
So SAS is left with a candidate who although intelligent and capable, he is also being given constant feedback that Lucinda is difficult in groups and also hearing very unconvincing feedback that she wants to work for him who also performed badly in the previous week's car tast. WHat was going to happen next was inevitable IMO as Helene seemed to do well in the interviews and Claire was excellent. All in all, the impression she left on the interviewers reminded me of Paul from series two.
Alan Sugar will always go for people he can relate to. The old class warrior/socialist was never going to hire some posh, well spoken bird that looks a little bit nuts. She could have been an outstandingly good candidate (she really wasn't) but she's just not the sort of character Comrade Alan would ever go for.
The winner will be either Alex or Lee (he'd have a lot of respect for Claire as a good working class northern lass, but he'd think her too much trouble - Women are better seen and not heard) and obviously Helene is non starter.
The winner will be either Alex or Lee (he'd have a lot of respect for Claire as a good working class northern lass, but he'd think her too much trouble - Women are better seen and not heard) and obviously Helene is non starter.
Did anyone get the feeling from 'You're fired' that Lucinda has had problems from the other contestants about her quirky appearance? Stuff that wasn't shown on tv?
I think she blamed any tension on her apperance instead of thinking about whether it had anything to do with personality. A defence mechanism.
I think it was a stupid reason, especially as there were people there that deserved to be there far less than Lucinda, at least she didn't resort to backstabbing her way through. I really don't know how she managed to spend all that time with those people who blatantly can't stand her. Tbh though I think she's better off not working for SAS
Originally Posted by Katenutzs:
“But she was hopeless unless she was in command so I think she was the right candidate to go tonight”
“But she was hopeless unless she was in command so I think she was the right candidate to go tonight”
So was Claire. However, the difference between the two women was that when Lucinda was in charge the teams looked and acted like teams (regardless of personalities). Which in a way showed that she really did know best. It's more than just luck that she was the candidate who was on the winning side the most. If she was as disruptive as implied then surely she her teams would have lost more times than Alex. If I had been in SAS's seat I would seriously be questioning why the others couldn't lead as well.
Originally Posted by Katenutzs:
“But she was hopeless unless she was in command so I think she was the right candidate to go tonight”
“But she was hopeless unless she was in command so I think she was the right candidate to go tonight”
Alex has been hopeless ALL the time and he's still there??
Interesting that the whole series emphasises the importance of the team leader - many are 'fired' after taking the role.
Yet Lucinda was fired for not being a team player?
Yet Lucinda was fired for not being a team player?
Originally Posted by JonSkinnups:
“It is obvious that SAF based his decision on more than her accent, and appearance from the discussions he had with the interviewers and what he said in the boardroom. It seems alot of Lucinda's supporters have latched onto the word zany and ignored the rest of his discussion. After learning in the spoilers Lucinda went over Helene this week I was looking for her in particular tonight and at the end of the show I was not surprised she went, especially as this followed on from her performance in the car task.
1. She did do badly in the interviews as she hardly defended herself especially from the accusations that she was unemployable. In fact, the interviews left her second guessing whether she wanted to actually be SAS's apprentice and this is an impression she left on the other interviewers.
For me that is far worse than Alex's very defensive and insecure interviews even though he was also poor and Lee's lie. She never managed to convince the interviewers that she could work in a team effectively other than a leader. She did well with Karen Brady who asked easier questions and was more Lucinda's type of person but the damage had already been done as all of the interviewers bar Brady gave negative feedback back to SAS on her suitability for the job. This has nothing to do with her appearance, or accent.
2. SAS had grave doubts over her ability to work as part of a team if Lucinda is not team leader before the interviews and her performance did not allay those concerns. All the interviewers feedback further endorsed those doubts and his two advisors also made such comments. I also think he could not pin down Lucinda motivations for wanting to work for him as she was basically saying she wanted to work for him for the challenge and stimulation as she is not motivated by money. With the others it is easy, they are motivated by money and wanting further experience so he would no question marks over their commitment. With Lucinda not only is he finding it hard to pin down why she wants to work for him, he has Lucinda herself saying she does not know if she wants or is right to work for him. She is not doing herself much good here after the likes of Michelle and Katie. Alex understood that and brought it to his attention in the boardroom, although I would imagine SAF would have known of this anyway in a similar way he found out about Jennifer and Micheal]s bribe.
So SAS is left with a candidate who although intelligent and capable, he is also being given constant feedback that Lucinda is difficult in groups and also hearing very unconvincing feedback that she wants to work for him who also performed badly in the previous week's car tast. WHat was going to happen next was inevitable IMO as Helene seemed to do well in the interviews and Claire was excellent. All in all, the impression she left on the interviewers reminded me of Paul from series two.”
“It is obvious that SAF based his decision on more than her accent, and appearance from the discussions he had with the interviewers and what he said in the boardroom. It seems alot of Lucinda's supporters have latched onto the word zany and ignored the rest of his discussion. After learning in the spoilers Lucinda went over Helene this week I was looking for her in particular tonight and at the end of the show I was not surprised she went, especially as this followed on from her performance in the car task.
1. She did do badly in the interviews as she hardly defended herself especially from the accusations that she was unemployable. In fact, the interviews left her second guessing whether she wanted to actually be SAS's apprentice and this is an impression she left on the other interviewers.
For me that is far worse than Alex's very defensive and insecure interviews even though he was also poor and Lee's lie. She never managed to convince the interviewers that she could work in a team effectively other than a leader. She did well with Karen Brady who asked easier questions and was more Lucinda's type of person but the damage had already been done as all of the interviewers bar Brady gave negative feedback back to SAS on her suitability for the job. This has nothing to do with her appearance, or accent.
2. SAS had grave doubts over her ability to work as part of a team if Lucinda is not team leader before the interviews and her performance did not allay those concerns. All the interviewers feedback further endorsed those doubts and his two advisors also made such comments. I also think he could not pin down Lucinda motivations for wanting to work for him as she was basically saying she wanted to work for him for the challenge and stimulation as she is not motivated by money. With the others it is easy, they are motivated by money and wanting further experience so he would no question marks over their commitment. With Lucinda not only is he finding it hard to pin down why she wants to work for him, he has Lucinda herself saying she does not know if she wants or is right to work for him. She is not doing herself much good here after the likes of Michelle and Katie. Alex understood that and brought it to his attention in the boardroom, although I would imagine SAF would have known of this anyway in a similar way he found out about Jennifer and Micheal]s bribe.
So SAS is left with a candidate who although intelligent and capable, he is also being given constant feedback that Lucinda is difficult in groups and also hearing very unconvincing feedback that she wants to work for him who also performed badly in the previous week's car tast. WHat was going to happen next was inevitable IMO as Helene seemed to do well in the interviews and Claire was excellent. All in all, the impression she left on the interviewers reminded me of Paul from series two.”
You seem to have based your comments entirely on the interviews and totally ignored other issues raised such as task track record and the postive review of Luncinda's track record.
A case can be made for firing any of the candidates if you be bothered to make such a full analysis.
I don't think saying she was too zany while at the point of firing her was right. I still think that Lucinda had a lot to give. She is better than Alex imo. Considering team work and leading, at least Lucinda could do one out of two things. Alex isn't very good at any of the two (his snaking comes to mind). Just as Alex will be able to learn etc., Lucinda comes across as a very intelligent lady who could do equally, or should I say even better then Alex. Just because Lucinda is a little quirky isn't really a good enough reason to not employ her. If Sir Alan is an equal opportunities employer, his company policies have been made redundant by this. Also, if he has kept his attitude of "I'm not going to fire x person because they are young", again he has broken his equal opportunities policy with his ageism. How discriminatory.
Originally Posted by pogo ogo:
“I don't think saying she was too zany while at the point of firing her was right. I still think that Lucinda had a lot to give. She is better than Alex imo. Considering team work and leading, at least Lucinda could do one out of two things. Alex isn't very good at any of the two (his snaking comes to mind). Just as Alex will be able to learn etc., Lucinda comes across as a very intelligent lady who could do equally, or should I say even better then Alex. Just because Lucinda is a little quirky isn't really a good enough reason to not employ her. If Sir Alan is an equal opportunities employer, his company policies have been made redundant by this. Also, if he has kept his attitude of "I'm not going to fire x person because they are young", again he has broken his equal opportunities policy with his ageism. How discriminatory.”
“I don't think saying she was too zany while at the point of firing her was right. I still think that Lucinda had a lot to give. She is better than Alex imo. Considering team work and leading, at least Lucinda could do one out of two things. Alex isn't very good at any of the two (his snaking comes to mind). Just as Alex will be able to learn etc., Lucinda comes across as a very intelligent lady who could do equally, or should I say even better then Alex. Just because Lucinda is a little quirky isn't really a good enough reason to not employ her. If Sir Alan is an equal opportunities employer, his company policies have been made redundant by this. Also, if he has kept his attitude of "I'm not going to fire x person because they are young", again he has broken his equal opportunities policy with his ageism. How discriminatory.”
It just shows how out of touch and old fashioned SAS really is.
This series has done his credibility and reputation no good. He should get in touch with the modern World. IT might be a better reason to fire someone for bing a cheat or a liar or an undermining snake.
1 of 2
