Do you have to be well mannered to get on in business?

Well, it was another interesting Apprentice programme last night wasn't it? There was some jaw dropping behaviour both inside and outside the boardroom. I will discuss this later. What I have also found interesting is a column by Allison Pearson, who compared our Melody to Margaret Thatcher and other high achieving women leaders. Now I personally cannot see any similarity between the two women, other than having a forceful, focused 'verbal' handbag technique. Allison Pearson also argued that people didn't like Melody because she was a b*tch and that these qualities are admired in men but not women.

As edited by the programme - and of course, we can't be totally sure the editing has been completely balanced, Melody is very good at persuading/bulldozing others into agreeing with her. She doesn't listen to other people's advice or views, and even disregarded the chosen panel of tasters, who 'didn't agree' with her ideas. She just latches onto an idea and goes for it. I admire anyone that has the focus and strength of character to fight for what she wants, but surely it is a fatal flaw to disregard other people's opinion, observations and even panel research. I just can't wait to see this woman in the interview stage...

The other person I wish to discuss this week is Zoe, who was just ghastly, to Melody. She's been ghastly to Susan and Natalie in the past. Of course, the venom directed at Melody isn't totally unjustified;  but the personal attacks 'below the belt' to Melody just before an important presentation (were the buyers from Asda able to hear the performance?) was so unprofessional. Talk about shattering the confidence of your team just before an important presentation. Zoe has the ability to fight dirty: real 'girl fight stuff'. One imagines she would have scratched and pulled hair in fights with any girl she disliked at school. I don't know if she resorts to personal attacks when she feels under pressure; she was much better when she wasn't a team leader - but of course this could have been the editing. It was as though she wasn't capable of making a decision, but would lash out at team members rather than take responsibility. You could see her digging a hole as she attacked Melody and then Tom in the board room, and interestingly enough, the person who was the recipient of previous attacks, Susan, wasn't called back into the board room.

I am going to sound like Karren Brady, who hates women behaving in this way, particularly in the board room. Unfortunately, there is a particular type of male (and Daily Mail readers) who consider that all business women are second rate and behave in the way Zoe does. They don't, believe me! However, her behaviour ticks every stereotype of women as leaders, and unfortunately does no women any favours.

I will therefore go to an article I read where ex-Tesco CEO, Terry Leahy recommended that good manners in business was the key to success. Both Melody and Zoe, and also Jim, do not appear to have this characteristic; one because she plays dirty and makes personal attacks, the other two because they are so focused, they will do anything to get where they want, which will include shouting down others; manipulating and not listening. On the other hand Jim was heard saying that Helen was quiet and gentle and he liked her because he coujld get his way. However, one wonders whether he has underestimated her ability to manipulate him!

I am wondering whether people feel that they have to be the loudest; the most aggressive; the most devious in order to be successful in business. I believe you need a focus, determination, energy and charisma. But loud? Your marketing can be loud, but you could be the quietest person but full of energy and charisma!

It's all in the market research

Now I have some inside information on Market Research; I worked in the industry for nearly two years, and learnt two very important things: you can lead the respondent to answer in a particular way and you need more than 4 respondents. I even knew that from an O Level research exercise. But then again, I don't run a global industry. And I don't have a wealth of awards - although I'm up for the viola player of the year award in our household, which is a given, since I'm the ONLY viola player in the household.

It is also not de rigeur to interpret 'very good' and 'excellent' for, 'not really' and 'okay': unless your French isn't quite as good as you've talked yourself up to be. Or perhaps you just didn't like the product and wanted to ensure it wasn't selected. Or maybe you don't have a good grasp of what consumer's might buy, which is a surprise since you run a global organisation and have been mentored by an impressive list of world class thinkers and Nobel Prize Winners.

Please don't think I'm just getting at Melody. She is a tigress and as Lord S said, she will fight for her place in the Apprentice. She also worked incredibly hard getting appointments, and had a stab at speaking French. However, it was all for her own gain; she isn't a team player and had an inability to hear requests for anything that wouldn't further her own position within the process. She based her decisions on 'gut instinct' without considering any evidence and also conveniently 'forgot' to do some tasks that the team leader asked her to - research on La Redoute for example.

Personally I have a problem with individuals that constantly blow their own trumpet: the 'All talk and no action' brigade. They expect everyone to shine their lights on them; illuminating their talent at the expense of everyone else's. My friend Samantha told me that when she met Rupert Murdoch, he had a charisma and he listened to what everyone said. He really paid attention and made you feel that your opinion was valid. He then went away and considered the evidence (statistical and opinion) before making a decision. He runs a successful global business. That is the skill base you need to be successful Melody. I can't wait to see her in the interviews!

“I can take their hearts, I can take their minds,” The Apprentice

“I can take their hearts, I can take their minds,” he dreamed. Now I apologise for blogging late on this particular episode of The Apprentice, but I had been so mesmerised by Jim's mellifluous tones that I was charmed into thinking he liked me; not that he wanted me to do his thing.

Ah! Of course we know that he told the TV viewers that he had a game plan for manipulating his team into being submissive and if the going got tough, then he'd stick the boot in. As he showed in the board room. As Karren kindly summarised "You have a passive aggressive personality". Anyone that has had a boss like this - or a friend for that matter, knows the outcome is heartbreaking. I am sure Jim's team will also be more wary of his games now.

Yes: this bloke does get everyone to work together, and he makes everyone feel valued. He does the eye contact; open body language - even mimicking body language to develop rapport very, very well. Even the frosty Zoe fell for Jim's charms and was dancing to his tune. 

Yet when the evaluation of the task, in the boardroom, took place, he was first to devalue other's contribution, lying and scraping to save his place. We have all worked with or for people that behave like this. How do they gain promotion? How are they so effective? Perhaps they don't make the progress they like; perhaps the reality is that they aren't telling the truth with future plans and opportunities. I worked with a tenor who was exactly this; terribly destructive to colleagues when the going got tough. Slowly we all unravelled the considerable web of deceit, which took a while to recover from.

If you are in work, it is good to have a mentor or someone that you can trust who might not be in your department. Someone that has one step away from the action but might know the characters. A mentor is invaluable for noticing games and situations that are occurring to warn you, and also to provide advice if the going gets tough.

Jim is, of course TV gold and we are waiting for a withering look from Margaret in the interview session!

Glaswegian accents affect success of winning jobs

 I read the following press release yesterday: this was describing the results of a survey on accents and employability.
http://www.responsesource.com/releases/rel_display.php?relid=6525

As we all know, discussing accents is an emotive subject for many people. An accent does identify where the speaker is from and class - which for many British people is key. But certain accents provoke prejudice, which I believe could be the cause of the results. My views on accents and where I rank them are different to these results, as I am sure readers would also agree. If I'm analysing the results, I might suggest that there was regional (southern) bias in the research: I doubt if anyone from the north would consider an Essex accent the most preferable accent to have.

 However, the whole issue of accents is interesting when considering 'employability'. In fact a number of well known presenters have said that their middle class accents was a disadvantage when working at the BBC where regional accents are now favoured. To a certain extent, it is 'horses for courses'; a Public School accent for a business with many people of that background would be an advantage, but wouldn't work so well, if they were targeting Liverpool clients. Yet the lovely Ashley in Michel Roux's "Service" demonstrated that he didn't need to speak RP to engage some very posh guests at a country hotel: his warm, endearing personality was a winning formula.

When I first taught in London, the headmistress of the prep school I was working at was incredibly posh. However, upon meeting her family, it transpired that they didn't present themselves in that way, and she had consciously 'lost' her scouse accent between Liverpool and Euston station, to advance her career. Another headmistress I have met: a dynamic, successful primary head, was told to 'get rid of her brummie accent if she wanted to get on' - and this was in Essex.

In the end, it is about being understood; speaking clearly, effectively and appropriately. A thick accent whether it be Public School posh; Glaswegian or Scouse is more difficult to understand than a voice with 'a little' accent, which still provides interest and individuality. However, poor grammar - of the Louise Rednapp/Alesha Dixon "You was great" variety, does not give a good impression; rather it shows the person is lazy and poorly educated. Would I employ them - or even buy from them: no. Would I employ or buy from someone who has a Glaswegian accent - yes, if they spoke clearly, with good grammar!

The mouse that roared!

How on earth do you get heard when you are in a group of vocal, overconfident, loud fellow contestants?Edna (who was eliminated from The Apprentice last night) said on the TV this morning, that one of the keys to being successful in this format, was to be heard and noticed. Obviously, clever editing prevents us being totally aware of candidate's success, but I was particularly struck by the struggles Susan (my name sake) has been having with other contestants.

There is no doubt that Susan is a clever lady and has a sound grasp of business principles. But for some reason, other candidates are ignoring her, or being unreasonably rude  (Zoe I mean you). Why is she failing to be taken seriously? She does have the disadvantage of being the youngest candidate, and she looks very young. Her voice is very high: there is a lot of evidence to show that higher pitched voices are more difficult to listen to. She is petite in stature and is not yet able to make an impact with her physical presence. Her body language tends to be 'deferential': particularly when aggressive candidates are speaking to her. I do believe that Susan's cultural background also plays a role in her ability to come across: Chinese women are expected to be deferential; they speak quietly and with a high pitch. Susan also does not have the confidence and is in awe (I don't know why) of some of the more experienced candidates. 

So what would I suggest Susan does to be a more successful communicator and for others to take notice of her:  

• Think before she speaks; she is very enthusiastic and desperate to please like a child, but this doesn't go down well.
• Speak in a lower pitch. Not only will it make her appear older, she will be more audible.
• Slow down her speech so it is easier for people to listen to her.
• Speak louder, so that others can hear her.
• Be more forceful when she speaks; she won't come across as aggressive (there are others that are capable of that)
• Stand up straight; head up and confident.
• Don't cower when others shout at her.
• Try not to whinge.

I actually think Susan is a great candidate. She needs to overcome these obstacles to start shining. Lord Sugar has flagged up these challenges for her, and no doubt she has the strength of character to take his comments on board.

Calm down dear: just listen

Oh dear: the swarve Vincent had his red card (or the finger) on Wednesday and his downfall wasn't his ability to engage with people (well Jim) but his inability to engage with female team members. How many times did he dismiss his female team mates' suggestions - or even physically remove telephones from their hands to complete a call?
Engagement isn't just about speaking, but it is also listening. Engagement is a two way process: one that  involves NOT JUST speaking, but listening. A good leader has the ability to do this, and something that I hope Vincent goes away with and contemplates.
I was concerned that he seemed to dismiss the women's contributions to the team efforts. Despite Natalie's good advert, this was not acknowledged - and I can only consider that this was due to a blind spot with women. Misogyny has no place in business, and through misjudging the contribution of a section of a team, it weakens your position.

So Vincent: next time you select a team, or work with an existing team, judge individuals' talents based on their ability not their gender.