It was a good one this week, with the gobby Melissa Cohen finally getting her comeuppance and hearing those famous dreaded words... "You're Fired!" Frankly, I thought she was so utterly horrible in last week's episode that I was hoping her team would fail so that I would have the pleasure of seeing her fired, but - somehow - she managed to grab victory and so my plans were thwarted for another seven days. Her performance this week, for a self-acclaimed pitching master, was dismal, finally leading to her departure from the show. So what did we learn about Melissa? That she liked to boast, and claim her prowess in an area that she obviously couldn't - and didn't - deliver on? Melissa learnt the hard way that she should have been able to back up her claims with action, rather than letting herself, and her team, down when it came to the crunch. One of the things to take away from this is the importance of setting expectations. If you say you can do something, whether you can or not, people will expect you to do it. If the expectation to achieve is unrealistic, you won't be meet your targets, and will disappoint those to whom you made the promise. If you set yourself, and your employer/ colleagues, realistic expectations, then you will always be able to deliver, and if you manage to exceed those targets, all the better! The thing about Melissa was that she bigged up her sales abilities so much, and had so much to prove, that when she fell flat on her face we all felt a little glow of happiness at her misfortune. Her braggishness wasn't helped any by her personality flaws, unfortunately. Volunteering to be the project manager - well, forcing her way into the position - once was enough for all of us, but she then tries to bulldoze her way into it for a second week. That girl certainly wanted to prove something, to herself as well as Lord Sugar. I would have thought that scraping through by the skin of her teeth in the bakery task would have allowed her to sit back and relax knowing she didn't have to stand in the firing line as PM again, but who knew she'd be such a glutton for punishment? Perhaps it was to gain more attention from Lord Sugar, perhaps to win back the respect of her team mates. Who knows? One thing's for sure, Melissa won't be missed by anyone in the Apprentice house, from what we've seen.
Nobody could fail to be surprised, and amused, by Melissa's parting shot in the boardroom, accusing Jamie and Stuart of ganging up on her. As she stormed out, both men followed her to say their goodbyes, only to be met with a refusal to shake hands and told that she had nothing to say to them. Sulky? Moi? It made her look BAD - childish, stroppy and petulant. If you were a potential employer, what on earth would you think after seeing THAT performance? I expect better from my 6-year old, let alone a grown "professional". Always beware of parting gestures, lest you burn your bridges, because you never know who might be watching. The same goes in other situations - watch what you say and never take it for granted that you haven't been observed. For example, people who turn up for an interview and are rude or short with the receptionist, only to discover later that they were dealing with the partner of the hiring manager, or have been watched whilst in the waiting area (I know of companies who routinely do this to observe behaviour). There are those who have made crass or inappropriate comments about a former boss or colleague, only to find that they are an acquaintance or family member of an interviewer. The list goes on. Loose lips and all that...
Finally, who couldn't help but cringe at Stuart "The Brand" Baggs' unintentional rudeness to the Baby Glow lady? The tactless, agressively questioning whippersnapper lost Synergy the chance to sell the innovative product, which eventually resulted in a huge win for Apollo, who won the bid and grossed £995,000k of orders for Liz, who pitched impeccably throughout. Baggsy didn't MEAN to be be insulting, but his unintentional ill behaviour contributed massively to the team's failure. We should all keep in mind that treating people badly without thinking of the consequences is a dangerous thing to do - who wants to be the one with foot in mouth disease all the time?!
I think that's all I have to "conversate" with you for now... I'm off to watch a re-run of "The Apprentice: You're Fired" and have another laugh at Ms Cohen's expense. I never thought gloating could be this much fun...
Friday 29 October 2010
Tuesday 19 October 2010
The Apprentice and The Importance of Background Checking
The Apprentice is well underway with two episodes having come and gone, and Alan Sugar (now Lord Sugar rather than Suralan) has the uneviable task of trying to control the latest batch of self-proclaimed business geniuses.
Even before the sixteen erstwhile candidates hit our TV screens, reports of skullduggery and scandal had hit the press. It has been revealed that five of the competitors for the apprenticeship to Britain's most belligerant boss have been hiding a dark past. First up is Christopher Farrell, ex-marine turned mortgage broker turned... criminal. Not only has he been sacked for fraud, he has also been convicted of possessing offensive weapons - and is now hiding out in Spain. According to the makers of the show, Talkback Thames, a CRB check was done on Christopher, but before he attended court last year. Next up is the charming Joanna Riley, who was convicted of racially abusing 3 taxi drivers after a drunken night out. Mouthy Melissa Cohen has also fallen on the wrong side of the law, namely for a credit card fraud carried out when she was 19. Shibby Robati, surgeon, has in the past been issued with a formal warning for unprofessional conduct, which doesn't bode well for any would-be patients. Finaly, it was revealed after last Wednesday's show that Stella English, the successful project manager for the boy's team, has a past as a "gangster's moll", according to The Mirror.
Back in 2008, there was outrage when Lee McQueen, the eventual winner, was discovered to have lied on his CV about his educational achievements, and was only caught out in the final episodes during the gruelling interview round. Some people felt he should have been ejected at that point, but Sugar decided to hire rather than fire. So how did it go from educational overstatement on a CV to full-on criminal past - without being discovered during the background checks? If Talkback Thames didn't manage to pick up any of these people's pasts before the dirt was dished to the press, then what hope is there for the rest of us? It brings up the whole issue of screening, and who we should look to to provide background information on candidates. In any recruitment process, background checks are very important, to find out more about the candidate's personal and professional life. Even more crucial are criminal checks for those working or potentially working with children or vulnerable adults. There are companies who charge for the service of carrying out checks, and getting references etc, but how can the rest of us ensure that we dig deep into the pasts of our candidates to make sure no nasty surprises come to light further down the line? We can only ask as many questions as we can during the telephone screening, and then the face to face interviews, and try to wheedle out anything that might set alarm bells ringing. But how can we ensure that skeletons don't start throwing themselves out of cupboards after the interview process? And can we?
I tell you what, if all this is happening at this stage, I am very excited about what we could find out by the end! It could be anything... Roll on Episode 3, and roll on all the juicily gossip-filled articles of The Mirror, The Mail et al.
Even before the sixteen erstwhile candidates hit our TV screens, reports of skullduggery and scandal had hit the press. It has been revealed that five of the competitors for the apprenticeship to Britain's most belligerant boss have been hiding a dark past. First up is Christopher Farrell, ex-marine turned mortgage broker turned... criminal. Not only has he been sacked for fraud, he has also been convicted of possessing offensive weapons - and is now hiding out in Spain. According to the makers of the show, Talkback Thames, a CRB check was done on Christopher, but before he attended court last year. Next up is the charming Joanna Riley, who was convicted of racially abusing 3 taxi drivers after a drunken night out. Mouthy Melissa Cohen has also fallen on the wrong side of the law, namely for a credit card fraud carried out when she was 19. Shibby Robati, surgeon, has in the past been issued with a formal warning for unprofessional conduct, which doesn't bode well for any would-be patients. Finaly, it was revealed after last Wednesday's show that Stella English, the successful project manager for the boy's team, has a past as a "gangster's moll", according to The Mirror.
Back in 2008, there was outrage when Lee McQueen, the eventual winner, was discovered to have lied on his CV about his educational achievements, and was only caught out in the final episodes during the gruelling interview round. Some people felt he should have been ejected at that point, but Sugar decided to hire rather than fire. So how did it go from educational overstatement on a CV to full-on criminal past - without being discovered during the background checks? If Talkback Thames didn't manage to pick up any of these people's pasts before the dirt was dished to the press, then what hope is there for the rest of us? It brings up the whole issue of screening, and who we should look to to provide background information on candidates. In any recruitment process, background checks are very important, to find out more about the candidate's personal and professional life. Even more crucial are criminal checks for those working or potentially working with children or vulnerable adults. There are companies who charge for the service of carrying out checks, and getting references etc, but how can the rest of us ensure that we dig deep into the pasts of our candidates to make sure no nasty surprises come to light further down the line? We can only ask as many questions as we can during the telephone screening, and then the face to face interviews, and try to wheedle out anything that might set alarm bells ringing. But how can we ensure that skeletons don't start throwing themselves out of cupboards after the interview process? And can we?
I tell you what, if all this is happening at this stage, I am very excited about what we could find out by the end! It could be anything... Roll on Episode 3, and roll on all the juicily gossip-filled articles of The Mirror, The Mail et al.
Tuesday 12 October 2010
Recruitment Roundup and Hard Labour....
There's been a few interesting snippets of recruitment news recently, so I thought I'd do a little round up this week, to make a change.
Bad news - the jobs market saw a slow down in September, with permanent placements rising at the weakest rate for a year, according to a report by REC and KPMG. Permanent salary growth dropped to a 10-month low and temporary pay dropped slightly for the first time in 9 months, leading to worries about the threat of rising unemployment. In contrast, demand for IT staff has risen in the last quarter, with permanent placements up 8% and contracts up 11%. The available applicants has decreased as the ratio between demand and supply has changed, with 1.2 applicants per job. IT advertisment for roles has risen over the past 4 quarters and now stands at the highest level since Q4 2008.
Better news - the 2011 Census is going to create 35,000 jobs across England and Wales. The one-day special will see people in a variety of roles, both full and part time, visiting people in their local areas to provide help and support to make sure that everyone can complete and return the Census questionnaire.
And one of the most talked about pieces of recruitment news from the past week - should prisoners be made to work 40-hour weeks? The Justice secretay, Ken Clarke, says that they should. He believes that, rather than live a life of "enforced... idleness", they should be working in order to pay some compensation to victims. He told the Conservative Party Conference in Birmingham las week that prisoners shoule be working 9-5 jobs in order to learn and trade or new skills, alongside putting one pound in every five in a fund for victims. Clarke wants private firms to create jobs, allowing money to be earned to cover prison costs, pay benefits to prisoners' families, and possibly kept in trust for release. He said that prisons should be turned into places of "purposeful hard work" and make sure victims have some restitution. Raising the earnings (averaging £8 per week) for prisoners would provide incentives for those who work, whilst also going some way towards svaing the £2 billion that the Ministry of Justice is looking to slash from their budget.
So will it work? I think so, if the right companies can be found to employ prisoners in such large numbers. Whilst there's no doubt that working will enhance a prisoner's future prospects as well as improve their self esteem and give them the opportunity to contribute to society, whether or not they will actually want to work is another issue. The new planes will not be enforced, rather down to choice as is already the case with prison workers. Whether you believe in bringing back the days of the chain-gangs, or have a more liberal stance on the matter, this could be a good idea - as long as it can be put into place with enough private employers prepared to, or able to, provide jobs for those behind bars. In fact, in the USA, there are already over 100 private companies working with prisoners as part of the Prison Industry Employment Certification Program. Whilst they have to pay them the minimum wage, they save a fortune on taxes, health care and vacation time. The number of prisoners taking part has doubled over the past decade, so it seems that we may be about to follow suit in what could be a very successful enterprise. And some of US grumble about being shackled to the desk....
Bad news - the jobs market saw a slow down in September, with permanent placements rising at the weakest rate for a year, according to a report by REC and KPMG. Permanent salary growth dropped to a 10-month low and temporary pay dropped slightly for the first time in 9 months, leading to worries about the threat of rising unemployment. In contrast, demand for IT staff has risen in the last quarter, with permanent placements up 8% and contracts up 11%. The available applicants has decreased as the ratio between demand and supply has changed, with 1.2 applicants per job. IT advertisment for roles has risen over the past 4 quarters and now stands at the highest level since Q4 2008.
Better news - the 2011 Census is going to create 35,000 jobs across England and Wales. The one-day special will see people in a variety of roles, both full and part time, visiting people in their local areas to provide help and support to make sure that everyone can complete and return the Census questionnaire.
And one of the most talked about pieces of recruitment news from the past week - should prisoners be made to work 40-hour weeks? The Justice secretay, Ken Clarke, says that they should. He believes that, rather than live a life of "enforced... idleness", they should be working in order to pay some compensation to victims. He told the Conservative Party Conference in Birmingham las week that prisoners shoule be working 9-5 jobs in order to learn and trade or new skills, alongside putting one pound in every five in a fund for victims. Clarke wants private firms to create jobs, allowing money to be earned to cover prison costs, pay benefits to prisoners' families, and possibly kept in trust for release. He said that prisons should be turned into places of "purposeful hard work" and make sure victims have some restitution. Raising the earnings (averaging £8 per week) for prisoners would provide incentives for those who work, whilst also going some way towards svaing the £2 billion that the Ministry of Justice is looking to slash from their budget.
So will it work? I think so, if the right companies can be found to employ prisoners in such large numbers. Whilst there's no doubt that working will enhance a prisoner's future prospects as well as improve their self esteem and give them the opportunity to contribute to society, whether or not they will actually want to work is another issue. The new planes will not be enforced, rather down to choice as is already the case with prison workers. Whether you believe in bringing back the days of the chain-gangs, or have a more liberal stance on the matter, this could be a good idea - as long as it can be put into place with enough private employers prepared to, or able to, provide jobs for those behind bars. In fact, in the USA, there are already over 100 private companies working with prisoners as part of the Prison Industry Employment Certification Program. Whilst they have to pay them the minimum wage, they save a fortune on taxes, health care and vacation time. The number of prisoners taking part has doubled over the past decade, so it seems that we may be about to follow suit in what could be a very successful enterprise. And some of US grumble about being shackled to the desk....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
