The Secret Interview - a good idea, or a great one?

A few weeks ago, I caught three episodes of a reality TV show slash contest on Channel 5 (I know, I KNOW), called "Secret Interview". The premise of the show, for those not in the know (i.e. the 99.9% of the population who aren't addicted to terrible telly), is that two competitors from different companies in the same industry are followed for a week by the film crew. The episodes I saw starred estate agents, hairdressers and shop girls. Or retail assistants, or whatever you call them nowadays that isn't sexist. They are girls, who work in a dress shop, to clarify. Now, the contestants know they have a job interview lined up with an industry leader (included some property tycoon I'd never heard of, the hairdresser Nicky Clarke - who of course even a salon-dodger like me is aware of, and Jo Elvin of Glamour magazine... although who in their right minds looks for a fashion editorial assistant in a low end fashion shop?), and are told they are being filmed for the week prior to this to see how they prepare themselves. What the viewer - and interestingly, their boss - knows, is that this filming is going to be seen by the prospective employer, and n fact forms the entire interview itself, with the hiring decision made solely on the basis of the candidate's performance in their "normal" role. Except it isn't their normal role. Oh no. Because we've got actors coming in, being the world's most awkward customers or work experience girls. People who would test the patience of a saint, let alone a pink-tressed fake-nailed Mummy's girl hairdresser, a lying blagging wide boy estate agent and a bleached blonde Daddy's girl fashion assistant. Long story short, they all have the worst working week of their lives, and then have the shock of their lives when they realise their potential employer - and role model - has been watching them all along. Watching them moan to their Mum (also their boss) about the work experience girl from hell (actor), watching them tell a customer (actor) they didn't like that they had to go and value a house so couldn't talk to them, watching them try and appease a customer (actor, well, that frumpy comedienne off "Show Me The Funny" who didn't win and is now an "actor") who thinks she's a size 8 but is in fact a 14.... you get the gist. And then they're made to watch the footage with their interviewer and given feedback. The cringe factor is enormous. It makes great telly, I can tell you. The best man or woman always gets the job in the end, but that's not saying much. I have my suspicions as to whether any of them (save the lovely and kind Marcus who got the job with Nicky Clarke) will have lasted 5 minutes, or are in fact anyone's dream employee... but any publicity's good publicity for the bosses, right? We also wondered in our house, what happened to the ones who lost the contest, whose bosses know they are looking for new jobs and failed to get one on national TV? Bet they feel a bit sheepish, but hey, they had their fifteen minutes of fame so that's enough. If I was their boss I'd keep them on their little toes from now on though, but I'm just a vindictive cow. Hey, my kids love me for it. 

Anyway, all this got me thinking (and that's dangerous as you know by now) about how seeing people in their work environment would be a really useful addition to an interview, as opposed to a replacement for an interview. Because anyone can put on an act at interview, and pretend to be someone they're not. Nobody confesses to being a workshy porn addict who has a fag break every half an hour, after all. Nobody admits to being grumpy to customers and spending more time applying make up than arranging merchandise. And nobody, when questioned about their strengths and weaknesses, answers "I am good at timekeeping but have compulsive tendencies to murder people and eat them. And I have acted on these before." Even with the advent of additional checks, people slip through the net. Let's face it, Ian Huntley passed his CRB check, and anyone else that does could still potentially be dangerous. They just haven't a) acted yet or b) been caught yet. Less scary, though, is the general behaviour and attitude of people. Let's keep psychopaths out of it, and agree that most of the population won't be hiding their murderous intentions from an interviewer. Even I don't harbour murderous intentions towards anyone other than Richard Hammond (before you ask, it's the bug eyes. And his smugness. Okay, and the height issue). But he's hardly likely to interview me, so I should be fine. And I DO have a CRB, if that reassures anyone, which it won't. But seriously, wouldn't it be good to be able to observe how people act in their current role, to help make the choice when it comes to hiring them? I'm not talking Apprentice style - that's ridiculous. Most people do not make gourmet sausages, have to find top hats at the cheapest price, create a fake brand, or hold their BlackBerrys at arm's length and shout into them as opposed to holding them to their actual mouths. I'm just talking watching - okay, stalking - someone at work. In their day to day routine and tasks, to observe how they carry out their work, how they interact with other people, and what sort of employee they are. Now, this started to make even more sense to me when the news about Andrew Mitchell, the Chief Whip, and his rant at the police outside 10 Downing Street hit the press. Mitchell's alleged to have called the police "effing plebs" for asking him to dismount from his bicycle and leave via the pedestrian gate. He felt that the main gates should be opened for him as they would be for other vehicles. Mitchell denied using the word "pleb", then the "f" word, then admitted he'd said something disrespectful but wouldn't say what... well, we've all read the news. It's still bubbling on, even today, as the Guardian reports that some of Mitchell's fellow Tories are pressurising him to resign. But he apologised to the police, so surely he should be left alone? Like I say to my kids, if you were really sorry, you wouldn't have done it in the first place. They love me for that too. Anyway, if someone as high profile as Mitchell can behave that way in the workplace (albeit outside), it throws an interesting light on the way that other people could too. Would watching footage of a potential employee behaving like Mitchell did on work premises put you off them, or could you excuse it as someone having a bad day (after all, he had been forced to go to a fine dining curry house for lunch, and that's stressful for anyone, even us plebs)? What if you witnessed a candidate being inappropriate at work, making dodgy sexist or racist jokes, or being snappy with the receptionists and rude to the cleaner? It is all a bit Big Brother, I grant you, but would make compelling viewing.I wonder how many people have been hired on the strength of a good CV, then a great interview... but within weeks turn out to be unsuitable due to their behaviour - they grate on everyone else's nerves, are negative and sarcastic or rude, or won't pull their weight. Obviously, this is why we have probationary periods. But these can last for months and most employers feel they've wasted valuable time on a totally useless employee - and then have to go through the process all over again to find someone else. Imagine if we could spy on them before making that offer, to see what they're really like. It would be fascinating, if nothing else, and offer some great insight into what the candidate is REALLY like, rather than  the impression they have worked hard - and in many cases most likely been coached by a recruiter - to give. I think it's a brilliant idea, and one that would be very useful to potential employers. And candidates too, if constructive feedback is given... they may have no idea how they come across at work, especially if their current boss is too nice/ wimpy / disinterested to tell them. Obviously, it'll never happen, because stalking people is a criminal offence. So I'll just have to stick to checking out peoples' Facebook pages to get the dirty on them, I suppose. I wonder if Andrew Mitchell has a FB profile...

Are we not all Olympians?

So the Olympics is underway. Six years of preparation and somewhere in the region of £11billion later, and London is finally hosting the biggest sporting event in the world. I'm not going, and I must admit that I haven't been watching it, but I hear it's been pretty popular. Obviously, Team GB haven't done as well as we'd hoped (4 medals at the time of writing, none gold as yet), but there's time. Unfortunately, there's also competition. That's what it's all about though.

We can all act as armchair experts, sitting and yelling at the screen when our guys n gals come on, encouraging and criticising, but none of us have any idea of what it's really like to compete. It's sad, but when Tom Daley failed to bring home the goods, he was subjected to a nasty tirade on Twitter. The Tweeter eventually apologised, just saying he was disappointed. HE was disappointed? Poor Tom, who is still just a teenager, has worked his backside off for years in order to compete. We mere mortals can't imagine what it feels like to train for hours every day, week after week, month after month, year after year... But then again, we have to go to work and perform day after day, week after week etc - and failure isn't an option for most of us. Whereas an athlete can shrug, apologise and explain they weren't at their best, or tried their hardest and still failed, the rest of us can't get away with that. We can't repeatedly turn up at client meetings, completely mess up and then tell the boss we're sorry, we weren't at our best. We'd be fired, eventually. And rightly so. But then, we're British, so we almost expect our athletes to fail, as much as we would wish otherwise.

Yes, the Olympics is exciting, and nail-biting, and disappointing, and amazing. But it happens once every 4 years. This year is different, obviously, because we're competing on home territory. Yet, it's not that different. Our athletes have still spent the past 4 years training, and competing, and suffering, and striving - for the chance to achieve bronze, silver or gold. We are grateful to them for trying to claim glory for Britain, yet at the same time we have little patience for their weaknesses, or if they lose. I admire them all. For the early rising, hours of training and physical endurance, watching their diet, sacrificing a social life, and so on. But then again, they are not doing this for "us" - they are doing this for their own glory as well as for Britain, like everyone else, pushing to do their best in their chosen career for their own sense of achievement and fulfilment. There's nothing wrong with that. Heck, we all want to be someone, to achieve something. Perhaps they just get more praise, press coverage, and admiration for it. And sometimes, more sympathy from the public when they fail to achieve, because we all buy in to the idea of the Olympian athletes running, jumping and swimming for "us"... when the reality might well be, that they are doing it for themselves and their own ego - all along. That doesn't detract from their achievements, but perhaps we should consider that they are only human, and this is their job. Unlike most of us though, they also suffer from adverse publicity from the press should they not achieve what is expected, and who would choose that over a quick tongue lashing from the boss?

Are we not all Olympians, then? No, but we all try our best year after year, we all polish our craft in order to be the best at what we do, and we all want to make somebody proud. This year, I think that Team GB will make us proud. They may not be the best, but they try their best. For the rest of us, we can find fulfilment in making ourselves proud, by doing our best in our chosen careers. And if we don't win Gold, then nobody's going to splash it across the front of the Daily Mail. For small mercies, we should all be grateful...

To hire or not to hire - should you go for personality or experience?

Interviews are tricky beasts. And I don't just mean for the person being interviewed, but equally so for the interviewer. After all, you're trying to choose the perfect person for your team, from a shortlist of several potential employees, after spending weeks or even months sifting through CVs and selecting the strongest candidates. Whilst it can be nerve wracking for the interviewee, its you who has to do the most work in terms of preparation, both for the interview itself as well as the initial drawing up of the job spec - and sometimes the creation of a brand new role. And then you have to find time in your busy schedule to see people, and then hopefully find the right person in that limited time because you need someone - as of yesterday.

Most interviewers have a pretty good idea of the sort of person they need to take on, bearing in mind the mix of technical and soft skills, the background, and the right cultural fit. But how DO you make that final choice, especially between two close-running candidates with not much between them. Perhaps one has a slightly higher level of technical ability, but the other has a better sense of humour and might get on with the team better. At what point do you make the decision and choose the "right" man, or woman, for the job? Just because you like someone, does that mean everyone else on the team will? Or do you have a gut instinct borne from years of working with your colleagues, and just "know" that they will love Candidate A too? Or perhaps Candidate B isn't as personable, but has a slightly more sophisticated technical awareness, and could be better on Project X than their competitor. On the other hand, Candidate A is slightly more easy going and definitely has more in common with other members of the team. But then Candidate B won't need training on Software Y... and so on.

What if we replace experience with aptitude? Let's say Candidate B has 5 years' experience in their specialism, and Candidate A only 2, but the latter has previously shown the aptitude to pick up new skills quickly, perhaps already having shifted industries and made a success of the change. Yet why wait for a candidate to learn new skills, when Candidate B is already qualified and ready to start applying these skills straightaway? But then again, Candidate A does seem to be, at this stage, a better bet for someone who can manage the entire role - including working within the team well - and Candidate B might get stuck within the technicalities. In competency based interviews, personality is not at the forefront of the questioning. I have been to interviews where not ONE personal question was asked, not even "Why are you looking to change jobs?". In less formal interviews, it is very easy for hiring managers to gauge personality, and their interview style will usually reflect their own personality, making mirroring easier on both sides. This can be both a good and bad thing. Good if the personalities are a genuine match, and misleading if the candidate pretends to be someone he or she isn't in order to mirror, or impress, their potential employer.

The real question comes down to this - do you hire the person you like the best, or the person who is best qualified and experienced to do the job? Do you think the person you like the most can learn the bits they're missing quickly enough to make your decision a sensible one, or do you feel that the more experienced candidate will grow on you as you work together? Do you worry that your instant connection with Candidate A is overweighing their lesser experience? Is your heart overruling your head? The decision will be different for different organisations. In a large company, perhaps personality is less important than experience, whereas in a small business, personality and fit is key. Then again, it depends on the size, and the closeness, of the existing team. In some small companies, everyone who works there meets potential new employees before they are hired, to make sure everyone feels they can get on with them. In larger organisations, it tends to be the hiring manager and perhaps a line manager who will choose new employees who they feel will benefit both the company as a whole as well as their team or department.

It's a difficult one. But each hiring manager knows what he or she is looking for, and often will get that "feeling" at an interview that they may have found the right person. Perhaps we should all just follow our hearts and hire the person we like the most - after all, we have to work with them day after day. As long as they also have ability, because even the best personality is useless if they can't do the job, they'll be an asset to our team. Hopefully. And if we choose wrong, and they turn out to be a psychopath, then perhaps it's time for US to look for a new role, and hope someone likes OUR personality...

Don't Be Evil?

So it's March 1st. An important date not only for the Welsh - Dydd Gwyl Dewi hapus i bawb! - but also for Google, as they launch their new privacy policy on the far-too-suspecting public. I was sent a great link to an article yesterday, "Eight reasons to fear Google", which actually made me first start to really think about all this information sharing malarky. Google's new policy has been spoken about, debated and discussed all over the internet for a few weeks now, but the date is here and it's going ahead despite grave concerns from the EU regarding its lawfulness. Google care not, it seems, and have ploughed full steam ahead with their plans to share information from a single Google account across their 60 services, including Gmail, YouTube and Blogger. Having not blogged for a while, I had to wade through the entire privacy policy in full before I could accept it and sign in to write this. It seems rather more innocent than the outrage posted across forums would suggest, but then I didn't have the patience to read it fully. According to Google, this new policy of gathering, collating and sharing personal data will make it "Easy to work across Google", "Easy to share and collaborate", and ensure that services (ads, presumably) are "Tailored for you". Sounds innocuous enough, really. And where's the harm in cross-platform information sharing within a corporation/ group of companies? After all, Google don't sell the information they gather, so it remains with them for their own use. You can follow Google's own advice to protect your privacy, such as altering dashboard settings and deleting browsing history. And if you don't like it, there are alternatives to using Google, so opt out. But the problems have already begun. Google are guilty of tracking web-browsing habits of millions of iPhone users without their consent, and Microsoft have accused them of bypassing Internet Explorer's privacy protection. It seems that many android users also require Googlemail accounts, and so are unable to opt out. People who use the Google Wallet app to store credit card details to purchase at the tap of a finger must be aware by now that Google keep records of what they buy, where they buy it from and how often they buy. For a corporation whose mantra is "Don't be evil", Google is attracting a lot of negative attention.

But privacy issues don't just affect Google users. Facebook is also experiencing issues with its determination to impose the new timeline on account holders, where nothing is deleted and everybody's updates, comments and photos are available for viewing in chronological order. No more hiding that misspelled slag-off post about your boss after you staggered in late from another works do and he's offended you. The trouble with social media is that employers (or potential employers) are as savvy about it as your mates, and can easily have a look for you on Facebook, or follow your Tweets, to find out more about you. There have been a few stories in the past year of teachers, particularly, ending up in hot water over social networking posts and photos - whether deservedly or not - and at least one who lost her job over ill thought-out Tweets to students, which were reported to the school board and read by her bosses. Facebook have been slammed for their "Facebook for mobiles" app, which could potentially collect data from texts to sell on to third parties - all with users' permission, if you agree to the long-winded and rarely read Ts&Cs. Worrying, isn't it?

We all know that if you post something stupid on Facebook or Twitter, chances are it might come back to bite us. If, for example, someone looking to join the police force posts of an illegal activity on Facebook, could it come to light if the wrong person sees it, scuppering their chances of a career in the force? I KNOW that teachers, for example, have the right to privacy and to be able to chat to their mates on Facebook or Twitter, but when they choose to have parents and/or pupils as "friends" or followers, then they need to make sure their content is appropriate for their audience. Slagging off parents or making lewd comments to students, for example, is not only inappropriate but intensely unprofessional, and yet is done because people don't seem to realise, or appreciate, the power of the written word and how it makes them come across to other people.

But back to the privacy (or lack thereof) laws - what does it mean for us? As far as I can see, very little right now. The concern is that, in future, will Google follow the Facebook route of collating information with the intent of selling it onto third parties for whatever revenue-generating reason it can think of? At present, we have companies in the UK who track our spending habits in order to build credit profiles, available on application to lenders who use it to assess our suitability for mortgages and credit cards, as well as to potential employers for whom a credit check is necessary. What if someone decides to create a service whereby potential employers can buy a "social media and web credit check" - to see what candidates post on social networking sites, how they behave, their web history, their online purchases - in order to assess whether the person might be a valuable employee or merely a porn-surfing, excessive shoe purchasing drunkard with a penchant for posting photos of themselves with their bottom out on Facebook whilst moaning about their clients on Twitter? And for how LONG will Facebook, Google et al retain this information for? Will a graduate who spent three wild years out partying and sharing it with the world find themselves explaining their party lifestyle to a future employer for five years? Ten? What effect could this have on being hired - or fired? At the moment, information stored about us is used with our implicit consent, the moment we hit the "agree" button when presented with the terms of use. How many of us actually READ these terms in any detail? And Facebook basically own us the moment we sign up for an account - they can do whatever they want with our information, because it belongs to THEM. If (when) Google follow suit, there's no saying who will one day be able to track what we search for online, how many pairs of jeans we buy each month, how much beer we drank at college, and even how we sign off emails to our mum.

It might not be evil, but it doesn't mean it's right.

Up For Hire.... Are They For Real???

I spent much of last week stuck in front of the TV watching BBC3's live series, Up For Hire, which set out to tackle the growing and very real problem of youth unemployment. Set over four nights, with live shows as well as pre-filmed segments, it presented its mission of getting young people into work, showcasing real-life experiences as well as offering paid work placements through industry partners such as Greggs and The Hilton Group. It sounded promising, even interesting, so on Monday night I plonked my bum on the sofa with some Dairy Milk, and started to watch. I'd already failed miserably to answer many correct questions on either University Challenge or Only Connect, so I was quite ready to watch other people suffer instead.



Based around the work placements for 4 young unemployed people, the show arranged for Ben, Kirsty, Chris and Sasha to experience a 40-year career in the space of a week or so. Starting out on minimum wage at Crealy Adventure Park in Devon, we saw tears, tantrums and badly made burgers as our two grads, single mum and teenage unemployed lad tried to get into the swing of the work. Over the course of the four days, they progressed through to management (of LUSH stores), and then onto being MDs and CEOs of corporations such as Liberty and AOL. In between these filmed clips, we were treated to a live audience debate (my favourite was the girl told she should be prepared to move for work even though she was searching for work in London... if you can't find a job there, where is better?!) and some words of wisdom from both entrepreneurs (James Caan, Richard Reed from Innocent) and celebs (Edith Bowman, Greg James). Even the deplorable Katie Hopkins from The Apprentice many moons ago showed up to wind up the audience. Although she was actually quite sensible, much as I hate to admit it, pointing out that "Micky Mouse" degrees such as Media should be removed and that academic excellence should be the sole aim of the degree system. The audience and presenters (the somewhat out of his depth Richard Bacon and Tina "I don't have to do anything except read out comments from the website" Dahely) debated issues such as relocating to find jobs, and whether degrees are necessary. We were also treated to filmed interviews of candidates who had applied for work placements through the BBC3 website, and told which ones had been successful. In between, there were little snippets of CV and interview advice from random advisors.

You know what? It was interesting, but not earth shattering. At the end of the series, we saw all four of our young 'uns being offered jobs, three by the people who'd mentored them as MDs, and one by a contact she'd met via her placement. What I found interesting that, despite all the advice offered on CV writing, interview techniques and so on, it was good old networking that got them roles. It's not what you know, it's who you know - and most young people never get the chance to meet the types of people who can give them a leg up in the career department, which leaves a slightly sour taste in the mouth. On the other hand, there were plenty of happy youngsters who had won placements for 3 or 12 months with household names such as Timpsons and Greggs, after applying through BBC3's website and acing their interviews. It does rather beg the question - why does it take the possibility of appearing on TV to push someone to apply for a minimum wage job serving cakes to customers,but hey ho, what do I know about it? Maybe the show goes to prove that young people need to reassess their expectations, and can't always get their dream job even as graduates.

As expected, the subject of self employment was brought up, as an alternative to spending months or even years searching for non existent jobs in your sector. This was pushed as a good way for young people to become employed, and obviously at a time when they have less to lose than later down the line, when mortgages and families need to be considered. What with the Young Apprentice having started over on BBC1 now, copying the new Apprentice format of winning cash towards starting a business rather than a job, maybe more young people will be looking at alternative ways of earning a living...

Although the show did address many of the problems surrounding youth unemployment, and offered solutions and advice for many, what it didn't - for me - achieve, was to explore the reasons so many young people are unmotivated and disenfranchised, and what can be done about that. It's all very well being a graduate on a work placement arranged by a TV show, and then be offered a good job on the back of that, but what about the long-term unemployed? The studio audience seemed to be made up mainly of graduates who had been out of work for a few months, and who had none of the issues affecting the long-term unemployed, disabled or disaffected youngsters from the wrong side of the tracks, and showed a pretty one-sided (read: middle-class) view of the issue.

Having said that, for all the recent graduates - and motivated non-graduates - still in the job market, the show offered a lot of useful advice and encouragement, as does the website. Check it out :)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00k9c3r

For more about Mobilus, go to www.mobilus.co.uk

Failed IT projects lead to big business failures...

I read an interesting article from Computer Weekly the other day, claiming that "failed IT projects demolish big businesses and executive careers". According to researchers from Oxford University, senior executives are losing jobs and businesses are collapsing due to unfinished, or failed, projects. With IT projects estimated as 20% more likely to run out of control than other projects, with 1 in 6 increasing their average budget/ cost by 200%, this is a real worry for businesses. More complex projects can become unpredictable, with this often not understood by the project managers, and both public and private sectors are suffering from these oversights. With managers focusing on average performance rather than variability, many IT projects seem doomed to fail.

Massive companies - such as Airbus, Levi-Strauss, Tollcollect and Hershey's - have all been on the brink of collapse because of out of control IT. In 2009, BT Global Services lost £1.2bn due to cost overruns on big contracts with the NHS and Reuters. In the same year, the £234m "C-Nomis" IT system for prisons failed. It was continuously assessed as proceeding to time and budget, but in fact wasn't. The National Audit Office concluded that the technical complexity had been "significantly underestimated." The system had gone the same way as many other failed government IT-based change programmes, making the same mistakes along the way. IBM were sued only last year for a failed virtual PC server project, and in 2009 HMRC sucessfully claimed over £71m in damages from ERS for the muck-up they made of the Tax Credits system, which led to thousands of families being overpaid.

So what IS it causing these large-scale failures? Is it leadership, project management, over/under estimating... or incompetence? Duncan Haughy of Projectsmart.co.uk says that "the biggest problems that projects face are inadequate definition, scope and planning." Is this true of IT? Seems like it. So how do we avoid these pitfalls? Reinder Otter of Capgemini has these rules to follow for a successful outcome.

1) Freeze scope - enforce release management rules.
2) Keep requirements SMART.
3) Involve stakeholders and users at the start.
4) Keep things simple with the right funcionality.
5) Avoid bad management - someone must have an overview at all times and manage any gaps or overlaps between suppliers, stakeholders and customers.
6) Balance quality and cost.

And another one I would add - learn from past mistakes.

I suppose that, at the end of the day, not all projects are created equal, but they can all equally fall by the wayside.

I'm just glad that my biggest IT project involves turning on my laptop and checking my emails...


For more about Mobilus, go to www.mobilus.co.uk
For more IT news, try www.computerweekly.co.uk

I spent an awful lot of autumn blogging about The Apprentice, I know, and promised I'd stop - but this new series has once again got me hooked and I can't resist. The candidates are from the same old mould as the last god-knows-how-many lots, but still as entertaining as ever. I am enjoying Jim's evil machincations, Susie's sulky pouting, and Natasha's irritating nasal whine. The tasks are, as ever, pointless and unrealistic, but serve their purpose - to provide us with an hour of amusement at the expense of the Apprentice crew as they balls up big time. We don't want them to succeed, surely - we want Lord Sugar to treat them with the contempt they deserve. The format is the same, but the reward has changed this year. Instead of winning the (frankly dubious) honour of working for Lord Sugar, the contenders get to go into business with him. Sugsie intends to show that you don't need a lot of money to start a business... by injecting £250,000 of his own cash into the venture. Interesting stuff from someone who famously declared that small businesses should stop expecting funding and go it alone. Hmmm. If he can do it, and all that...

Anyway, this got me thinking about swapping employment for self employment and running a business rather than working for the man. With jobless benefit in May increasing by 19,600 (more than double the forecast), it seems that there is not enough employment to go around. Increasingly, this means that people are choosing to start their own businesses rather than compete for the few jobs that may be out there. In the 6 months prior to April, self employment reached a record high of 4.03 million. With a million of them out of work, its the twenty-somethings leading this trend, with the number of self-employed university leavers jumping 46% in the last 6 years, and 4/10 London undergrads already having set up their own business whilst studying. Research by Enterprise UK shows that over half of 14-19 year olds aspire to run their own business.

It's not just the youngsters looking for alternative ways to make a living. We have the "mumtrepreneurs", the stay-at-home mums setting up and running successful businesses from home, which fit in with their kids as well as making them a nice was of cash. Marla Nelson from Coventry, for example, set up her own marketing consultancy last year after being made redundant. The over-50s are also increasingly going it alone, with more of them than ever becoming self employed or starting a business, often with the help of PRIME, who are linked to Age UK and offer support and advice. A4E, based in Yorkshire but operating nationwide, provide redundant and unemployed people with training and support, and last year helped 2,000 people into self employment. With the recession leaving people out of work or unhappy with work, many workers disillusioned with their jobs have decided that they prefer to be their own boss. And they've been kick starting the economy ever since. With David Cameron hailing the next decade as "the age of the entrepreneur", and laucnhing the new Enterprise Allowance to help the unemployed into business, this may just be a taste of things to come.

I can see why BBC have changed the objective of The Apprentice - going into business is what young people (and us older people!) aspire to nowadays, helped in no small part by programmes such as Dragon's Den and The Apprentice. It remains to be seen how successful this new format will be, and how the winner will get on with Lord Sugar in the driving seat. As long as we get to see the "what happened next" show (my favourite part of Dragon's Den), I'll be happy. I just wonder how long the honeymoon period will last...

To find out more about Mobilus, visit us at www.mobilus.co.uk

Let's Get Britain Working!

Incapacity Benefit has been in the news again today, with reports that over 80,000 people in the UK are claiming it due to alcohol or drug addiction, or obesity. A quarter of these alkies, druggies and fatties haven't worked for a decade! Obviously, the British tax payer isn't completely happy about having to foot for bill for what could be seen as, essentially, a lifestyle choice. The government has revealed plans to shake up the system and get these people back into work, rather than allowing them to remain on benefits indefinitely. Everybody claiming Incapacity Benefit will now be retested to ensure they meet the criteria to continue paying, or move onto Jobseekers Allowance and be encouraged (or forced, as some see it) to look for work. Last year, IB was replaced by Employment and Support Allowance, in which all ill and disabled people are assessed to ascertain their fitness for work. But what about these addicts and obese claimants? Can their "incapacity" indeed be classed as an illness, or are they just a drain on society? If you look at those addicted to alcohol, drugs or food, then yes - we could say they have made these choices and should be paying for their addictions out of their own pockets. But if we consider - as many do - addiction to be a form of mental illness, then they are, in fact, suffering from a disability and as such, whilst in the grip of the addiction, incapable of working. And let's face it, how easy can it be to hold down a job if you ARE an alcoholic or a drugs-user? I think obese people get less sympathy as their addiction is rarely as serious, and we feel that there is nothing stopping them from getting or keeping a job. Yet in some circumstances, manual labour, or driving for example, a person's size would preclude them from being able to do the job. There are a lack of treatment facilities in the UK to help addicts recover, and the government haven't addressed this issue yet. However, Chris Grayling (the Employment Minister) says that private and voluntary organisations have pledged £580m to treat addicts and prepare them for employment. Even so, it may be too little. Some addicts may find the pressures of work too much, and others may find it nigh on impossible to even get a job after being unemployed for years due to addiction. In today's job market, these people stand even less chance of finding employment than the general population.

In a climate where the unemployment figures stand at 2.48m, finding a job isn't easy for anyone. And women are at more of a disadvantage than men - the amount of out of work women rose in March by 14,000, where the amount of unemployed men fell by 31,000. With the rate of Jobseekers Allowance standing at a paltry £64.30 for the over 25's, it makes sense for people to get back into work post haste, although there are concerns that people on income-based Jobseekers Allowance worry about being worse off in lower-paid jobs. So what to do, and where to find these jobs? With a report by Gumtree finding that 50% of people are concerned about losing their job, the competition is fierce. Lucky for us all, then, that The Mirror has launched their "Get Britain Working" campaign. According to them, this week they have found 10,118 jobs up for grabs. Sounds impressive, huh? These include: 70 jobs with DHL; 550 graduate positions; 70 jobs with DFS; 44 at Sainsburys and 2,320 on Fish4Jobs (who The Mirror have teamed up with on this campaign, forming a "one stop job shop"). Helpful articles such as tips for young jobseekers and starting your own business are also on their website at www.mirror.co.uk/getbritainworking. Sounds good so far. In the last 5 weeks, the paper claims that it has located 284,735 jobs, including 37,00 IT jobs. Do we believe it though? Personally... no. Has The Mirror taken into account multiple postings of the same job, on different websites? Plenty of companies advertise through several channels for the same role, using boards such as Monster, Jobsite and Reed. The same goes for recruitment agencies, where one role is worked on by different companies. How many jobs on the most popular sites are repeated by a number of different agencies - often with identical wording. And a lot of the jobs found by The Mirror are in specialist areas such as IT, or social care... making them inaccessible for the majority of readers. Whilst the campaign is a good idea, I think it's a little misleading, to claim that they have found such a huge number of jobs. But good on them for giving it a go, and if it only helps a few people, then they've done their job. In this current climate, anything's better than nothing.

And as one of those lucky people still in employment, at least I can look forward to the long weekend knowing that I have (vaguely) earned it. Happy Easter!

Competency based interviews... Are they really that scary?

I thought today I'd talk about something serious (for once!), and I've been looking at competency based interviews this week, so here goes...

I blogged about The Apprentice FAR too much last year, so won't bore you by rabbiting on about it any more, but it's the most farfetched form of competency based interviewing imaginable. Programmes such as this, and the new Masterchef format, rely heavily on getting candidates to prove their suitability and aptitude from the very start. In real life, we can't get candidates to sell sausages or audition in top notch restaurants to prove their worth, but we can engage them in a competency based (or situational/ behavioural) interview to see what's what.

A competency based interview is a style of interviewing often used to evaluate a candidate's competence, particularly where you may have several candidates with the same level of technical skill. Companies are using these interviews more and more as part of the selection process, as they give valuable insights into an individual's preferred style of working and help predict future behaviour. Employers can gauge how well candidates have dealt with a situation or aspect of their role, and how they may react in similar circumstances. These interviews are invaluable for recruiters... but nerve-wracking for interviewees!

Questions are usually based around qualities such as adaptibility, client focus, communication, problem solving and teamwork. Examples may be: Tell me about a time when you altered your own behavior to fit the situation; Give an example of how you provided service to a client beyond their expectations; Describe a situation in which you were a member of a team and conflict arose within the team - what did you do? These are all vital aspects of a role, and the way in which candidates have reacted gives a good idea of their suitabilty for the new role, and whether they will fit within the company culture and way of working.

It all sounds very daunting, but candidates CAN prepare for these interviews. Rehearsal can make all the difference, and should never be underestimated. Search on www.amazon.co.uk for "competency based interviews" and there are hundreds of books written on the subject, to help candidates get ready for the big event. So, how to prepare? Firstly, identify the competencies for the job, e.g. team working, project management, commercial awareness - look at the job spec! Research the company to gain and idea of their mission statement and values. Think about some of your achievements in the past and how you would categorise them. For example, how have you proven leadership skills? - by mentoring a junior member of your team, perhaps. Successfully coping with stress on the job comes under self-management. Delivering a project on time shows success in goal setting and achievement. Think of the most relevant examples that your prospective employer might be interested in, and make sure they are specific, starting clearly: What the situation was, what you did, your motivation and - critically - the outcome. Don't waffle, keep to the point, and prove your worth. These interviews can be a really useful tool for you to think about your key skills and competencies, and big yourself up a little - even if you're not successful at interview, you know what you're all about and will be ready for the next one. And good luck!

For more information and interview tips, check out www.blog.giraffejobs.co.uk

Find out more about Mobilus at www.mobilus.co.uk

Pay rises for IT workers... but what about the rest of us?

According to a report in Contractor UK, pay rises are 'only a matter of time' for IT workers. Apparently, IT directors are concerned about retaining key technical staff, and this could lead to IT departments having to increase pay in 2011. Obviously, they want to hang onto key techies before they're poached by higher-paying competitors, and this is driving pay increases. Retention is a concerning issue for as many as 85% of IT directors - which is good news for contractors who can use this to drive up their daily rate. Although, according to CW Jobs and JobsAdwatch, there may be a 'slowdown in overall IT recruitment activity in the current year." However, software houses and outsourcing consultants used the month of December to add contractors to their teams, and this may be set to grow this year.

Not such good news for council workers, though - they are feeling 'betrayed' over wage freezes in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Last year, George Osborne promised that public servants on £21,000 or below would get an extra £250 a year from this April. Now, more than one million workers have been told that, in fact, they won't be receiving this increase. Employers (local authorities etc) say that a £6.5 billion funding gap is to blame, and the Treasury claims that they only meant those directly employed by the government to benefit. The unions have stepped in, with Brian Sutton of GMB saying that Mr Osborne "reneged on a promise to low paid workers." This freeze will hit home helps, social workers, dinner ladies and refuse collectors, to name but a few. Sutton added that local government could have kept this promise. He went on to claim that, with inflation taken into account, this freeze adds up to a paycut for those on low wages, as 70% of council workers earn under £21,000.

Next up to fight for fairer wages are 154,000 agricultural workers across England and Wales. The union Unite told Defra that these workers deserve a decent wage to counter inflation, as well as a public holiday to commemorate Workers' Memorial Day on 28th April. Many farmers and farm workers are struggling to manage on less than the average weekly wage, due to the rising cost of fuel, food and inflation, with 1 in 4 rural families living below the poverty line. Unite say that farming needs to be seen as a professional occupation, yet farmers are struggling to recruit skilled workers. Negotiations begin in June.

So, for those of us lucky enough to be able to negotiate a pay rise - what do we do if we reckon we're worth it?

Well, don't be nice to your boss - a study published last year in the Journal of Organizational Behavior found this definitely doesn't get you a payrise! Those Risk-averse employees, who try to please their employers, are more likely to compromise and cave into management wishes when it comes to negotiation time. Those who never discuss salary at appraisals or interviews hardly ever get a rise. More aggressive employees earn an average of $5000 (£3200) more a year - which works out at an extra $600k (£385k) more over 40 years, based on an annual increase of under 5%. Good news for us girls - women were found to be just as competitive as men, despite earlier indications to the contrary. Those who prepare for the negotiations - who learned about their market value, did their homework on the organisation, and inquired about previous offers - are able to use more competitive strategies and get the rise they want. This was an American report, however, and whether we more modest Brits will ever be able to throw off our self deprecating modesty and demand more money is yet to be seen.

Anyway, I'm off to brush up on my negotiation skills. Alternatively, I could always just get on with the work I'm already being paid for...

Sexism and Sacking - when's a joke just a joke?

There's been such a lot written about the Andy Gray and Richard Keys sexism debacle, so I won't go into the details much. For anyone who has been living on Mars for the past couple of weeks, the scallywags got into a lot of trouble when they made disparaging remarks about a female assistant referee during a private conversation after a game at Sky Sports. It all kicked off from that point, leading to Gray's dismissal and Keys' resignation.

There have been comparisons drawn between these comments and those seen regularly on ITV's Loose Women, with many people feeling that there is not much difference between Gray and Keys' comments, and the usual "men are useless" jokes made by the Loose Women team. Those defending the ladies' sexism say that their comments are made publicly, and in a sense of humour, banter and mockery. So is it worse to make a sexist comment in private? Or is it the same as a broadcastable one? Should we be punished for making a private joke? When will the Thought Police step in?

Sexism is seen as a worrying trend in broadcasting, an industry where women are in the minority. Female broadcasters complain of being treated unfairly, and having had sexist comments directed at them both publicly and privately. Men will be men, sure, but where do we draw the line? Jeremy Clarkson has said that his Top Gear co-star Richard Hammond could, in theory, be sacked for sexism after making a risque joke to a female paramedic whilst being treated in South Africa. He goes on to say that anyone who agrees with this lacks tolerance. Do they? Or is he just a dinosaur who likes to say whatever he wants and anyone who is offended written off as intolerant?

So, what about all this sexism sacking malarky? Fair do's, or political correctness gone mad? Well, it all comes down to the Equality Act 2010, which states that 'harassment or direct discrimination' is wrong in the workplace. Employers are therefore liable if they fail to act upon, and prevent, harassment or sexist behaviour. According to Clarks Legal, legal experts, employers can adopt a zero tolerance policy relating to discrimination, harassment or misconduct (even if there is no complainant, which sounds odd). However, most tend to issue a warning, giving the offender the chance to act upon it. It transpires that, in fact, Andy Gray was given a warning, but blew it by later making an inappropriate comment to a female colleague. According to www.Direct.Gov.uk, there has to be 'fair reason' for dismissal. If sexism counts as harassment, and harassment as misconduct then, yes, it is fair to sack someone for being sexist. The trouble with high profile cases is, however, that they rarely act as a benchmark for other cases. Would an office worker be sacked for making a private, sexist joke to a colleague? Or would it be laughed off by anyone in earshot?

So what does this all mean? Should we get fired for making a joke? Who complains about these things, and why - is it always serious enough to warrant complaint, or do people overreact? Is it better to walk away from a situation, as Keys did, or stand your ground? Andy Gray was given the chance to improve his behaviour, and chose not to, so paid the price for that. All he had to do was apologise and stop being such a sexist pig, and he would have been fine! Although he did receive a nice little payout from Sky, and now works for TalkSport, so hasn't been punished too harshly. It's a difficult one to call, but it seems that the television world is finally coming to terms with the fact that sexism - under the banner of harassment and discrimination - is no longer acceptable and should be punished in line with legal requirements. It's no bad thing, if you ask me, as long as the offence is genuinely covered under the Equality Act and not over-exaggerated in order to make an example of anyone.

But then again, I work for an all-woman company, so the only sexism I have to deal with is against men... and that's different... isn't it?

Bogus bonuses?

It's banker bonus season again, and the press is full of articles, reports and general grumbles about the whole thing. As a nation, we seem to have a huge problem with the bonuses, not in small part due to the fact that we, the taxpayers, have had to bail out some of the banks after the hideous financial crash in 2008. A survey done last year showed that 2,800 bankers received over £1 million as bonuses, and Stephen Hester (RBS Chief Executive) is in line for £2.5 million. In total, City bonuses could reach £7 billion.

So, what exactly is it about the bankers bonuses that gets our goat? Is it the size? We can argue that the country needs a functioning banking system, and if banks need to incentivise their investment bankers in order to turn a profit, the why not? After all, surely banks are fundamental to the economy? Bankers have a contract which includes bonuses. We would be unhappy if our employer suddenly stopped paying us our contractual dues, and bankers no doubt feel the same. If you can't beat 'em, you can always join 'em as a City slicker... But do bonuses make for better bankers, or just encourage greed? It seems that tax payers feel they are being hurt - in this economy, in its current state because of bankers, we are facing job cuts and pay freezes, whilst the people responsible for the situation are getting paid huge bonuses.

Another bone of contention to some Brits is the salaries and bonuses paid to our footballers. Not only do they command massive transfer fees (the largest on record being that of Cristiano Ronaldo in 2009 from Manchester Utd to Real Madrid, for a whopping £80,000,000), they also demand huge salaries. Reports suggest that Wayne Rooney is currently on £230,000 per week, although it is thought to be closer to £200,000. Nice work if you can get it. Which most of us can't. Unlike the bankers' bonuses, footballers are privately funded through clubs, who obviously make their money from selling tickets, merchandise, kit etc. So does this make us more accepting of their payouts? Not necessarily. There is some feeling that what footballers do isn't, well, worthy - not in the same way that, say, doctors or teachers are. Many people are also of the opinion that footballers in this country don't work hard enough to justify their huge salaries... look at the appalling shambles we call the World Cup team. Things aren't helped by the fact that lots of footballers are, well, a bit chavvy, and so seem less deserving of their vast sums than others may be.

At the moment, with bankers' bonuses being once more in the headlines, the ill-feeling is preserved for them and them alone. Seen by many as spoilt middle-class toffs who've ripped off a nation to pay for their Porsches, bankers are getting a very raw deal right now. Apart from the massive bonuses, that is. The morality of footballers' high wages has been long debated, with two distinct camps - the ones who think it's an outrage, and the ones who think footballers deserve their high wages and support them thoroughly through buying season tickets and each new strip. Somewhere in the middle are people (like me) who just don't care either way.

So how do we determine who is "worth" more? The bankers, the footballers or neither? If someone can turn a loss-making bank into a profitable one, don't they deserve recompensation for this? - after all, if they're not paid enough, they won't stick around. If a privately owned company wants to pay one of their footballers over £200k a week, where's the harm? If they are perceived by the organisation to be worth their weight in gold - or bonuses - then surely that's the main thing. After all, we all have an employment contract which clearly states our rights to a basic salary, plus any benefits and bonuses. Footballers and bankers have the same rights. Realistically, in any company, there will always be someone earning more than us, and someone earning less. I may work as an executive for a company, earning a nice tidy basic and the opportunity to receive a bonus based on company performance. The same company may employ a cleaner at just over basic wage, with no bonuses available. Who is the more worthy? I play a part in the running of the company and generating income, and get a deserved salary for it. The cleaner also has an important role, but won't get as much as me. I certainly don't feel that I should earn more than a nurse, or social worker, or teacher - but I might. It all boils down to one thing... money making. He who generates income gets paid more than those who don't, or who are dependent on public funds to pay their wages. Moral it ain't, but for those of us with no vocation to improve the world, it's great!

As for me, I will never be a footballer or a banker. Luckily, I have one son who aspires to investment banking, and one who's just started football training, so watch this space. They can use their bonuses to look after their old mum...

Older... and wiser?

Yesterday's news reported the removal of the Default Retirement Age (DRA), which will be phased out between April and October this year. No longer will employers be able to force retirement at the age of 65, which is good news for older workers and the removal of what is an unacceptable, ageist practice.

Age has been in the news quite a lot recently, thanks to Miriam O'Reilly. The former presenter of Countryfile, she has just won her case of ageism against the BBC after 14 months of wrangling. Claiming she was dropped from the show in favour of younger presenters, although 68-year-old John Craven was kept on, O'Reilly presented her case for ageism and sex discrimination, the latter of which was not upheld. Prior to being removed from Countryfile after eight years as a presenter, she was asked whether it was time for botox and advised to beware of wrinkles. The BBC - already accused of ageist practices after replacing Arlene Phillips (Strictly Come Dancing) and Moira Stewart with younger models - have apologised, and said they would like to work with the freelance broadcaster in the future. They will also be paying out an undisclosed sum as compensation. Whilst O'Reilly's case has been successful, for many workers across the UK, ageism is still a cause for concern.

A report last year by the CLG (Department of Communities and Local Government) indicates that hundreds of thousands of mature workers face ageist attitudes from recruiters. More older people are now seeking work due to changes in the benefits system - as Incapacity Benefit is becoming Employment Support Allowance - and an estimated 750,000 more mature workers will be re-entering the job market over the next 3 years.

Although Age Discrimination laws came into effect in October 2006, and businesses were forced to review their recruitment processes, prospective candidates still feel they are discriminated against because of their age. A survey of over 50's showed that 4% felt they had been refused a job due to their age. Interestingly, even more than this - 5% - of 16-24 year olds felt that THEY had been refused a job for being too young. It seems that ageism is out there, for the young as well as the old. Young people face discrimination in work too - they often feel they aren't taken seriously and are passed over for someone more mature. It cuts both ways, it seems.

Recruiters have to be particularly careful when advertising roles, to make sure nobody can accuse them of being ageist. Phrases such as "young and dynamic" or "recent graduate" should be avoided, as should words such as "junior" and "mature". Asking for a certain number of years experience in a role is okay as long as the job description specifies this, but it can make younger people feel they would not be considered and a lot of recruiters prefer to use phrases like "extensive experience in..." to skirt the issue. Interviewers should also be aware that certain questions (e.g. "How do you feel about taking on this job at this stage in your life?") are not legal under the Age Discrimination laws, and should steer away from any mention of age. We personally no longer provide dates of birth on CVs, to ensure that this is not a part of any shortlisting process. Obviously, looking at a person's CV can still tell you about their age - dates of education, for example, or the length in roles, indicate how long someone has been out of school and working. We may never be able to completely mitigate the risk of ageism being used in the recruitment process, but we can do our best. After all, the best person for the job is the best person for the job no matter what their age, and recruitment is all about finding that person, not discriminating against them.

I'd like to think that ageism is dwindling, and that we have more awareness of it thanks to Miriam O'Reilly and others like her who have fought for the right to be recognised as professionals regardless of their (advancing) age. Just in case, though, I'm saving up for my botox. And, p.s., I'm quite happy to retire at 35, let alone 65...

You're Hired! And that's Snow joke...

Well, I can't say I was surprised to see Stella romp to victory in the grand final of The Apprentice - I think nobody was, really. I rather enjoyed the episode. Not as exciting as Saturday's Strictly final, obviously, but still a jolly good hour spent in front of the box. The fired contestants were hauled in to help, and did with a good grace and some competent work. Baggsy's absence (along with Sandeesh's, Laura's and that other woman, what's her name?) was duly noted. Could he genuinely not make it, or was he sulking? I suspect the latter. Anyhow, the alcohol creation and branding was a resounding success, for Chris as well as Stella, and I think it was Stella's performance overall that clinched her success, rather than this week's task being an influencing factor. Didn't she do well?

So we reached the end of the drawn-out recruitment process that is The Apprentice. How Lord Sugar manages to keep interested in setting dubious and improbable tasks for that long is a feat worth mentioning... although his fee probably helps. As recruiters, it was interesting to see just how the candidates acted, and performed, in their quest to land their dream job. We saw them sell, pitch, squabble, lie and create in equal measure, in order to fight off the competition and win the contest. One wonders if the winning is more important than the prize - I for one wouldn't fancy working for Lord Sugar, no matter what six figure salary he offers - and whether it has been an anti-climax for Stella now she is in the job. Although some of the tasks seem a little... well... fabricated beyond all reason, they do serve a purpose - to let us see just what the contestants are made of. To separate the boys from the men, as it were. Skills such as leadership, sales prowess, presentation, branding and commonsense were all put under the microscope for us to see and judge. That's the fun, right? Judging the bunch of them. Wasn't it great to see them fail miserably whilst we sat smugly in front of the telly, knowing that we could have done it properly? Wasn't it fab to see them fall flat on their faces and then try to brazen it out in the boardroom whilst their fellow teammates ripped them to shreds and Lord Sugar just sat there, thinking "Loser!"? Whilst there were some there that we (I) loved to hate (Melissa, Alex, Sandeesh), you can't help but admire them - at least they had the guts to take on the tasks and give it a go. Bravo, wannabes! And now it's all over, like Strictly and The X Factor, at least for another year. Maybe next year The Apprentice auditions could be televised, like The X Factor, to give us a few more laughs... I for one would love to see THAT!

Whilst all's good for Stella, for the rest of us the snow has been causing chaos. I have been lucky to be able to even get up my hill, thanks to the efforts of several chaps in our street who worked tirelessly to dig out and grit the road. So no excuses for me not to get to work! Whilst I know that there are plenty out there who genuinely can't make it into the office because of the snow, ice and travel disruption, I suspect there are plenty more who have been using it as a convenient excuse not to leave their nice warm homes. Having been dragged out of my lovely bed to do the school run anyway, it makes no odds to me to come in. Keeps me out of trouble, and anyway, I get to sit next to a wonderful little heater all day. Last time it snowed, earlier this year, there was a distinct lack of post wending its way through to me. This time, however, all the Christmas cards, parcels and (unfortunately) bills have managed to find their way through the snow - and are even arriving earlier than usual! It hasn't stopped certain companies from blaming Royal Mail for not delivering... Two department stores, when asked why items were not ready to be picked up, blamed the Royal Mail for not making deliveries. This sounds a bit suspect, especially as we all seem to be receiving our post (and parcels) as normal. Come on, big names, stop shifting the blame. It seems that someone, somewhere, isn't doing their job...

And that's all folks... I am winding down for the holidays, the kids finish school today, and I am looking forward to a nice long rest (Star Wars lego building antics aside). All that remains for me to do is to raise a glass of Urbon, wish you all a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, and I'll be back in 2011 for your delectation!

Bye Bye Baggsy (and Jamie and Jo)

Wasn't it good? Wasn't it fine? Oh how I loved Baggsy's face in the boardroom when he realised that Lord Sugar had finally realised - weeks later than the rest of us did - that he was, as LS so charmingly put it, "full of !@$*...

There isn't really much to say about this week's instalment - I am saving everything up for the eagerly anticipated final -except that it didn't come as a surprise to anyone, I think, to see Stella up there in the top two. Chris, for me, was a proper dark horse though, pipping other previous favourites to the post in the end.

I do have to mention, though, the utterly repellent interviews (and interviewers). Who the heck interviews in such an aggressive, invasive and downright insulting way any more? These interviews couldn't be further removed from real life interviews... or at least I hope they are... I thought this type of inquisition went out with the Spanish one, but Lord Sugar's evil minions seem to revel in making candidates squirm. Although I couldn't help but chuckle when Baggs greeted Margaret by her first name and was firmly put in his place (the gutter). It's natural to be nervous of interviews, but if they really are as bad as all this, nobody would ever apply for a job! Nowadays, interviews tend to be less interrogative and more competency based, with an emphasis on the positive rather than looking for ways to call your candidate a liar or a blagger... as funny as it is to witness.

And so, I wait with baited breath for the final of what has proven to be, again, a rather enjoyable series. I particularly love the way the fired contestants get brought back in to help the finalists - with all the sour grapes they can muster. Come Sunday evening, I'm going to curled up on the sofa in my dressing gown, glass of wine in my hand, laughing my head off... because I don't really care who wins, just bring on the carnage...

Well, wasn't this week's Apprentice a shocker?

Sent off to set up and run a London tour company, the remaining six contestants toddled off in their usual inimitable style to argue, negotiate and muck up their way through their day on the open-top buses.With Stuart leading Team Apollo, it was always on the cards that this one would be entertaining. Apollo decided to do a "Cockney" tour, whilst Synergy opted for a Horror tour of London. Highlights of the episode included Liz alienating a couple of jellied eel sellers by asking them to speak Cockney to their clients, Stella and Jamie's fantastic singalong sessions on their respective buses and the near punch up between Baggsy and Chris. How Christ resisted smacking Baggs the Brand in his cakehole, goodness only knows. He's a stronger man than I. The swearing that ensued from Baggsy's attempts to steal Chris's' customers was enough to make me blush (well, I may be exaggerating a BIT...), but it gave me a jolly good laugh. Things looked pretty shaky for Synergy for a while, after Chris kindly agreed to give the Tourist Centre 20% of all revenue for their assistance in selling tickets - a fact which Jo was horrifed to discover and went hell for leather trying to backtrack on the deal (being called "unprofessional" in the process) - but in the end they made the most money and walked away to victory.

With only three remaining in Apollo, obviously all of them would make it into the boardroom for the final verdict on who shouls stay and who should go - but what happened next was, to say the least, a bit of a shocker. After the usual shenanigans, slag-offs and last-minute pleas, it was the hardworking doe-eyed Liz who got the boot - for being "nothing special", according to Lord Shugs. Hmm. Everybody in the house seemed absolutely shocked to see Stuart walk back through the door, as seemingly the failure of the task had been down to him. From over-pricing the tickets, losing the bid to work with the Tourist Centre and a slanging match in the street with a member of the competition, Baggs hardly showered himself in glory. And yet, by some quirk of fate (or Lord Sugar), here he was, free to fight another day. How could this be?

It's been clear from the start that Baggsy, with his ability to talk rubbish, massive ego and utter lack of any insight, would be a favourite of the Apprentice-Master himself... why? That old chestnut - he sees himself in him. Yawn. Surely that's not a GOOD thing?! Yes, OK, Baggs has chutzpah, he promises to make Lord Sugar millions AND he is not just a one-trick pony... in fact he claims to have a whole field of the damn things. But surely this isn't enough to keep him in above other, consistently performing and hard working contestants like Liz? Let's look at the evidence - Liz has, over the previous weeks, been an excellent salesperson, broken the boardroom record for sales, and is a grafter. She shows initiative and brain power, and even in this failed task outsold Baggs by almost 100%. What has Baggs actually achieved? Antagonising suppliers, physically chasing punters down a street, trying to steal customers from his competitors, bad-mouthing everyone, showing no humility or professionalism, and spouting utter garbage about how amazing he is - which nobody believes except, sadly, Lord Sugar.

What does this teach any of us about the state of the world? That consistently delivering doesn't reap rewards? That integrity and professionalism means nothing? That bigging yourself up to within an inch of your life actually fools some people? I thought that Lord Sugar was looking for the sort of person that could be trusted to work hard, think smart, show some respect and deliver the goods. My bad. What a shame that Lord Sugar seems to hold Stuart in such regard. For all his talk about what kind of person he is looking for, at the end of the day, if someone reminds him of himself no matter how bolshie, gobby or irritiating they may be (although come to think of it, that's what makes them like him), he'll pick them to stay in at the expense of someone who could actually be an asset. There's a few double standards creeping in here too - after telling Jo she was unprofessional for trying to renege on the Tourist Centre deal, and Chris for trying to force sales of his crisps whilst in Germany the other week, suddenly Baggsy's attempt to steal Synergy's customers is overlooked. This could be a simple case of vanity hiring - when a hiring manager chooses to employ someone in their own image. I would think that an employer needs to hire someone to complement their own skillset, not replicate it. Baggs has picked up on the importance of mirroring within an interview situation, almost to the point of mimickry. Unfortunately, Lord Sugar doesn't seem to have picked up the fact that Stuart is possibly beyond redemption, no matter how he talks the talk, and is one of the mouthiest and unlikeable contestants yet. I think this is a worrying role model and a bad example to set... what's it teaching those young people watching the show? That it's ok to be nasty to other people, perform poorly and fail at tasks, as long as you know how to press the hiring manager's buttons? Typical old Lord Sugar, always looking out for someone just like himself to bring into his business empire. If he ever found his doppelganger, however, he'd surely regret the day he hired them...

The Apprentice - Negotiation, negotiation, negotiation...

One of my favourite tasks of The Apprentice (who can forget Michael Sophocles and the kosher chicken fiasco of 2008?) - take a list of 10 items to find and then buy at the lowest price - was the offering of this week's episode. On the surface it sounds pretty simple, but, as we've learned from previous experience, it is a tragedy waiting to happen. Jamie, heading the boys' team, had one strategy and one strategy alone for winning this task - race around London, find the items and start by offering 30% of the asking price. Liz, managing the girls, had a more organised strategy - locate the items, plan each purchase and location, then work on the negotiation on arrival. With Jo going great guns from the beginning, and Jamie stumped on trying to find a tikka (the gold type, not the curry), it looked like the girls were off to a flying start, especially as they managed to find out what the Blue Book was long before the boys did.

Once the boys had found the items, though, they showed some remarkable negotiation skills. Jamie was extremely persuasive and wouldn't take no for an answer, whilst Chris - following his leader's mantra of "always have a story when negotiating" - came up with some inspired reasons for needing items at a good price. My favourite gem was his bargaining tool for the Blue Book, which was a convoluted lie regarding a desperate brother and his impending test for The Knowledge. Amazingly, he managed to get his discount, along with a few laughs for good measure. He lied again about a tartan loving Granny in order to get a discount on the fabric, and managed to snag a great bargain - extremely entertaining. Chris may even be the one to watch... The girls' organisational skills really paid off for them - by sourcing and ordering the kitchen worktop in advance, they saved the wasted time and effort that Jamie spent on trying to find it - and they managed to find all ten items, albeit returning slightly late and facing financial penalties. Unfortunately, Laura's miscalculations about the price of truffles (and trying to buy them from a restaurant) put the dampers on their chance of victory, and in the end it was Jamie's team (even with over £500 of penalties added on for failing to find two of the items), who walked away with the weekend in Paris.

So, what can we learn from this latest installment? Well, that it all came down to negotiation. The boys were far stronger at negotiating the best prices, regardless of their slapdash approach to resourcing the items. The girls' failure was, that although they researched the items well, they went out blind into the marketplace in terms of pricing and negotiation strategy. It was also commented on by Lord Sugar that they failed to adapt themselves to the situation and the seller - the corporate approach of deal making and handshaking doesn't suit a small independent store. Does careful planning aid negotiation? Not in this case, although it could in the right circumstances e.g. if the product and market has been identified and price checked. Negotiation is an extremely useful tool in the job market, as anyone who has had a job interview should know.

So, how should we negotiate a job offer? When do we talk salary? Well, we need to start by making sure we have used our skills as a chameleon to adapt to the environment - a skill which Liz and Stella were sadly lacking. Being able to adapt our social and communication skills to a situation is an incredibly important part of negotiation. It's not about pretending to be something we're not, just realising that different people respond to different things, and certain situations require certain handling and personality traits. The negotiation of a job offer is really important for both employer and employee, and sets the stage for a satisfactory working relationship. For the jobseeker, negotiating too hard can result in losing the opportunity, but not negotiating enough could lead to dissatisfaction if we accept a role where we feel we should and could be paid more for. If we are lucky enough to have other offers, these can be used as a starting point for salary negotiation of a new role, or alternatively as a stick to beat an existing employer with should the promotion or pay rise we feel we have earned is not forthcoming. As the boys learnt, spontaneity is also a good thing - playing by ear allows us to adapt a strategy in real time, rather than planning it all ahead and being too rigid. We also need to know our potential employer and the flexibility they may have in salary offerings - for example, a large company where salaries are set or banded for many employees are unlikely to be able to move much, whereas an SME can usually offer more flexibility in terms of benchmarking indivual salaries. What it all boils down to is, essentially, being able to use our negotiation skills in an effective and appropriate manner.

Why not take your inspiration from Chris? Just leave out the tall stories....

Crisps and Cretins

God I'm hungry (and it's not quite lunchtime), which reminds me I haven't blogged yet about this week's Apprentice. The crisps task, eh? Or How To Succeed Where No Other British Crisp Manufacturer Has. Easy peasy for the boys and girls of The Apprentice, given their top-level business acumen, fantastic client management skills and all-round fabulosity (hey! A Melissa word...). Hmm. Lord Sugar has whittled the contestants down to the final eight, and if this task hasn't put them off, nothing will. So, the brief: design some new flavours of crisps, get them made, take them to Hamburg and flog them to the Germans. Okay, sounds simple enough. Unless you don't know the first thing about making crisps, which we can safely assume they didn't. Stella's team went straight in for the "Classic British" theme, coming up with roast dinner flavour and the more dodgy sounding stilton and paprika. Stilton and PAPRIKA? WHY? At least it's different, I suppose. Chris's team decided to work on traditional German flavours.... again, WHY? Surely in Germany they already HAVE German style crisps, and don't need a bunch of Brits coming over to sell them some more. Just when you thought it couldn't get worse, Christopher and Jamie fell in love with a sausage and curry fast food snack, and off they went to make the crisps to match. Yuck.

Highlights of the episode included: Christopher's revelation that he hates Germany and Germans, with no reason given (or if there was it was deemed unbroadcastable), Laura's sulking and stropping (especially when told she spoke waaaay too fast) and Baggsy's sheer brilliance at being able to count to 20 in German. Something my 13 year old son can do, and HE doesn't act like he has the genius of Stephen Hawking. My son was watching with me as it happens, and he wasn't impressed. But then, he is never impressed by anyone on the show, to be honest. It was painfully obvious, really, that Stella's team was going to win. Not only were their flavours, well, edible, but they made some good pitches and got in there first. Chris's team made a MASSIVE mistake when they were offered a 9am appointment at The Marriott but Christopher and Jamie changed it to 1pm and guess what? - Stella and Joanna have already been there and walked away with a sizeable order. Didn't see THAT one coming... As Jamie would say, "the early bird catches the birm", or something like that.

Chris, panicking now he was set for the boardroom for the umpteenth time, dragged Christopher and Jamie along for the ride. I must admit, I don't like that Christopher much (the slimeball), but did feel a bit sorry for him when he was fired. Chris and Jamie managed to wriggle their respective ways out of an elbowing, whilst poor Christopher couldn't sweet talk Lord Sugar over, being told that although he was a hard grafter, he just wasn't "entrepreneurial enough". Hmm. One suspects that what Lord Sugar meant was, doesn't talk rubbish enough. It seems to be the way forward, don't you think? Although Lord S has often decried the verbose, he seems to like them, really. Maybe there's a moral in this tale, you know. Or even two. One - don't sell German crisps to Germans... they already HAVE them. Two - Hard work is all very well, but if you can't talk the talk, walking the walk ain't going to get you far. And there's a third - Counting to 20 in German does NOT make you a brainiac.

The Great Escape... and a Royal Wedding!

Quel surprise, I watched The Apprentice this week. Well, watched isn't truly accurate - I was scoffing chocolate and (lots of) wine whilst it happened to be on in the background - so forgive my fuzziness...

So, Sandeesh finally got the chance to be PM, as did our perennial favourite prat, Baggsy. Would this be Sandeesh's chance to finally show Lord Sugar what she's capable of. Sadly, no. Would this be Stuart's chance to finally show us that he's not just a mouthy arrogant plonker? Sadly, no.. but for the entertainment factor, he just can't be beaten. The teams were sent to Pinewood Studios ("What? The furniture store?" asks Sandeesh....) to choose a backdrop for their next task - enticing children to fake race fake cars against said backdrop to produce dvds for their proud parents to spend a tenner on. Off to Westfield Shopping Centre next, to set up for the task and get going with the moneymaking. Long story short - Baggs irritated the hell out of everyone on his team (as well as some of the doting parents who bought the dvd, when asked to pay £12 rather than the £10 previously quoted), Sandeesh seemed to DO something this week rather than just moaning, and all the kids had a great time! I couldn't for the life of me ascertain if Mr Baggs actually did anything in the task, or just left the others to crack on with it while he ponced around flapping his big mouth - by this time I was merrily opening another bottle. Anyway, crunch time came and - to my shock - the Baggs Brand had won the profit wars by a very small margin. So, into the boardroom again for poor old Sandeesh. And this time, after wheedling her way past The Sugar twice before, she was finally sent home, the only time she did ANYTHING! Chris and Liz tore all her arguments apart, and Lord Sugar did what he seemed to be putting off all series - got rid of the huge-eyed madam. Back in the house, the victory of Sturat's team didn't seem to be resonating with happiness... nobody seemed to think he had deserved the win. Especially not Stella, his team-mate, who told him point blank that the other team should have won. Ouch. Can't wait for next week... who needs competition from the other team when your own don't even like you? Oh Baggsy, your brand isn't working for me...

Moving on, whilst Lord Sugar has been firing recruits this week, the Royal Family are hiring. Prince William and Kate Middleton have (finally) announced their engagement and a wedding is planned for spring/summer next year. How exciting! Opinions seem to be split on this - people are either 100% behind what promises to be an all-out meringue fest, or resentful that "our" tax money will be spent on the outdated principle of monarchy. Jeez, can't everyone just be happy for them? Yes, we will end up paying out for the wedding, but what a treat it will be for all the family (especially if we get the day off work/school)! I remember Charles and Di's wedding as one of the most exciting days I had when I was 5. We all sat together and watched the visual display (on the telly, obviously, we weren't invited for real) and I had my first ever taste of babycham... setting the stage for an addiction to sparkly drinks. I blame my parents. And, importantly for the economy, the royal wedding will bring additional ££££££££££££ into the country (in excess of £1billion, with £750m from tourism alone). Sales of wine and champagne are set to soar, with people celebrating in their own homes and having parties - I might have a little one of my own. Or I could just keep the champers for myself. And what better for the country in these uncertain times than something to look forward to celebrating, the marriage of our future king. Whilst it's all very exciting (at least to me!), I wouldn't fancy being that Kate Middleton. In-laws are bad enough at the best of times, but marrying into the Royal Family must be a challenge of nightmarish proportions. Look at poor old Di, she was famously unhappy with the whole bally lot of 'em. Being recruited into the Windsor clan must be almost as bad as being hired by Lord Sugar.

Maybe being fired is a great escape after all...

Hold the recycled clothes and hold your tongues...

God I love The Apprentice. It makes me feel better about myself - I look like a paragon of competence next to some of these muppets. The contestants muddle their way through from task to task, messing up, moaning and bitching their way along the path to the boardroom. Mistakes pile up by the dozen, and this week was no exception.

Now, I love fashion (like most of us girls out there), so was interested to see what would happen when the teams were tasked with setting up a one day boutique in Manchester's Trafford centre. I am by no means a fashionista, but I like to think I know what makes a good outfit... unlike some of our erstwhile contenders. And I absolutely loved the sparkly, blinging party dresses that Synergy managed to blag - not surprisingly, given their enthusiasm for the clothes in comparison with Apollo's po-faced silence when confronted with the rail of beauties. So we had some WAG-ready LBDs and sequined frocks, brilliant, and brilliantly pitched for by Liz. Paloma managed to secure some "recycled" garments... clothes made out of old suits and ties, sold at extortionate prices for something that looked like a tramp had robbed a charity shop and taken a pair of scissors to fashion himself an outfit or two. Yuck.

Anyway, the shops were opened the next day, ready for some sales - proper sales, not like last week's Baby Glows and showerhead sales which all turned out to be fake, oops sorry, hypothetical. Alex (you know, the one resembling a goblin), self-proclaimed expert on the Trafford Centre geography, messed up by choosing a promotional pitch too far away from the shop, but redeemed himself by securing a short advert which was played on the big screen in the centre every fifteen minutes. The WAG dresses were flying off the shelves, Paloma and Alex were rowing about the placement of clothes rails, nobody wanted to buy the hooded waistcoats made out of old M&S suits, and Stella was sat in her boutique's window clad in a green sparkly dress, prompting Nick to compare her to an Amsterdam prozzie. Nice.

It was slightly predictable that Synergy would win the task, but impressively Apollo were only £500 behind. If only Chris had been able to sell another couple of the hideous tie dresses. And wasn't the final showdown a humdinger? Not surprisingly, Paloma dragged Alex (who she had already hinted at being to blame for the failure of the task) into the boardroom... but also Sandeesh, claiming she was overall a "weaker candidate". Interesting tactics. But ones that seemed they might work, despite Lord Sugar's initial disapporoval. It was all going so well, with Alex and Paloma snapping at each other like grouchy poodles, Paloma driving the point home that Alex failed at the pitch location task, and Alex reiterating that his advertising brainwave had more than made up for it. Paloma even told Alex that everyone else on the team found him irritating - really? Can't imagine why... now I think about it, maybe he's more like a bulldog than a goblin. Anyhoo, things were really kicking off about now, but with Paloma holding her own so well, and Lord Sugar starting to consider his point about Sandeesh being a useless waste of space, it seemed that she would live to fight (and I mean literally fight, that girl is scary) another day. And then she started laying into all and sundry, giving Alex and Sandeesh an real ear battering, and Alan just lost the plot at that point.

Paloma was fired, and it couldn't have happened to a nastier person. She made Melissa look like Mother Theresa, for God's sake. She may have had all the business savvy in the world, all the commercial experience and team leading skills, whatever ... but she hadn't learnt the most important rule of the boardroom - when to keep quiet. As Lord Sugar pointed out, she'd talked herself out of staying on. Nobody wants to work with an aggressive cow like that, after all. Poor little Alex looked like he'd faint with relief when told he was staying on, and Sandeesh had dodged the bullet again. I think it's all too easy to keep on talking when the moment has passed, and talk ourselves out of something we want, especially when we let personal opinions (Paloma's seeming hatred for Alex for example) get in the way of our ambition, intent and focus. She deserved to go, that's for sure. And the lesson learned from this? Shut up and put up, at least for the short term, if it helps you get what you want. I just wish I could get this across to my kids. I could always set an example for them, I suppose, but short of a tongue amputation, I can't see that working...