Comments on Episode five 4/10/10

[Flossie]

That was an excellent programme. I shall detail my opinions in the Apprentice forum, but in summary, Paloma had curtailed much of her annoying behaviour as PM and Alex was just useless and deserved to go, and she was positivley charming, and very leggy, in You've Been Fired

[Anna]

Uh oh, Flo's been swayed by a pair of legs.

I thought she was very good as pm but the criticisms made in 'You're Fired' were well observed. She is so professional that little to no spontaneity escapes in interactions with clients and I can understand that some clients would feel that she doesn't really engage with them or their product on an emotional level. Also she really goes for the jugular when in a competitive situation and goes over the top in this regard. There was no need for her to attack the others on their record of achievements with their previous employers, of which she of course has no knowledge. It was nasty and too obvious an attempt to knock them out of the running. I can see why Lord Sugar was concerned that the propensity for that kind of sudden aggression towards others might have a bad effect on other employees.

At least she hadn't transformed her image in the time since being fired, unlike Melissa last week. Some posters on DS believe that Melissa made herself unrecognisable as no one would now employ her if they recognised her.

[Flossie]

Those legs were a bit hypnotic, and she acquired a gorgeous smile on YBF. She seems to be the sort of person that will adapt their behaviour to what they perceive is to their advantage, and she believed being a venom spitting cotemptuous bitch was in her interest when competing, but now realises it isn't.

She has wasted her skill set, and deployed it in savaging others. She is remarkably eloquent and quick witted, and probably quite capable, even if she did seem to lack some skills.

I think her behaviour in the pitch to the dress makers was appalling, she showed almost no interest in the products and expressed little enthusiasm, so she inevitiably suffered. I didn't agree with Marcus Brigstoke that the other team were over effusive, the products seemed good and the team were entitled to express their genuine appreciation.

She was very charming, as well as leggy, tonight and her adaptable nature was clearly displayed. I think she just wants to succeed and will do whatever she perceives to succeed and that includes changing her character.

[Anna]

Do you think she'll be able to change her character though? Do you think she truly understands why savaging other people is considered so reprehensible or does she merely see it as a behaviour that's an obstacle to her getting what she wants so she'll tone it down for that reason?

[Anna]

I think her behaviour in the pitch to the dress makers was appalling, she showed almost no interest in the products and expressed little enthusiasm, so she inevitiably suffered. I didn't agree with Marcus Brigstoke that the other team were over effusive, the products seemed good and the team were entitled to express their genuine appreciation.

Yes she's very target oriented and human relations seem to be cut out of the equation in the interests of her reaching her target. That's why I'm wondering if someone so unaware of others as people, but seeing them in terms of their usefulness (or not) to her, can gain a genuine appreciation of what's going on with others and how to respond to them. It's not just a case of keeping quiet more, or routinely encouraging all the members of her team (which she did tonight) because she's aware it's good business practice and she can be judged on it. It would involve having a genuine emotional reaction to people and products and being authentic in communicating that. She seems to view things in more formulaic terms, exhibiting a certain behaviour or eliminating another because of what it will gain her.

[Anna]

Those legs were a bit hypnotic, and she acquired a gorgeous smile on YBF. She seems to be the sort of person that will adapt their behaviour to what they perceive is to their advantage, and she believed being a venom spitting cotemptuous bitch was in her interest when competing, but now realises it isn't.

Some people couldn't do the venom spitting contemptuous bitch you know, even if it was to their advantage. They'd have too much integrity or empathy for the people they were savaging. That she was prepared to do it and also did it very effectively shows me that either she has the tendency to attack others in her character, or alternatively, no morals because she feels savaging colleagues is OK if it gets her what she wants.

[Giz]

she has no morals or empathy because she so arrogant and contemptuous of most people including potential clients and competitors, this was apparent in previous episodes but highlighted in this one

[Flossie]

Do you think she'll be able to change her character though? Do you think she truly understands why savaging other people is considered so reprehensible or does she merely see it as a behaviour that's an obstacle to her getting what she wants so she'll tone it down for that reason?

The latter.

I think she is basically amoral, which I suspect is a character trait more prevalent than we might think, and she simply acquires the moral framework of the environment in which she finds herself. When competing in the Apprentice morals served almost no purpose and were a potential obstacle to her success, in front of the YBF audience having morals is most definitely advantageous and so she acquired them. But in my previous assertions I do believe that her experience on the programme may change her approach: she might for the first time see the advantages of having some core robust morals and the advantages they deliver in most circumstances in the modern world. She was forced to confront her amoral self on the telly and could see herself as others see her and from an objective point of view.

I suspect a salutary lesson has been learnt, and old habits derived fighting in competitive environments may be abandoned or at least curtailed. I still wouldn't like to be between her and a sales commission without protective clothing but the fact she can emulate the behaviour of a pleasant human being, as she showed on YBF, one suspects she can go the whole hog and become that person, or at least close to it.

I did briefly think that Makosi of BB was capable of evolving a decent human being despite her truly foul immoral character once became aware of her character faults through public censure, but I quickly decided my optimism was ill-founded and that her brief dalliances with decency were cyncial acts of pragmatism, and that she would always be odious. I think my optimism for Paloma may be more justified, she did seem to be self-aware and self-critical on YBF, now whether this was a pragmatic act or a re-evaluation of her behaviour is difficult to tell in someone of her intelligence and adaptability.

[Flossie]

I think her behaviour in the pitch to the dress makers was appalling, she showed almost no interest in the products and expressed little enthusiasm, so she inevitiably suffered. I didn't agree with Marcus Brigstoke that the other team were over effusive, the products seemed good and the team were entitled to express their genuine appreciation.

Yes she's very target oriented and human relations seem to be cut out of the equation in the interests of her reaching her target. That's why I'm wondering if someone so unaware of others as people, but seeing them in terms of their usefulness (or not) to her, can gain a genuine appreciation of what's going on with others and how to respond to them. It's not just a case of keeping quiet more, or routinely encouraging all the members of her team (which she did tonight) because she's aware it's good business practice and she can be judged on it. It would involve having a genuine emotional reaction to people and products and being authentic in communicating that. She seems to view things in more formulaic terms, exhibiting a certain behaviour or eliminating another because of what it will gain her.

The question is whether she has a latent appreciation of other people as people and deserving of consideration and rights but has suppressed it in favour of achieving personal goals because she has not the time or energy to do both or she really is just a cyncial pragmatist and only interested in personal success and will only consider others if that is to her benefit, which she perceive it to be if that conincides with good and productive business practise.

[Flossie]

she has no morals or empathy because she so arrogant and contemptuous of most people including potential clients and competitors, this was apparent in previous episodes but highlighted in this one

I did mean to express in earlier posts that she did express enormous contempt for other candidates on numerous occasions and seemed willing to slash at their characters at the slightest provocation if she perceived that to be advantageous. Her world is definitely dominated by her needs.

[Flossie]

She still has nice legs

And she was also dressed and made up in a remarkably low key fashion on YBF, gone was the vampire lipstick and the in your face demeanour, she was remarkably affable and understated. Some have suggested she must have had some media training since being fired and I have yet to decide if this is likely.

[Giz]

on YF they all have media training and are coached to accept their highlighted faults and mistakes, that's why YF is so tame.

[Flossie]

Ooooooooooooooh! How do you know that Giz?

How are you by the way?

[Anna]

she has no morals or empathy because she so arrogant and contemptuous of most people including potential clients and competitors, this was apparent in previous episodes but highlighted in this one

Giz!!

[Giz]

Hi Guys, still surviving