Running head: YOU’RE FIRED 1

You’re Fired: Phases of

Group Development in The Apprentice (UK)

Daniel Park

Auburn University

YOU’RE FIRED 2

You’re Fired: Phases of

Group Development in The Apprentice (UK)

Competition reality television shows, such as The Apprentice (UK), rely on conflict

during group development to draw audiences. Aired between October 14 and December 21,

series 10 of The Apprentice (UK) was one of the most viewed television shows of late 2014

in the United Kingdom; an average of 7.40 million viewers tuned in to BBC One each week

and watched Sir Lord Alan Sugar dismiss potential business partners one-by-one

(Broadcasters Audience Research Board, 2014). The series focused on two teams of business

partner candidates led through a series of tasks that required effective group development and

decision making (BBC One, 2015).

The ability to come to successful decisions through effective development is one that

most small groups desire. Poole and Baldwin (1996) analyzed numerous group development

models and explained how they allow small groups to progress toward making effective

decisions. Model designs such as phase, continuous, social construction, and critical event

illustrate the ways in which different groups developed throughout the decision making

process (Poole & Baldwin, 1996).

With the increased demand of speed in everyday life, many businesses began using

teams and small groups to compete (Lau, 2013). Pressure on numerous businesses to get

products on the market sooner led to the belief that teams, in most occasions, were more

productive than individuals (Lau, 2013). One aspect of increased productivity and success

among teams is effective development.

This paper begins with an in-depth look at early phase models of group development

and decision making, before an analysis of how teams’ success in an episode of The

Apprentice (UK) correlated with use of the Tuckman (1977) phase group development model.

YOU’RE FIRED 3

Phase models of group development were focused on in this study because of their ease of

application and recognition in a wide variety of group settings.

Literature Review

Phase Model Explanation

Many researchers attempted to explain group development using sequence models,

particularly using phases (Littlejohn & Foss, 2011; Poole, 1983; Tuckman, 1965). A phase, as

Poole (1983) explained, is “the traditional unit of analysis in the study of group

development ... (and) a period of more or less unified activity that fulfils some function

necessary to completion of a group’s task” (p. 323). The number of phases in a group

development model should be small, manageable, and should also be assembled into a set

order (Poole, 1983). Researchers that described a small number of identifiable phases in a

specific order created phase models (Keyton, 1999; Tuckman, 1965; Tuckman & Jensen,

1977). Groups which closely followed the phases in that specific order would most likely

reach the necessary structural conditions previously set for the group (Poole, 1983).

Phase models do not describe what a group did, rather how a group followed a

sequence of steps in order to reach a state of efficient functionality (Bushe & Coetzer, 2007).

The idea that phase models of group development are descriptive is incorrect; Bushe and

Coetzer (2007) argued that phase models are prescriptive. The phases in a linear sequence do

not explain what tasks the group is performing, but rather the stage of the group’s

development in terms of the entire process (Poole, 1983).

Unitary sequence models. Poole and Baldwin (1996) argued that a phase model that

followed a single set of ordered phases was the best in terms of group development and

decision making. The researchers explained that a unitary sequence was one whereby most

groups followed identical phases in the same order; there were no alternative routes for

groups to take other than the small number of phases arranged in a linear sequence. Unitary

YOU’RE FIRED 4

sequence models are logical due to their simplicity and ease of replication (Poole & Baldwin,

1996).

Multiple sequence models. Phase models that allow groups to return to previous

phases and repeat them are multiple sequence models (Poole & Baldwin, 1996). The

researchers found that these models gave groups the opportunity to take different paths, and

cycle back to previous phases to resolve conflict. Although more complex than unitary

sequence models, multiple sequence models allowed groups to adapt to external factors or

task characteristics that pushed them out of the ordered sequence (Poole & Baldwin, 1996).

Interaction Process Analysis

Bales (as cited in Keyton, 1999) created a three-stage model of group development in

decision making. The three stages of group development aimed to explain how groups solved

problems over time. As a unitary sequence model, Keyton (1999) explained that groups pass

through each phase when in the decision-making process. The model was simple and

consisted of orientation, evaluation, and control phases (Keyton, 1999).

The orientation phase of Bale’s three-phase model of development referred to the

group’s introduction of the problem (Keyton, 1999). Keyton (1999) added that the group,

whilst in this stage, interacted about the nature and characteristics of the problem. As was

consistent with all unitary models, only when this first phase was completed could the group

continue into the next phase (Poole & Baldwin, 1996).

The second phase of Bale’s three-phase model was named evaluation (Keyton, 1999).

This phase occurred once the group had understood the task at hand, and then began to work

out how to complete the task (Keyton, 1999). Bales (as cited in Keyton, 1999) found that this

phase included the interjection of members’ strengths and weaknesses related to the task, as

well as discussions of what the group should do in order to effectively solve the problem at

hand.

YOU’RE FIRED 5

The final phase of Bale’s three-phase model of group development and decision

making was control (Keyton, 1999). Bale (as cited in Keyton, 1999) described this phase as

the eventual decision being made; the group decided what to do in order to complete the task.

Although the three phases of Bale’s model linked clearly and simply, groups that followed

the model lacked the ability to adapt (Poole & Baldwin. 1996). Being a unitary sequence

meant that groups could only progress once they had completed each phase of the three-phase

model, and could not go back to resolve conflict or adjust to external factors (Poole &

Baldwin, 1996).

Forming, Storming, Norming, and Performing ...

Following the introduction of the three-phase model of group development, Tuckman

(1965) posited that groups followed four phases of development in a multiple-sequence

model. Tuckman (1965) argued that previous models of group development were studied in

an inadequate period of time. By studying groups over a longer period of time, Tuckman

(1965) found that group conflict introduced a new dimension not explained in existing phase

models.

Forming. Originally named “testing and dependence”, forming explained the initial

understanding of the group rules and tasks (Keyton, 1999, p.201; Tuckman, 1965). Group

members attempted to understand each other’s experience in order to begin completing the

task (Tuckman, 1965). The researcher also found that the first phase included the testing of

group rules and boundaries to distinguish a standard of behaviour in the group.

Storming. Related to the testing portion of forming, storming referred to conflict

within the group (Keyton, 1999). Tuckman (1965) named this phase “intragroup conflict” and

explained the phase as the period when group members rebelled against the group structure.

Tuckman (1965) added that this phase included the group members’ emotional responses to

YOU’RE FIRED 6

the task. The researcher found that group members showed conflict toward superiors as a

display of resistance to the individual’s task demands.

Norming. Tuckman (1965) found that the next phase of group development was the

“development of group cohesion” (p. 386). Named the norming phase, this phase explained

how group members felt a part of the group and accepted it (Tuckman, 1965). Group

members also expressed opinions and suggestions within group interactions, which showed

an increased will to be open with other group members (Tuckman, 1965).

Performing. The final phase of Tuckman (1965) was performing. Also named

“functional role-relatedness”, Tuckman (1965) described this phase as when group members

completed initial tasks and solved initial problems (p. 387). Task and social balancing

occurred in this phase also, as group members worked together in devotion to the task

(Tuckman, 1965).

There are limitations with Tuckman (1965) and the four-stage model of group

development. One limitation was that the study only reviewed 26 pieces of existing research

in order to develop the new model. This acute number of studies gave Tuckman (1965) a

problem in terms of reliability due to sample size. Another limitation related to the studies

analyzed in Tuckman (1965) was that most of the 26 studies looked at a single group. Having

only studied one group, the research used in Tuckman (1965) could be considered not

comprehensive enough to develop a new model.

Tuckman (1965) was tested by one other study, conducted by Runkel, Lawrence,

Oldfield, Rider, and Clark (as cited in Tuckman & Jensen, 1977). Runkel et al. found that

their group observation matched the findings in Tuckman (1965). The researchers studied

between 45 and 60 group members split across three groups in classroom settings (Tuckman

& Jensen, 1977). Observations were recorded whenever group members acted in ways that fit

with the four-phase model of group development (Tuckman & Jensen, 1977).

YOU’RE FIRED 7

Although Runkel et al. (as cited in Tuckman & Jensen, 1977) supported the four-stage

model of group development in Tuckman (1965), there were limitations with their study.

Firstly, the researchers only observed college students in a classroom setting. This restriction

of data made the study’s findings difficult to generalize and validate. Also, Runkel et al. (as

cited in Tuckman & Jensen, 1977) only made observation notes of actions that followed the

four-stage model were visible. The researchers limited the attention of their study to one

model, and therefore likely missed group actions that agreed with other group development

models outside of Tuckman (1965).

... And Adjourning

Adjustments were made to the four-stage model of group development in Tuckman

and Jensen (1977). The revision of the four-stage model occurred as a result of analysis of

existing applications of the Tuckman (1965) model. Tuckman and Jensen (1977) found that

other research explained how groups ceased to operate. This observation led the researchers

to add a fifth phase of “adjourning” to the four-stage model of group development (p. 427).

The new proposal of how groups developed in a phase model was forming, storming,

norming, performing, and adjourning (Keyton, 1999).

Although Tuckman and Jensen (1977) reviewed a number of studies before the

adjustment of the four-phase model of group development, the study had two key limitations.

Firstly, as only one study that used the four-phase model had been conducted at the time of

Tuckman and Jensen (1977) the foundation for their adjustment was narrow. The adjustment

to the four-stage model of group development was made using only one existing relevant

study. Another limitation of Tuckman and Jensen (1977) was the scope of their analysis. The

studies used were conducted in only laboratory or therapy settings. This raises the issue of

how effectively the model could be used in settings such as the workplace or at home.

YOU’RE FIRED 8

Bushe (2007) agreed with the adjustment made in Tuckman and Jensen (1977). Using

two phases of “membership” and “competence”, Bushe (2007) encompassed the entire five-

phase group development model (pp. 188-192). Although Bushe (2007) agreed with the five-

phase model, one phase was altered slightly – adjourning. Bushe (2007) found that although

adjourning was a key factor of group membership, the individual took that group experience

onto the next group and therefore never fully adjourned.

Research Question

As a result of the literature review and as acknowledgement of a gap in research that

utilizes the five-phase model of group development, the research question for this paper

focused on Tuckman and Jensen (1977).

RQ1: How did following the five-phase model of group development explained in

Tuckman and Jensen (1977) affect group success in an episode of series 10 of The

Apprentice (UK)?

This research question concentrated the analysis and observations of series 10 of The

Apprentice (UK) to the five-phase group development model of; forming, storming, norming,

performing, and adjourning.

Methodology

You’re Fired: Overview of The Apprentice (UK)

In order to observe the five-stage model of group development’s effects on group

success, The Apprentice (UK) was chosen as an appropriate media text. The Apprentice (UK)

is a reality television show that groups a number of candidates into two teams before

subjecting them to competition over a number of weeks (BBC One, 2015). Series 10 of The

YOU’RE FIRED 9

Apprentice (UK) featured 20 candidates, 10 male and 10 female, all vying to become the

business partner of the show’s leader and venture capitalist - Sir Lord Alan Sugar (BBC One,

2015). Each week of the 12-week process featured a unique task whereby Lord Sugar split

the candidates into two groups and instructed them to compete against each other as teams

(Walker-Arnott, 2014).

Each episode in series 10 of The Apprentice (UK) featured a number of consistent

events. Firstly, the candidates were split by Lord Sugar at the beginning of each episode into

two teams. Following this, the task instructions were given and each team held meetings to

decide who would be the project manager. Toward the end of each episode, the teams

reconvened in Lord Sugar’s boardroom to discuss the task, find out the sales’ results, and

remove one candidate from the process.

The two teams in series 10 of The Apprentice (UK) were split according to

male/female, and were named Tenacity and Summit. The original members of Tenacity were:

Bianca, Roisin, Katie, Lauren, Pamela, Jemma, Ella, Sarah, Nurun, and Lindsay (BBC One,

2015). The original members of Summit were: Mark, Daniel, Solomon, Sanjay, Felipe,

James, Steven, Scott, Robert, and Chiles (BBC One, 2015).

Observation Procedures

In order to effectively analyze series 10 of The Apprentice (UK) in terms of the five-

phase group development model, episode three of the series was observed. Throughout the

episode notes were made regarding the five phases of group development as described in

Tuckman and Jensen (1977). To promote consistency, each team was observed equally for

each of the five phases; forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning.

The episode chosen for this study was episode three. This episode first appeared on

UK network television in late 2014; episode three aired on October 22. The reason this

episode was chosen was because of the group structures that were altered at the beginning of

YOU’RE FIRED 10

the episode. Lord Sugar often swapped groups members at the beginning of tasks and this

episode was evidence of that. Having different group members in this episode gave

opportunity for the forming and norming phases of group development to be prevalent.

Measures

Following Runkel et al. (as cited in Tuckman and Jensen, 1977) as an example, this

study focused on observations of group activities that related to the phases of the five-phase

model of group development. Each phase was analyzed during different stages of the task;

the majority of forming was observed during the initial project manager decision meetings,

and the majority of adjourning was observed once a group member was removed. Any

interaction that signified focus on task characteristics and group members experience was

deemed forming. Storming was observed by noting any instances of conflict between group

members. Times where members referred to themselves as a part of the team or made

suggestions to better the team were observed as norming. Periods where group members

completed stages of the overall task were observed as performing, and any time that a group

member left the group was deemed adjourning.

Also observed in this study was how effectively the groups followed the set order of

the five-stage group development model; any time that a group skipped a phase was

measured as unsuccessfully following the phase model. How groups reacted to external

factors and conflict was another area of observation in this study, alluding to the multiple-

sequence format of the five-stage model. The amount of emphasis given to each phase by the

groups was another factor of analysis in this paper.

Results

Following observation and analysis of episode three of The Apprentice (UK) series

10, the following results were found.

Scent of Success

YOU’RE FIRED 11

Episode three was the first episode of series 10 in which the teams were changed by

Lord Sugar in the initial meeting. Scott and Chiles were fired during episodes one and two,

accompanied with the changes Lord Sugar made meant the teams for this episode were:

Tenacity: Felipe, Daniel, Steven, Sarah, Katie, Lauren, Ella, Pamela, and Jemma.

Summit: Lindsay, Nurun, Roisin, Bianca, Mark, Solomon, Sanjay, and James.

The candidates convened at The Royal Exchange in London, where Lord Sugar set

the task of creating a home fragrance and selling it to the public and trade. Lord Sugar

emphasized the task of producing effective packaging, and in terms of pricing he added;

“that’s what it’s all about, high margins” (Pater-Lancuki, 2014). By splitting the candidates,

Lord Sugar began the forming process for both teams.

Team Tenacity first met to decide who would be project manager, and what the task

entailed. Katie immediately volunteered herself for project manager and qualified with “I

have experience as a consumer (of candles)” (Pater-Lancuki, 2014). Katie also stressed the

importance of price margins that would be determinants of success in the task. Similarly,

team Summit met to decide who would lead the task. Roisin put herself forward for the role

of project manager; she gave her experience in the accounting world as the main reason why

she would be successful. During this speech and before she was elected as leader, Roisin also

suggested what she thought would be good product ideas.

Before manufacturing and selling their home fragrance products, the teams conducted

market research. For team Tenacity the group members who researched were Daniel, Steven,

Sarah, Lauren, Ella, and Jemma. Having spoken with a candle shop owner, this sub-team

reported back to leader Katie with the information that the candle should be made of soy wax

and neutral in color. Katie told the sub-team that the candle was to be paraffin wax, and

yellow in color. Lauren then commented “we’re pretty disappointed that some of these

YOU’RE FIRED 12

decisions have been made without consultation to our market research” (Pater-Lancuki,

2014).

Teams then had to select fragrances for their candles. Team Summit members

immediately began giving their suggestions to the group, for example Solomon mentioned a

beach smelling candle. This was agreed upon by all members and put forward for

manufacture. Tenacity decided to go with natural fragrances that related to a British

countryside, Pamela gave her opinion of the fragrances; “I just love that smell” (Pater-

Lancuki, 2014). During the manufacturing process Sanjay and Lindsay, of team Summit,

argued briefly about the method of making the candles and the quantity of wax in each.

Once candles were manufactured, the teams split themselves up in order to sell to the

public and to trade. Whilst selling, team Tenacity stuck to the pricing strategy of high

margins which was set by Katie. Throughout the task no member of the sub-team sold

candles below the price of £10 to the public. Midway through the task, Katie phoned the sub-

team to check how they were doing. After a brief phone call Katie made the suggestion that

the team should move location, a suggestion that the group members agreed with. The team

that sold to the trade worked together to secure deals.

Contrastingly, Summit team members did not stick to the pricing strategy initially set

by Roisin; James regularly sold candles for less than £10 even though Bianca and Roisin

made it clear that £10 would be a poor selling price. However, Summit sold out of products,

which led them to believe they had completed the task effectively. Nurun expressed “we did

it, we did it. Well done” (Pater-Lancuki, 2014).

Lord Sugar gave the results of the task later that day in the boardroom. Team Tenacity

won with a profit of £1584.09, to which Lord Sugar explained “you stuck to the margins, that

was what this was all about; high margins” (Pater-Lancuki, 2014). This resulted in the team

being treated to a luxury spa day, which allowed them to adjourn the group and prepare for

YOU’RE FIRED 13

the next task. Team Summit was recalled to the boardroom having lost the task; Lindsay and

Nurun were fired. Lindsay was fired due to her own admittance of underperformance

throughout the process. Lord sugar fired Nurun as a result of her low sales figures in the

candle task. Following the removal of Lindsay and Nurun, all group members were sent back

to the house and told to prepare for the next task.

Discussion

The results of this paper displayed how following the five-phase model of group

development in the correct order, and with equal emphasis, produced a successful group in

series 10 of The Apprentice (UK).

Completion of Each Phase

Both teams completed each phase of the development model throughout the task in

episode three.

Forming. Team Tenacity completed the forming phase during the initial meeting of

decision of project manager. By meeting, and deciding that Katie should be project manager,

the group formed and began to create unwritten rules; Katie was the leader and would be

making final decisions within the group. Katie also gave her experience related to the task

when she explained “I have experience of a consumer,” which was one of the key

components of forming in Tuckman and Jensen (1977). In terms of understanding the task

within the forming phase, team Tenacity was successful; following Lord Sugar’s description,

Katie emphasized how important profit margins and selling prices were in the task.

Team Summit also completed the forming phase of the group development model.

After Lord Sugar split the candidates into two teams, team Summit elected Roisin as leader.

She expressed her interest in the task and gave her experience as an accountant as one reason

why she was a perfect fit. The group agreed, and appointed Roisin as team leader. This set

YOU’RE FIRED 14

group rules and expected behaviours; Roisin was team leader and her decisions were

overriding.

Storming. The teams completed this phase at different times, but both incurred

conflict during the task. Team Tenacity completed the storming phase when conflict between

the market research and design teams occurred. The market research team reported back to

project manager Katie with their findings, only for them to be shot down by Katie’s

predetermined product ideas. This area of conflict brought emotional responses from

members of the market research team, with Lauren admitting that she felt disappointed. The

acceptance of Katie’s decision following the conflict allowed the group to progress through

the storming phase of development.

Team Summit also experienced conflict during the task. When manufacturing the

candles, Sanjay argued with Lindsay about the quality of candle she produced. This

altercation between the two group members showed a rebellion to the group structure. It

seemed Sanjay took a leadership role of this sub-team during manufacture, which could have

displayed his underlying want to have been project manager. Lindsay reacted by not fully

listening to Sanjay, going against the group structure and Sanjay’s control.

Norming. Team Summit began to show group cohesion and gave suggestions during

the fragrance testing portion of the task. Numerous group members gave suggestions during

this process, Lauren openly expressed her opinion of an early fragrance to the group by

saying how she liked a sample. Solomon also expressed his opinion during group discussion

of the fragrances by putting forward his product idea and group vision. This showed how

members felt a part of the group. The willingness to put forward ideas and share group vision

showed group cohesion as a part of the norming phase.

Similarly, team Tenacity entered the norming phase of group development during the

fragrance testing process. Group members such as Pamela gave their individual opinions of

YOU’RE FIRED 15

fragrances. Team leader Katie suggested fragrances that members should smell before the

group made a decision of the final combination. The group cohesion was apparent during this

process of the task within team Tenacity; all group members were happy to test other

fragrances and came to a unified decision.

Performing. Although both teams performed, in the sense of selling candles to make

a profit, they did so with varying levels of success. Both teams sold candles to trade and

retailers, making substantial profit from all deals. The difference in performance occurred

when selling to the public. Team Summit sold candles at a much lower profit margin than

Roisin suggested during the initial meetings, which eventually cost the team the task.

Although the sub-team of Summit worked well together, they failed to follow task guidelines.

Team Tenacity performed well in terms of sticking to the profit margin; group members often

referenced the high selling price but continued to follow it as a way of sticking together. This

suggested successful performance for team Tenacity who, although they realized they had

stock left over, understood that they followed the task guidelines and group rules perfectly.

Also observed during the performing phase of development was team Tenacity’s

willingness to go back to a previous phase in order to be more successful. The groups

struggled to sell at high prices in their current location, so Katie made the suggestion that the

team should move. This cycling back to the norming phase in a time of adversity was another

reason why team Tenacity were more successful in the task and group development.

Adjourning. The adjourning phase for each team came at the penultimate boardroom

meeting. For team Tenacity, having won the task, the group was treated to a spa day. This

separation from the task allowed the group to forget the group structure and concentrate on

moving on to the next task.

Having lost the task, team Summit adjourned in a different manner. Both Lindsay and

Nurun were fired from the process by Lord Sugar. This removal of two group members, and

YOU’RE FIRED 16

the remaining group members being sent “back to the house”, displayed the cessation of the

group.

Order and Emphasis of Phase Completion

Although both groups completed every phase of the development model, the order

and emphasis placed on each phase varied greatly between both teams.

Summit. Team Summit completed each phase of the five-phase model of group

development but did so in an incorrect order. After initially forming, the group immediately

gave suggestions for the group vision and task processes. As found in Tuckman and Jensen

(1977), giving suggestions to the group was a key component of the norming phase of group

development. The movement from forming to norming affected team Summit greatly in

terms of eventual performance. By skipping the stage of conflict and emotional expression,

the team began to buy into the group concept and structure without challenging any of the

rules or guidelines. This later led to conflict between group members whilst manufacturing

the product, rather than in the initial ideas process. By completing the phase model in the

order of forming, norming, storming, performing, and adjourning, team Summit performed

under leadership and group structure that had not been challenged early enough. Not

following the phase order led to following guidelines incorrectly and ultimately unsuccessful

performance and development.

Another problem area for team Summit was the amount of emphasis placed on each

stage of development. The team decided very quickly on who should be their group leader,

and spent equally as little time in the conflict phase. The argument between Sanjay and

Lindsay lasted less than 10 seconds which, compared to the amount of time the group spent

in the norming stage, became insignificant. The group was more focused on being a part of

the group, and making suggestions, than understanding the task and challenging structure.

This led to the loss of the task.

YOU’RE FIRED 17

Tenacity. The phase of forming was the first to be completed by team Tenacity,

followed by storming, norming, performing, and adjourning. They completed each phase in

order throughout the processes of leader election, market research, fragrance testing, sales,

and task review. Team Tenacity also emphasized each area of the five-stage development

model equally, giving equal time to elect a leader as they did to discuss fragrance ideas. Their

phase of storming was also a considerable time period, as a result of the argument between

Katie and the market research sub-team.

By following the phases in the set order of forming, storming, norming, performing,

and adjourning, team Tenacity was able to develop as a successful group. Group cohesion

became apparent after conflict. This allowed the group to move forward on solid ground into

the selling task (performing). They also placed more equal emphasis on each phase of the

model which also resulted in successful group development and winning the task.

Limitations and Future Research

This study analyzed the use of the five-phase model of group development in one

episode of series 10 The Apprentice (UK). Although the episode followed the group over a

number of days, this study is limited in terms of amount of observation. Future research of

the five-phase model of group development in The Apprentice (UK) should focus on a

number of episodes spanning more than one series.

By observing only the five-phase model of group development, this study was also

limited in terms of its application. Observations were made in accordance to the five-stage

model, and therefore a number of other models and phases were disregarded. This study

should serve as a platform for future research to build on the knowledge of phase models, by

observing more than one model throughout a competitive reality television show.

YOU’RE FIRED 18

Conclusion

Group development and decision making can follow phase models. Whether the phase

model was unitary or multiple-sequence related to how easily the group could return to

previous phases of the model in order to resolve conflict or external factors. Although

research on both types of phase model has been conducted, there were many limitations in

studies such as Tuckman (1965) and Runkel et al. (as cited in Tuckman and Jensen (1977).

These limitations often occurred as a result of inadequate sampling and group observations.

In order to analyze how competitive teams follow the five-phase model of group

development, and what impact that had on group success, this paper observed teams in series

10 of The Apprentice (UK). Observations were made whenever groups acted in ways

consistent with Tuckman and Jensen (1977) and the five-phase model of group development.

The ability to progress through the model in the correct order was one aspect of observation.

Results showed that groups that followed the five-phase model of group development

performed more successfully as a team than groups that skipped phases or had inconsistent

time spent in each area. Being willing to return to previous phases in order to eradicate

conflict, or re-assess the task characteristics, also affected group success positively. Although

adjourning had little impact on this study, due to the fact that groups often switched members

at the beginning of each task, the completion of a task and moving on to the next week

proved to be a positive aspect of group mentality.

This study analyzed the extent to which competitive groups, in short time periods,

followed the five-phase model of group development and the impact that had on group

success. The study focused on groups in the business setting, with group sizes of less than 10.

Future research should expand on this study by analyzing how following the five-stage model

of development effects group success over longer time periods. Different settings should also

be considered, such as within school or family.

YOU’RE FIRED 19

References

BBC One. (2015). Series 10 The Apprentice 2014. Retrieved from

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02851ww/p02fg16l

Broadcasters Audience Research Board. (2014). Top 30 Weekly Programs. Retrieved from

http://www.barb.co.uk/whats-new/weekly-top-30?

Bushe, G. R., & Coetzer, G. H. (2007). Group development and team effectiveness. Journal

Of Applied Behavioural Science, 43, 184-212

Littlejohn, S. W., & Foss, K. A. (2011). The group. In Theories Of Human Communication

(pp. 263-292). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press

Keyton, J. (1999). Relational communication in groups. In L. R. Frey, D. S. Gouran, & M. S.

Poole (Eds.), The Handbook Of Group Communication Theory And Research (pp.

193-222). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications

Lau, E. (2013, Jan 23). Why and where is teamwork important? Forbes. Retrieved from

http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2013/01/23/why-and-where-is-teamwork-

important/

Pater-Lancuki, C (Producer). (2014). Home fragrance. In The Apprentice (UK) [Television

series]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuvkV7Xd6O4

Poole, M.S. (1983). Decision development in small groups, III: A multiple sequence model of

group decision development. Communication Monographs, 50, 321-341

Poole, M. S., & Baldwin, C. L. (1996). Developmental processes in group decision making.

In R. Y. Hirokawa & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Communication And Group Decision

Making (pp. 215-242). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications

Tuckman, B. S. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63,

384-399

YOU’RE FIRED 20

Tuckman, B. S., & Jensen, M-A. C. (1977). Stages of small-group development revisited.

Group & Organization Studies, 2, 419-427

Walker-Arnott, E. (2014, October 7). The Apprentice series 10: Meet Alan Sugar’s new

candidates. The Radio Times. Retrieved from http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2014-

10-07/the-apprentice-2014-meet-the-candidates