The most affective way to survive is to stay out of the firing line in the boardroom, obviously. To achieve this goal, winning every week would be the ideal solution. Given that this is unlikely to happen, although the female team fell apart in an earlier series – handing the male team a huge advantage (until they were swapped around), other methods of survival have to be developed, or engineered.

Working and living at such close quarters, friendships, allegiances, and status roles are likely to manifest quickly, these can also provide the route to a position of strength, or weakness within the group. On the surface, and evidenced in the opening episode of the 2008 series, 2 groups appeared to form within the male team; 1 of which was smaller, perceived academic, and cast as opposition to the lacklustre leadership. Realistically, we had 3 guys whose abilities placed them into key roles; dangerous ground should the project fail – as it did.

Nobody wants to be project manager in the opening week, in fact, watching the excuses for not filling the position was quite funny; I think this is what a military strategist might refer to as a tactical withdrawal! Alex clearly accepted the duty on the premise that he had stepped up to the plate while others had rejected the duty. He clearly bonded with several group members very quickly, finding common ground in such pursuits as football; did these early friendships help to lessen the risk factor for him accepting the leadership role? A divide appeared at the beginning of the 2007 series within the male team. Northern, car salesmen, Adam and Andy, were very much on the periphery of the group immediately. Andy did not so much step up to the role of opening week leadership, but had the role thrust upon him by the bigger, mostly southern based, clique. The irony being that his early downfall actually stemmed from an early twist, more so than from the leadership role being thrust upon him. Adam was from then on stuck with the loner tag, perceived as a loose canon, he was constantly under pressure, and while good entertainment for the viewer, never likely to stand a serious chance of winning.

We don’t know exactly what happens within the confines of that house, and it had no relevance with what happened during the opening episode. But once settled, what would be a useful strategy to adopt from within a group?

Aside from ways that each competitor can help his, or her self, I believe that certain criteria need to be fulfilled (not just for the potential employer, but for the BBC and their primetime slot), and this could be the most important factor of all, relating to success. It has been said that Nicholas did not defend himself very well in the boardroom. While this might be true; I think he was always going to be fired. He was unfortunate to encounter a team leader who fits the needs of television rather well; young, good looking, and with the ineptitude to annoy Alan Sugar on a regular basis!

The ability to infuriate the boss worked well for Syed and Tre, it insured both had a lengthy run on the show – despite being regular visitors to the boardroom; presenting yourself as good entertainment might be the strongest strategy of all.

I disagree with quite a lot of that. It's not necessarily a bad thing to be on the losing team, or in the boardroom. It gets you some face time with Sir Alan, and an opportunity for him to see how you deal with failure. Dealing with failure is important in business. In series 2, Paul famously got the interview stage without ever being in the boardroom. He was summarily dismissed, partly because Sir Alan just didn't know him.

I think Andy got fired in series 3 because he wasn't very good. The boys tried to set him up, but I didn't see any evidence the girls were the same and it was they he had to lead and failed. Similarly Adam wasn't much good either. He ended up in the boardroom 4 times in a row before he was finally fired. He was lucky he didn't go the first time, when he somehow contrived to lose the Zoo task despite having more product to sell than the other team (instead, Sophie got fired, despite it being her great production management that got him that product).

Claire volunteered to be project leader, and it did her in good stead. Alex also volunteered, and it's what saved him. In the first series, the first two project leaders were Tim and Saira, who went on to become the two finalists. The idea that it's the kiss of death is wrong, at least in the UK.

If you are good, being leader gives you an advantage in the boardroom. You just have to pick two other people who are worse than you, and make your case. If you can't do that you deserve to go. In recent series the statistics have been distorted by the Alexa Gambit, whereby a non-leader who cocks up says, "Make me team leader instead!", gets another chance, and promptly cocks it up again. They then get fired as team leader when they should have been fired before as non-leader. This increases the proportion of leaders getting fired. (Adam is also an example of a failed Alexa Gambit. He should have been fired for his lack-lustre performance in France.)

Much depends on how you view Sir Alan. I like and respect him, generally. I think he is usually good at getting to the bottom of what happened on a task. So if a clique marginalised you, then he'll understand how that restricted your opportunities to excel. He'll judge you based on how you dealt with it. Most of Nicholas's problem in this episode was he just seemed to sulk and whinge about it in the boardroom. Not pretty.

I don't think Sir Alan saves candidates because he thinks they will make good telly. People like Syed and Tre and Jo are saved because they have a certain flair and originality and energy that the others lacked.

I wouldn't say it was important to form cliques, either. If anything, that leads to dangerous complacency. One of Katie's few problems is that she was getting on so well with Paul that she wasn't registering criticism from the others. On the other hand, it is important to have good working relationships with everyone because you have to work with them.

Mostly to win you just need to be good. Use common sense. Make sure you have the basics covered. Shout "fire!" if you see a fire. When you find yourself in the boardroom, be calm but articulate; have all your ducks in a row before you go in and be clear about the reasons for failure and who's fault it was. Be the kind of person other people like to work with. Keep your sense of humour.

I think it helps outside of the apprentice in the sense of getting media work..

I don't know if cliques are essential, but I think they probably are. I hate cliques and studiously avoid them, although I get on with all sorts of people for as long as I can be bothered. I would think that good interpersonal skills are essential to succeed (or at least a whacking good inheritance and good connections ) and so people with good interpersonal skills will be good at getting the people they want onside. However, people who get on with all sorts of people are largely regarded with suspicion by people who require the security of cliques. For example, I would get on well with a clique at work but because I am also seen to get on well with another clique and the members of each clique do not like each other very much I am regarded with suspicion by both cliques. I would, however, get on well enough with individuals for the most part. I was never very successful in my place of work, although I did okay but no better than most. I find cliques too restraining and I don't like them. Some people regard the forming of cliques as good teamwork. I see it differently because forming a clique can exclude people who perhaps ought to be regarded as on the same team. I think Alex demonstrated this latter effect nicely last Wednesday.

I think a person can overcome cliques as Adam showed by surviving three boardrooms in a room. As I stated on the other thread, he lost the zoo task by 10 pounds. If Sophie had been able to sell, they wouldn't have lost (if you can't sell, then frankly, you should be fired). That task was also screwed by the fact that Natalie went out on a limb and lied about the labelling.

Paul OR Katie should have been fired for the France task. I don't think it was a minor problem that Katie went swanning off with Paul, leaving the three non-French speakers to man the stall on their own. Paul was an incompetant leader and lost that task by a country mile. In contrast, Adam lost his two tasks as TC by 10 pounds and 97p respectively.

The Nigella task was edited to make Adam look incompetant; however, he did bargain successfully for several of the items and when he point blank asked K+K to get the seeds, they refused, which lost the task.

You could tell that SAS really liked Adam, just from his survival to Week 7, despite the constant alienation. I think that it is possible to see through the games people play, and give credit where it's due.

Sophie did a sterling job on the production, stayed late and made sure they had plenty to sell. That this was not trivial is demonstrated by the fact that the other team got it wrong and actually ran out of product part way through the day. So her strengths may not have been in sales - as team leader Adam should have recognised that and deployed where she could contribute more, eg inside a stuffed animal. There were numerous other mistakes made, eg in location and pricing, most of which can be laid at Adam's feet. Sophie's getting fired instead of Adam was one of the big miscarriages of the series, in my opinion. He only lost by £10 but against Ghazal's incompetence he shouldn't have lost at all.


Katie did nothing wrong on that one. Paul was project leader and Katie followed his instructions. She was a good team member, as always.

There is an argument for firing Paul, but I think it's over-stated. He had good ideas that didn't work, rather than bad ideas. As usual, it was edited to make the person fired look incompetent. There was nothing basically wrong with the idea of selling cheese, for example.

Adam meanwhile had a very lack-lustre day. For example, he spent ages trying to cook the sausages until Kristina stepped in. The cheese would have sold better had he presented it better. He messed up the sign. He was responsible for marketing and really got a lot wrong. On top of his failure as project leader on the zoo task, he really should have gone this week.


I agree Adam wasn't completely useless. Neither was he very impressive. He made the basic mistake of not doing the maths: he didn't realise it would be better to arrive late with the seeds than on time without them. He made another basic mistake in not making more effort to find out what the seeds were. And then he didn't figure out he needed a wholesaler. By the time it was sorted, it was too late and K+K were right to refuse - although as I recall he asked them if they thought they had time and they said they thought they didn't; it was his call whether to send them anyway and he didn't.


I agree with the last bit. In the Art task in particular, he survived on merit despite the rest of the team being against him.

Adam fans like to think they were against him because of prejudice. I think it was more down to his dour manner, his negativity and general lack of energy. He was just not a good person to work with. He hardly ever smiled.

Adam was the one who made sure that the production team stayed late so they would get all the chocolate made. This was when everyone else wanted to go home.

Sophie had already made the gross miscalculations on the coffee task, despite being a scientist and used to numbers.

She also almost REFUSED to sell, based on 'moral objections' - I agree with SAS on this one, that she was naive going into the Apprentice - had she not watched the crap people had to sell before?

Selling is one of the key elements of the show, and if you can't sell, then you should be fired.

Adam did make a few mistakes on the zoo task, for example location, but pricing was ok, and generally he was a positive team leader. One of the biggest problems was the re-labelling of all the lollipops ('it says natural on it, but it's not! - great selling pitch), which was totally Natalie's fault.



English cheese. To the French. From Macro (or whatever it's called). Paul was project manager when the team made a loss. I think in situations like that, with a big loss, the buck does rest with the TM. Worse still, Paul couldn't even admit to being wrong, even on You're Fired. That's a problem with both Paul and Katie - neither were able to see their own mistakes and faults.


But he sold a lot of the produce - without even speaking the language. I don't think Adam did the setting up of the stall on his own, so Ghazal and Kristina must've been partially responsible. Talking which- what did Ghazal actually do that task?



I don't get the negativity thing. That came from one segment in show three. Paul and Katie had the responsibility of coming up with an idea for the evening task. They hadn't arranged anything by 5, so set off to Richmond with Adam to try and rent out Simon as a DJ that night. On a Tuesday. On top of all that, they seemed more interested in getting together than getting on with the task. No wonder Adam was negative about that.

But there weren't any other portions of the show that really displayed the negativity - it was just a label that stuck.