FIRO Element B™ : An Overview

Henry L. Thompson, Ph.D. , hpsys@aol.com, www.hpsys.com

© Copyright 2000 by Henry L. Thompson, Ph.D. All rights reserved.

In a 1976 survey of seventy-five of the most widely used training instruments, including the MBTI, Pfeiffer and Heslin concluded that "the FIRO-B™ was the most generally usable instrument in training." The popularity of the FIRO-B began to wane as the MBTI became one of the instruments of choice in business. In the last few years, however, the interest in FIRO has been renewed, especially in the Type community. Roger Pearman, Bob McAlpine, Margaret Hartzler and I created a FIRO-B Qualifying program for Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc., in 1997. Geno Schnell and Judy Waterman have written booklets on FIRO-B. Susan Scanlon reviewed FIRO theory in the Type Reporter, and Pierre Ferrand did a review of FIRO-B in the year-end issue of the Bulletin. With all of these "new" writings, why another one?

The reason is simple. The "new" writings are about the original version of the instrument and theoretical thoughts created in 1958 by Will Schutz. Just as Jung’s theory evolved over his life-span, and numerous versions of the MBTI have preceded Form M, so has FIRO theory and its instrumentation evolved significantly. Dr. Schutz and I have known each other for 16 years and have collaborated extensively for the past three years. Consequently, I am concerned when people talk about FIRO-B as if it is FIRO theory and when I see articles and booklets that do not reference Dr. Schutz’ more recent writings. In my view, Schutz has made profound changes and improvements which have been previously overlooked or ignored.

In 1958 Schutz formally introduced a theory of interpersonal relations called FIRO (Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation). The theory presented three dimensions of interpersonal relations posited to be necessary and sufficient to explain most human interaction. On the behavioral level, these dimensions were called Inclusion, Control and Affection. Schutz also created a measurement instrument, FIRO-B™, consisting of scales that measure the behavioral aspects of these three dimensions. Over the past 45 years, Schutz has revised and expanded FIRO theory and developed additional instruments (Schutz 1994, 1992) for measuring the new aspects of the theory, including Element B: Behavior (an improved version of FIRO-B); Element F: Feelings; Element S: Self; Element W: Work Relations; Element C: Close Relations; Element P: Parental Relationships; and Element O: Organizational Climate .

The theory was been so extensively revised and strengthened and has generated so many new instruments and important improvements that at the suggestion of Jack Black (founder of CPP and publisher of FIRO-B), the new set of measures was renamed. Since 1984, these instruments have been known collectively as ELEMENTS of AWARENESS and are being used by Schutz, his associates and others in the US and in over a dozen foreign countries (Schutz, 1994).

Schutz created the FIRO-B in 1958 specifically to measure the interaction between two people for research purposes. When he realized the many ways it was being used after it was made available to the public, he created a new generation of the instruments which were more suitable for general usage. FIRO-B provides feedback on six aspects of interpersonal behavior while Element B provides the same information plus twelve additional measures. Element B "fills in" the gaps left by the original instrument, provides a single response scale rather than switching back and forth between two, has simplified wording and greater scale integrity, and identifies not just what a person does or gets, but what they want in each of these areas. It also measures their satisfaction with their behaviors.

FIRO theory focuses on three major levels: behavior, feelings and self-concept. FIRO Element B focuses on behavior (hence the B in the name) in three interpersonal content areas: inclusion,

Firo - B Page 1 of 20

control and openness. Openness was changed from the original Affection which is more appropriate at the feeling level (Schutz, 1992). Inclusion is concerned with achieving the desired amount of contact with people. Sometimes people like a great deal of inclusion; they are outgoing, enjoy doing things with a group, and tend to start conversations with strangers. At other times, people prefer to spend time alone. People differ as to how much they want to be with others and how much they prefer to be alone.

Control is concerned with achieving the desired amount of control over people. Some people are more comfortable when they are in charge of people. They like to be in charge, to give orders and to make decisions for both themselves and others. At other times, they prefer to have no control over people and may in fact prefer to be controlled by others. They may even seek out situations in which others will clearly define their responsibilities for them. Everyone has some desire to control other people and some desire to be controlled.

The third area is concerned with achieving just the desired amount of openness. Some people enjoy relationships in which they talk about their feelings and innermost thoughts. They have one or more people in whom they confide. At other times, they prefer not to share their personal feelings with other people. They like to keep things impersonal and businesslike, and they prefer to have acquaintances rather than close friends. Everyone has some desire for open relationships and some desire to keep their relationships more private.

There are twelve primary scales on which one can receive a score ranging from 0 - 9. The differences between what I do and what I want to do and what I get and what I want to get provide six additional scales. Figure 1 shows a feedback matrix with hypothetical scores. As a working hypothesis, we might expect this person to have a few select friends, not to socialize extensively, to like being in control and working autonomously and to be a relatively private person. During the feedback session, the practitioner would explore these possibilities. We might also expect to find dissatisfaction around controlling people more than she wants to and being controlled too much by others. Obviously, there is much more information contained in these results than this hypothesis, but space does not permit elaboration here.

Scale (0 - 9) Score Difference

*I include people 1 

2I want to include people 3

People include me 2 

0*I want people to include me 2

*I control people 8 

3I want to control people 5

Firo - B Page 2 of 20

People control me 6 

4*I want people to control me 2

*I am open with people 2 

0I want to be open with people 2

People are open with me 1

 

2*I want people to be open with me 3

Figure 1

Hypothetical Scores on Element B

* A similar scale is measured on FIRO-B

Schutz is emphatic that all FIRO Element scores, including Element B:

Are not terminal—they can and do change. Derive their meaning primarily from the person’s interpretation, not from statistics. Are meant to be starting points for exploration and growth; they are NOT meant to be

definitive. Do not encourage typology Assume you have the capacity to change anything you do not like about your behavior, if

you allow yourself to learn how.

Tip of The Iceberg

A major concern of mine is that people are left thinking that FIRO theory is primarily represented by the FIRO-B instrument and "needs" for inclusion, control and affection behaviors. This approach is inaccurate on the semantic level in that the word "need" is no longer part of the theory. It was replaced with "want." The behavioral aspect of the theory, measured by Element B, is only the tip of the iceberg. Jung said that when he observed someone’s behavior he did not know what their type was because it was impossible to know what component of their psyche was actually causing the behaviors he was observing. FIRO theory says the same about behaviors. The largest and most important parts of the theory are the underlying causes of the behaviors. This is where Element F: Feelings and Element S: Self come in to play. To understand a person’s behavior one must, at a minimum, understand that person’s feelings, self-concept, self-esteem and fears. Just as the four-letter type code does not explain personality, neither do FIRO-B or even Element B explain FIRO theory.

Firo - B Page 3 of 20

Figure 2

Iceberg Analogy

References

Ferrand, P. (2000). A Half-Dozen Accounts of FIRO-B. Bulletin of Psychological Type, 22, 8, 44-46

Pfeiffer, W. & Heslin, R. (1976). Instrumentation in Human Relations Training. Iowa City, IA: University Associates.

Schnell, E. & Hammer, A. (1993). Introduction to FIRO-B in Organizations. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.

Scanlon, S. (1999). The MBTI and Other Personality Theories (Part 4): The FIRO-B. The Type Reporter, 74, July.

Schutz, W. (1958). FIRO: A Three-Dimensional Theory of Interpersonal Behavior. New York, NY: Rinehart.

Schutz, W. (1979). Profound Simplicity. New York, NY: Bantam.

Schutz, W. (1984). The Truth Option. Berkeley, CA: Ten Speed Press.

Schutz, W. (1989). Joy: Twenty Years Later. Berkeley, CA: Ten Speed Press.

Schutz, W. (1992). Beyond FIRO-B—Three New Theory Derived Measures—Element B: Behavior, Element F: Feelings, Element S: Self. Psychological Reports, June, 70, 915-937.

Schutz, W. (1994). The Human Element: Productivity, Self-Esteem and the Bottom Line. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Thompson, H. (1998). Using the FIRO-B and the MBTI. Bulletin of Psychological Type, 21, 4, 18-20.

Thompson, H. & Schutz, W. (2000). FIRO Element B Organizational Interpretive Report. Watkinsville, GA: High Performing Systems, Inc.

Waterman, J. & Rogers, J. (1996). Introduction to the FIRO-B. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.

Firo - B Page 4 of 20

FIRO-B is a trademark and MBTI is a registered trademark of Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.

The Human Element and FIRO Element B, Element F and Element S are trademarks of Will Schutz Associates®

© Copyright 2000 by Henry L. Thompson, Ph.D. All rights reserved.

Reference: http://www.hpsys.com/ebinfo.htm

FIR0 Theory of Needs

of William Schutz

(From the First Edition of A First Look at Communication Theory by Em Griffin, 1991, McGraw-Hill, Inc. This text-only version of the article appears on the World Wide Web site www.afirstlook.com. A facsimile of the original article is also available in PDF format.)

 

Imagine that you’re taking a course in communication research. The instructor has randomly divided the class into research teams to work on a joint project that will constitute your entire grade for the term. You warily eye the other three students in your group and wonder what to expect in the weeks to come. Will you fit in? Who will take the leadership role? Is this going to be strictly business or will you get close to someone?

William Schutz’s FIR0 theory of needs seeks to answer these questions. Presently the president of his own organizational consulting firm, Will Schutz Associates, Schutz was a leader in the encounter group movement of the 1960s which promoted an open and honest sharing of feelings between members. Also known as "sensitivity training" or "humanistic psychology," the movement encouraged members to disregard social convention and express gut-level emotions even if others might be offended or hurt. The antiauthoritarian stance of humanistic psychologists tended to place them outside the educational establishment, but Schutz won respect from more traditional colleagues by developing the fundamental interpersonal relations orientation (FIRO).

FIR0 (rhymes with Cairo) is an elaborate theory of interpersonal needs that claims to account for both the what and the why of an individual’s actions toward others. According to Schutz, all humans possess three needs to a greater or lesser degree. They are the needs for inclusion, control, and affection.

 

Firo - B Page 5 of 20

NEED FOR INCLUSION

Schutz says that the need for inclusion is the inner drive "to establish and maintain a satisfactory relation with people with respect to interaction and association."21 It has to do with being in or out.

Perhaps a classmate assigned to your research group has a strong need to feel included. Irv is anxious about being excluded or ignored, and this fear of being left out causes him to place a premium on face-to-face interaction. Even though Irv’s membership in the group was determined by your instructor, it’s important for Irv to feel a sense of acceptance, belonging, or group togetherness. In terms of self-concept, he needs to feel significant within the group. All of these characteristics match Schutz’s profile of the person with a strong need for inclusion.

Inclusion can work two ways. In addition to being a person who wants inclusion from others, Irv might also have a high need to reach out to people so that they won’t feel lonely or isolated. Schutz calls this the need to "express inclusion." It is an urge to be worthwhile by making others feel important. Schutz views the human desire to give attention and understanding to others as conceptually different from the need to receive recognition.

If 1rv has worked out a comfortable relationship of inclusion in both directions, Schutz would expect him to exhibit normal social behavior in the project group. If he has an inordinate need to give or receive inclusion, he’ll act in a way that’s stereotypically introverted or extroverted. As different as their behaviors may be, the shy recluse and the boisterous life-of-the-party share an unfulfilled need to feel important. They want to be somebody, either by receiving or expressing inclusion.

 

NEED FOR CONTROL

Schutz defines the interpersonal need for control as "the need to establish and maintain a satisfactory relation with people with respect to control and power."22 It has to do with being on top or on the bottom.

Suppose Connie has a high need to direct the activities of your project team. Her behavior may be a subtle attempt to lead and shape the final product or a blatant bid to dominate and dictate the end result. Either way, Connie’s actions spring from a self-concept that places a premium on being responsible and competent. If we think of the research project as a game, Irv’s concern is that he gets to play. Connie wants to make the rules.

Just as wanting and expressing inclusion were separate issues, the need for control can also flow in two directions. It may be hard for the movers and shakers of this world to understand, but Schutz’s FIR0 theory recognizes that some people have a desire to be submissive and dependent, to have their paths laid out by others, Viewed negatively,

Firo - B Page 6 of 20

these people with an inclination to empower others can be seen as wimps. A more charitable judgment is that they are trusting, respectful, obedient, and willing to serve. Whichever way you look at it, it’s unlikely that this description fits Connie. And given her need to direct the group’s activities, she will probably resist giving up her autonomy in other situations as well. A high need both to get and to give power are not usually found in the same person.

 

NEED FOR AFFECTION

The third interpersonal desire of the FIR0 triad is "the need to establish and maintain a satisfactory relation with others with respect to love and affection."23 Whereas the need for inclusion had to do with being in or out, the need for affection has to do with being close or far. A third person in your project group named Al may desire a positive attachment with another member. Schutz would view Al’s quest for friendship as ‘a natural consequence of his need to see himself as lovable. He’ll gauge success by positive feelings rather than by task accomplishment.

It’s possible that Al may be an insatiable sponge who soaks up interpersonal warmth but never returns it. As with inclusion and control, the need to receive affection does not automatically imply an urge to give it to others. Some people crave affection, yet act, in a cool and distant manner. More likely Al’s affiliation needs are matched by parallel urges to reach out and confide in others. In that case he would take great pleasure in making people feel nurtured and loved.

Figure 9-l summarizes FIRO’s postulate of interpersonal needs. The six inner needs are the desires of a well-balanced individual. Perhaps that’s you. Although the grid forms the

Inclusion Control Affection

Wants from others Acceptance Guidance Closeness

Expresses to others Interest Leadership Liking

Figure 9-1. Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation (FIRO)

 

Firo - B Page 7 of 20

core of the theory, Schutz has a more important goal than merely labeling interpersonal tendencies. He wants to explain how these motives came to be. His postulate of relational continuity suggests how Irv, Connie, and Al got the way they are.

 

 

NEED PROFILES LAST A LIFETIME

Schutz claims that once we’ve seen people in action, we will be able to predict their future behavior with reasonable certainty. If you want to know how Irv, Connie, or Al will act in the group, you only need to know what they’ve been like before. Schutz doesn’t shy away from the determinism implicit in this claim. He believes that individual needs develop in response to the way our parents treated us as toddlers and that those needs remain fixed thereafter. He pushes the relational continuity principle back to early childhood as he offers the following analysis.

The inclusion fear that grips the shy introvert comes from being ignored or abandoned as a child. The equally strong anxiety of the overly social gladhander is the result of receiving too much attention. Youngsters who grow up socially normal had parents who were moderately attentive.

A balance of parental control and freedom when children are young breeds democratic responsibility. Excess in either direction causes anxiety. Lack of discipline and direction can produce children who rebel against authority throughout their lives. Domineering or dictatorial parents seem to clone future bullies. As an example, Schutz notes that people convicted of child abuse were often battered children themselves.

Affective disorders (manic-depressive mood swings for example) are equally rooted in early childhood encounters. The unloved child will have difficulty displaying or receiving affection in later life. The youngster who is smothered in love will also feel anxious concerning affection. How much is too much? Schutz doesn’t say. Rather than offer an absolute standard, he merely counts people as fortunate if their parents avoided emotional extremes.

 

FIRO-B SCALE AS A MEASURE OF NEEDS

Schutz created the FIRO-B questionnaire to measure an individual’s orientation toward the six interpersonal needs. The B on the end of the acronym indicates that the purpose of the instrument is to examine behavior. Responding to six sample items will give you a better understanding of the theory and might help you understand yourself at the same time.

Firo - B Page 8 of 20

 

1. Inclusion wanted: I like people to ask me to participate in their discussions.

Most people Many people Some people A few people One or two people Nobody

2. Inclusion expressed: When people are doing things together, I tend to join them.

Usually Often Sometimes Occasionally Rarely Never

3. Control wanted: I let other people control my actions.

Usually Often Sometimes Occasionally Rarely Never

4. Control expressed: I try to have other people do things the way I want them done.

Usually Often Sometimes Occasionally Rarely Never

5. Affection wanted: I like people to be close and personal with me.

Usually Often Sometimes Occasionally Rarely Never

6. Affection expressed: I try to have close relationships with people.

Most people Many people Some people A few people One or two people

Nobody

Checking the "most people" option on the far left of Item 1 sets you apart from two-thirds of the people who have taken the test. That response shows a strong need to be included by others. The cutoff point for the last five statements is two steps from the left. Any response of "often"/ "usually" or "many people"/ "most people" places a person in the strong need category. Is this bad?

Not necessarily. But according to Schutz, it means you may feel some discomfort or worry about fulfilling this need. As we’ve already seen, his postulate of relational continuity suggests that this anxiety is not easily dispelled. You might experience even more anxiety if you took part in Schutz’s experiential group procedures for the rapid diagnosis of FIR0 needs.

 

BIZARRE EXERCISES TO DISCOVER FIR0 NEEDS

In his book Here Comes Everybody, Schutz describes his three favorite techniques for rapid diagnosis of FIR0 needs.24 In the "blind milling" procedure, he places members in

Firo - B Page 9 of 20

a pitch-dark room and encourages them to wander around, randomly bumping into each other. The subsequent discussion about touch, barriers, belonging, and the invasion of space reveals desires for inclusion.

To make the need for control public, Schutz tells participants to form a single file line, with those most dominant at the front and the more submissive at the back. He refers to this second technique as a "dominance line." It calls to mind the blustering swagger of the song "Step to the Rear" which Chevrolet adapted for an ad campaign ten years back: "Will everyone here kindly step to the rear and let a winner lead the way?"

Schutz’s third technique, the "high school dance" exercise, aims at dredging up the deep-seated anxiety that the ritual evokes in most teenagers. He tells participants to pair off with the person they find most attractive. Schutz then seems pleased when the procedure evokes reactions of intimacy, sexuality, jealousy, and rejection. This method of tapping into the need for affection seems like liberating chicks from their shells with gentle taps from a sledgehammer.

 

EFFECTIVENESSS THROUGH MATCHING NEEDS

However the individual needs of your research team are assessed, information about them could help you predict how effective the group effort will be. The FIR0 postulate of compatibility states that compatible groups will work together better than groups composed of people with desires that clash. Schutz defined compatibility in two ways. The first is similarity. If you and Al share a high need to give and receive affection, you’re going to click. But similarity doesn’t have to be at the high end of the scale. You and Irv are compatible if both of you express and desire little affection,

A second kind of compatibility comes from a meshing of reciprocal needs, The link doesn’t have to be the grim kind of match that bonds a sadist with a masochist. We know, for example, that Connie wants to be in charge. If you don’t care to lead, the two of you will probably work well together. You may not like each other, but that’s not the issue. For Schutz, the ultimate test of compatibility has to do with goal accomplishment.

Schutz ran an experiment to test his prediction. He formed twelve groups of five people each that worked weekly on a number of time-intensive tasks. Four compatible groups were made up of men who each wanted to give and get affection. Four more compatible groups were formed of men who had little desire to extend or receive interpersonal warmth. The final four groups were composed of men who had incompatible needs for affection. Some wanted a great deal of affection, others none at all. Half reached out in warmth, half remained cool According to Schutz’s compatibility postulate, the groups with similar needs would do better on the tasks than the groups with discrepant needs. And that is how it worked out.

Firo - B Page 10 of 20

Taking into account all of the tasks, the three worst scores came from incompatible groups. The top five scores were achieved by compatible groups. The "warm fuzzy" compatibles did just as well but no better than the "aloof" compatibles. The determining factor was similarity. Applied to your research project, the results suggest what you’ve always suspected: Your grade may depend as much on the composition of the group as it does on hard work.

 

THE INCLUSION-CONTROL-AFFECTION CYCLE IN GROUPS

Although FIR0 theory focuses on motivation, Schutz also included a principle of group interaction:

For the time period starting with the group’s beginning until three intervals before the group’s termination the predominant area of interaction begins with inclusion, is followed by control, and finally by affection. This cycle may recur?25

You recall that as far as individuals are concerned, the strength of the three needs remains constant throughout life. But for groups, the three needs come to prominence at different points in the group’s life cycle.

The typical sequence is inclusion -> control -> affection. During initial meetings, members try to determine where they fit and how much they’re willing to invest in the group. This is the inclusion phase. As these primary identity issues are resolved, the emphasis switches to questions of control. What are the ground rules? Who will be the leader? How much responsibility will be shared? When this struggle is resolved, the group slides into the affection phase which centers on positive attraction, pairing, jealousy, and hostility.

Schutz believed that this sequence recurs in groups that continue to meet. The pattern in long-term groups could be plotted:

I - C - A - I - C - A - I - C - A....A - C - I

Note that the last three phases reverse the cycle. The need for inclusion becomes foremost in the end because members are aware that they must redefine their own identity when the group no longer exists. Leaders who understand the cyclical pattern can adjust to this shift in need without getting upset. A flexible agenda positions them to respond

favorably to a new emphasis when it emerges.

 

CRITIQUE: DISCOVERING FIXED NEEDS IS NOT VERY HELPFUL

Firo - B Page 11 of 20

It is hard to evaluate FIR0 theory apart from the theorist, to separate the postulates from the person. The encounter group movement was prone to behavioral excess. Yet even far out advocates of experiential learning fear that Schutz’s group games force emotionally fragile people to feel more insecurity than they can handle. If strong, unchangeable needs that developed in childhood cause anxiety for people years later, what is the point in exposing these unfulfilled desires in an embarrassing group setting? Schutz’s practice doesn’t seem to correspond with his original theory.

Schutz’s FIRO-B questionnaire is a more respected technique for assessing social needs. The profile that the test provides can predict interpersonal behavior with some success. For instance, Ada Dhillon and Henry Davis found that social workers who have a high need to include others usually choose to work in centralized offices, whereas those lower on the scale prefer to work solo. The commonsense nature of this finding suggests that Schutz’s FIR0 categories of inclusion, control, and affection reflect the different needs that actually motivate people in life. Although the names may be different, we’ve all known Irv, Connie, and Al.

But having come up with credible categories, Schutz falls into the trap of jamming all human behavior into these three slots. He makes everything fit. This presumptuousness may explain why an elegant theory like FIR0 generated little research in over a quarter of a century.

The lack of subsequent development may also be due to the deterministic nature of Schutz’s need assessment. The FIRO-B test may reliably reflect a person’s motive profile, but how is this information personally helpful if his or her needs are fixed for life? It is a disservice to label someone "overly personal," as Schutz does, yet not to provide tools to help the person reduce affectionate behavior to a more moderate level

Schutz first published his FIR0 theory in 1958, and everything reported in this chapter is based on that original theory, In 1984, his book The Truth Option altered the basic thrust of the theory. He stopped writing about need for affection and began to refer to the dimension of openness. The change in terminology signaled a major shift in thinking: Schutz no longer regards behavior as caused by a pattern of needs that is fixed for life. He now asserts that we freely determine the amount of inclusion, control, and openness we extend to others. ("I.. . chose my whole life and I always have. I choose my behavior, my feelings, my thoughts, my illnesses, my body, my reactions, my spontaneity, my death.")26

Those choices are affected by our self-concept, and they in turn affect how we feel about ourselves, A consciously selected level of inclusion brings about a feeling of significance. A self-determined level of control leads to a feeling of competence. A willing openness with others results in a feeling of lovability. Schutz obviously places a premium on raising the interpersonal underworld to consciousness, where free choice is possible.

What originally began as a theory of motivation is now a philosophy of living. Schutz recommends openness in all relationships not because honesty is morally right, but

Firo - B Page 12 of 20

because it is "the grand simplifier" of life that promotes personal and relational wholeness. ("If I am trying to decide whether I should or should not tell something-I should.")27

Schutz’s original FIR0 is a provocative analysis of why people do what they do in interpersonal and group situations. Yet it offers no practical advice on how they can communicate more effectively or change their patterns of interaction You could have wished for a theory that would help you work together more effectively with Irv, Connie, and Al. The advice Schutz gives in The Truth Option and Profound Simplicity might make your group project a more satisfying experience, but students of human motivation find that Schutz no longer speaks to their concern.

 

A SECOND LOOK

Recommended resource: William Schutz, The Interpersonal Underworld, Science and Behavior Books, Palo Alto, Calif., 1966. First published as FIRO: A Three Dimensional Theory of Interpersonal Behavior, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1958.

FIRO-B test: Will Schutz, FIR0 Awareness Scales Manual, Consulting Psychologists, Palo Alto, Calif., 1978.

FIRO-B test review and evaluation: Oscar K. Buros (ed.), The Seventh Mental Measurements Yearbook, Vol. 1, Gryphon, Highland Park, NJ, 1972, pp. 166-I70.

Social worker study: Ada Dhillon and Henry Davis, "Socialization, Locus of Control, and Dogmatism as Related ‘to Counsellors’ Office Settings," Psychological Reports, vol. 56, 1985, pp. 328-330.

Group discovery techniques: William Schutz, Joy, Grove Press, New York, 1967.

Subsequent developments in sensitivity training: William Schutz, Joy: Twenty Years Later, Ten Speed Press, Berkeley, Calif., 1989.

Encounter groups on the fringe: William Schutz, Here Comes Everybody, Harper & Row, New York, 1971.

Theory revision: Will Schutz, The Truth Option, Ten Speed Press, Berkeley, Calif.,

Theory update: Will Schutz, Profound Simplicity, 3rd ed., WSA, Muir Beach, Calif., 1988.

 

NOTES:

Firo - B Page 13 of 20

21 William Schutz, The Interpersonal Underworld, Science & Behavior Books, Palo Alto, Calif., 1966, p. 18.

22 Ibid., p. 18.

23 Ibid., p. 20.

24 William Schutz, Here Comes Everybody, Harper & Row, New York, 1971, pp. 129-130.

25 Schutz, The Interpersonal Underworld, p. 168.

26 Will Schutz, Profound Simplicity, 3d ed., WSA, Muir Beach, Calii, 1988, p. 37.

27 Will Schutz, The Truth Option, Ten Speed Press, Berkeley, Calif., 1984, p. 15.

Since you got here from a search engine, external link, or by typing the URL in your browser,

please go to the First Look Home Page to properly view the rest of the site.

Team Roles: Individual & Group Effectiveness - FIRO Team Roles and Belbin Team-Roles ContrastedOrganizations are made up of teams - individuals grouped together to achieve a common goal. Teams may be formal or informal, large or small. Team roles assumed by individuals affect how things get done and the extent to which social needs are met in groups.

By Peter Gerstmann, Principal Psychologist, PGA Group Occupational Psychologists

In this team roles article:

Team roles - introduction FIRO Team Roles Belbin's Management Teams Team-Roles Which of the two approaches, FIRO or Belbin, is best?

Firo - B Page 14 of 20

References Further reading on team roles

Team roles - introduction

The personalities of team members influence their team's effectiveness. Individuals will tend to play a role within the team, dependent upon aspects of their personality. An understanding of the roles team members assume can lead to a greater understanding of team effectiveness and team development.

Several rigorous approaches have been made to the understanding of the relationship between team effectiveness and the roles team members play. One approach has been through the work of William Schutz. Another is the work of R Meredith Belbin.

While significant differences exist between the approaches of Schutz and Belbin, both are solid in foundation.

FIRO Team Roles

Schutz, a highly respected psychologist of note and one of the founders of the Human Potential Movement, developed a theory of interpersonal behaviour and need. His theory incorporates ideas from the work of the eminent psychologists T W Adorno, Erich Fromm, and Wilfred Bion.

Schutz developed a short, yet powerful psychological instrument, the FIRO-B (Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation-Behaviour), based on his theory, to help understand interpersonal behaviour. The reliability and validity of the FIRO-B has been clearly demonstrated (see Gluck, below).

FIRO-B has been found useful in career, management and leadership development, and team building. It has also been used in research, including educational administration, work-group compatibility, and interpersonal dynamics in groups. FIRO-B has been used extensively to predict how military personnel would work together in groups under battle conditions.

According to FIRO theory, people play roles in teams depending on their interpersonal needs and the needs of other team members.

An individual's FIRO-B scores can predict which team roles they are likely to play. These team roles, as outlined by Eugene Schnell and Allen Hammer, are shown in the table below. Everyone will play at least one, and often more than one team role, depending on their FIRO-B profile and the interpersonal needs of the other team members.

FIRO Team Role Description

Firo - B Page 15 of 20

Clarifier Presents issues or solutions for clarification, summarizes discussion, introduces new members to the team, keeps team members up to date, provides group with facts and data.

Tension-Reducer Helps move the team along by joking or clowning at appropriate moments, redirects group at tense moments, builds on common interests in the group.

Individualist Is not an active team player, sees meetings as unnecessary or distracting, may work on other tasks or hold side conversations during meetings, may not follow through or cooperate with group decision.

Director Pushes for action and decision-making, may interrupt others or monopolize the 'air-time' in meetings, may be unrealistically optimistic about what can be accomplished.

Questioner Seeks orientation and clarification, is a constructive critic of the team and its members, may use questions to postpone closure or decisions.

Rebel Struggles to establish a position within the group, may criticize others, challenges the status quo, may refuse to comply with group decisions, provides alternative ideas but may have difficulty with follow-through.

Encourager Builds the ego or status of others, is friendly, responsive, warm, diplomatic, may sacrifice the truth to maintain good relationships.

Listener Maintains participative attitude and interest nonverbally, is involved in group goals, shows interest by receptive facial and bodily expressions.

Cautioner Expresses concern about direction of the group, relays doubts about the success of initiatives planned, shows reluctance to get swept up in group energy, provides careful analysis of potential problems, may play devil's advocate.

Initiator Suggests procedures or problems as discussion topics, proposes alternative solutions, is the 'idea person', actively encourages others to share in discussions.

Energizer Urges team toward decision-making, insists on covering the agenda, prods the team to action.

Opinion-Giver States a belief or opinion on all problems and issues, offers predictions based on past experiences, works independently from the group, does not try to become part of the leader's inner circle.

Harmonizer Agrees with the group, reconciles opposing positions, understands, complies, and accepts.

Consensus-Tester Checks for agreement, brings closure to discussions, confronts unacknowledged feelings in the group, wants to build a close-knit, powerful team.

Task-Master Tries to keep group focussed on its central purpose and required outcomes, ignores social chitchat, believes that the team members do not have to like each other to do the job, reminds the group that this is business, not a family.

Belbin's Management Teams Team-Roles

Firo - B Page 16 of 20

Belbin's research into teams - based on experiments at the Management College, Henley, UK, and on case studies in industry - focussed on the relationship between personality, ability and the effectiveness of management teams.

Belbin defines a team role as "a tendency to behave, contribute and interrelate with others in a particular way". 'Team-Role' (note the hyphen between 'team' and 'role') "describes a pattern of behaviour characteristic of the way in which one team member interacts with another team member, where their performance facilitates the progress of the team as a whole".

In Management Teams: Why They Succeed or Fail, Belbin asserts that only eight useful team-role types could be identified. Later, however, a ninth team-role, Specialist, has been added to his taxonomy (Team-Roles). Several team-role labels have been changed. These team-role types (and former team-role labels in square brackets) are shown in the table below.

Each of these team-roles is associated with characteristic types of personality as measured by two personality tests, Cattell's 16PF (16 Personality Factor personality inventory), and the PPQ (Personal Preference Questionnaire). Belbin published a Self-Perception Inventory (SPI) which gives an individual a way of assessing their team-roles. While the original SPI had a number of problems, it has since been refined.

The 'Primary Team-Role' is the team-role to which the individual has the greatest affinity. The 'Back-up Team-Role' is the team-role to which an individual has some natural affinity other than their Primary Team-Role. It is possible that an individual's personality profile suggests no best team-role.

Belbin team-roles can be clustered according to their orientation:

Action-oriented roles - Shaper, Implementer, and Completer Finisher People-oriented roles - Co-ordinator, Teamworker, and Resource Investigator Cerebral roles - Plant, Monitor Evaluator, and Specialist

Belbin Team-Role Description

Co-ordinator[Chairman]

Specifies controlling the way in which the team moves towards the group objectives by making the best use of team resources, recognizing where the team's strengths and weaknesses lie, and ensuring that the best use is made of each team member's potential.

Shaper[Shaper]

Specifies shaping the way in which team effort is applied, directing attention generally to the setting of objectives and priorities, and seeking to impose some shape or pattern on group discussion and on the outcome of group activities.

Plant[Plant]

Specifies advancing new ideas and strategies with special attention to major issues, and looking for possible breaks in approach to the problems which confront the team.

Firo - B Page 17 of 20

Implementer[Company Worker]

Specifies turning concepts and plans into practical working procedures, and carrying out agreed plans systematically and efficiently.

Teamworker[Team Worker]

Specifies supporting members in their strengths (e.g. building on suggestions), underpinning members in their shortcomings, improving communications between members and fostering team spirit generally.

Monitor Evaluator[Monitor-Evaluator]

Specifies analysing problems, and evaluating ideas and suggestions so that the team is better placed to take balanced decisions.

Resource Investigator[Resource Investigator]

Specifies exploring and reporting on ideas, developments and resources outside the group, creating external contacts that may be useful to the team and conducting any subsequent negotiations.

Completer Finisher[Completer-Finisher]

Specifies ensuring that the team is protected as far as possible from mistakes of both commission and omission, actively searching for aspects of work which need a more than usual degree of attention, and maintaining a sense of urgency within the team.

Specialist New team-role added to the original taxonomy. The Specialist provides knowledge and skills in rare supply. Single-minded, self-starting, dedicated. Contributes only on a narrow front. Dwells on technicalities.

Which of the two approaches, FIRO or Belbin, is best?

Both approaches are based on sound research. The value of team-role theory is that it enables individuals or teams to benefit from self-knowledge and the power to adjust to demands placed upon them.

While Belbin's work is more applicable to the design and development of management teams, Schutz emphasizes the understanding and satisfaction of interpersonal needs by, and between individuals.

FIRO theory is about the development of the individual and, by extension, teams and organizations. All teams and groups, not just management teams, can benefit through the application of FIRO theory.

Of course, Schutz's theory and the FIRO-B instrument can be used to design teams and screen individuals for team membership, as well as being used for individual and team development.

Personally, I find Belbin's work a little too academic and unwieldy at times. FIRO theory, on the other hand, is profound in its simplicity. Ordinary individuals can understand FIRO and benefit easily from it. It is useful at all levels in the organization.

There are also important differences between the two in terms of cost. Belbin's team-roles can be identified using a relatively expensive self-report questionnaire, or through the use of a lengthy personality inventory (16PF). Self-report questionnaires are susceptible to faking and distortion by respondents. The FIRO-B on the other hand is a remarkably

Firo - B Page 18 of 20

compact, yet powerful instrument which can yield a wealth of useful, useable information at very low cost.

So, the answer to the question 'which is best?', depends on your needs. At PGA Group Occupational Psychologists, we use extensively the FIRO-B in psychological assessment for a number of purposes. Team role information is gained in addition to the other useful information derived from the FIRO-B - at no additional cost to our clients.

References

Belbin, R Meredith (1981), Management Teams: Why They Succeed or Fail, Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Buy Management Teams: Why They Succeed or Fail from Amazon.com Buy Management Teams: Why They Succeed or Fail from Amazon.co.uk

Belbin, R Meredith (1996), Team Roles at Work, Oxford, Butterworth-Heinemann.

Buy Team Roles at Work from Amazon.com Buy Team Roles at Work from Amazon.co.uk

Gluck, G A (1983), Psychometric Properties of the FIRO-B: A Guide to Research, Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Schnell, Eugene R, and Hammer, Allen (1993), Introduction to the FIRO-B in Organizations, Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Schutz, W (1958), FIRO: A Three Dimensional Theory of Interpersonal Behaviour, New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Further reading on Team Roles:

Books on Team Roles at Amazon.com

Books on Team Roles at Amazon.co.uk

Please contact us for further information, or to discuss your needs, in full confidence and without obligation.

Find out more about PGA Group Occupational Psychologists and what we do.

PGA Group Occupational Psychologists Home Page

Firo - B Page 19 of 20

This page - www.pgagroup.com/team-roles.cfm - served Fri, 9 Apr 2004Privacy · Terms & Conditions · Copyright © 1987–2004 PGA Group Occupational Psychologists, all rights reservedPGA Group Occupational Psychologists, Slough, United KingdomWeb: www.pgagroup.com · E-Mail: pga @ pgagroup.com · Tel: +44 1753 535035 · Contact/Locate Us

Firo - B Page 20 of 20