14974608 FIRO Element B

FIRO Element Btrade An Overview

Henry L Thompson PhD hpsysaolcom wwwhpsyscom

copy Copyright 2000 by Henry L Thompson PhD 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-Btrade 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 Jungrsquos 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 Schutzrsquo 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-Btrade 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 19

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

I want to include people 3

2

People include me 2

I want people to include me 2

0

I control people 8

I want to control people 5

3

People control me 6

I want people to control me 2

4

I am open with people 2

I want to be open with people 2

0


People are open with me 1

I want people to be open with me 3

2

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

bull Are not terminalmdashthey can and do change bull Derive their meaning primarily from the personrsquos interpretation not from statistics bull Are meant to be starting points for exploration and growth they are NOT meant to be

definitive bull Do not encourage typology bull 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 someonersquos 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 personrsquos behavior one must at a minimum understand that personrsquos 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

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 amp Heslin R (1976) Instrumentation in Human Relations Training Iowa City IA University Associates

Schnell E amp 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-BmdashThree New Theory Derived MeasuresmdashElement 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 amp Schutz W (2000) FIRO Element B Organizational Interpretive Report Watkinsville GA High Performing Systems Inc

Waterman J amp Rogers J (1996) Introduction to the FIRO-B Palo Alto CA Consulting Psychologists Press Inc

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 Associatesreg


Reference httpwwwhpsyscomebinfohtm


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 wwwafirstlookcom A facsimile of the original article is also available in PDF format)

Imagine that yoursquore 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 Schutzrsquos 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 individualrsquos 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

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 association21 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 Irvrsquos membership in the group was determined by your instructor itrsquos 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 Schutzrsquos 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 wonrsquot 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 hersquoll act in a way thatrsquos 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 power22 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 Conniersquos 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 Irvrsquos 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 Schutzrsquos FIR0 theory recognizes that some people have a desire to be submissive and dependent to have their paths laid out by others Viewed negatively 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 itrsquos unlikely that this description fits Connie And given her need to direct the grouprsquos 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 affection23 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 Alrsquos quest for friendship as lsquoa natural consequence of his need to see himself as lovable Hersquoll gauge success by positive feelings rather than by task accomplishment

Itrsquos 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 Alrsquos 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 FIROrsquos postulate of interpersonal needs The six inner needs are the desires of a well-balanced individual Perhaps thatrsquos 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)

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 wersquove 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 theyrsquove been like before Schutz doesnrsquot 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 doesnrsquot 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 individualrsquos 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

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


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


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



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 wersquove 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 Schutzrsquos 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 needs24 In the blind milling procedure he places members in 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

Schutzrsquos 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 yoursquore going to click But similarity doesnrsquot 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 doesnrsquot 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 donrsquot care to lead the two of you will probably work well together You may not like each other but thatrsquos 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 Schutzrsquos 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

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 yoursquove 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 grouprsquos beginning until three intervals before the grouprsquos termination the predominant area of interaction begins with inclusion is followed by control and finally by affection This cycle may recur25

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 grouprsquos life cycle


The typical sequence is inclusion -gt control -gt affection During initial meetings members try to determine where they fit and how much theyrsquore 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 - AA - 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

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 Schutzrsquos 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 Schutzrsquos practice doesnrsquot seem to correspond with his original theory

Schutzrsquos 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 Schutzrsquos FIR0 categories of inclusion control and affection reflect the different needs that actually motivate people in life Although the names may be different wersquove 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 Schutzrsquos need assessment The FIRO-B test may reliably reflect a personrsquos 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 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

Schutzrsquos 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 lsquoto Counsellorsrsquo 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 amp 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

21 William Schutz The Interpersonal Underworld Science amp Behavior Books Palo Alto Calif 1966 p 18

22 Ibid p 18

23 Ibid p 20

24 William Schutz Here Comes Everybody Harper amp 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 amp 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

bull Team roles - introduction bull FIRO Team Roles bull Belbins Management Teams Team-Roles bull Which of the two approaches FIRO or Belbin is best bull References bull Further reading on team roles

Team roles - introduction

The personalities of team members influence their teams 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 individuals 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

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 devils 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 leaders 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

Belbins Management Teams Team-Roles

Belbins 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 Cattells 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 individuals personality profile suggests no best team-role

Belbin team-roles can be clustered according to their orientation

bull Action-oriented roles - Shaper Implementer and Completer Finisher bull People-oriented roles - Co-ordinator Teamworker and Resource Investigator bull 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 teams strengths and weaknesses lie and ensuring that the best use is made of each team members 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

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 (eg 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 Belbins 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 Schutzs 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 Belbins 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 Belbins 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 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

bull Buy Management Teams Why They Succeed or Fail from Amazoncom bull Buy Management Teams Why They Succeed or Fail from Amazoncouk

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

bull Buy Team Roles at Work from Amazoncom bull Buy Team Roles at Work from Amazoncouk


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 amp Winston

Further reading on Team Roles

Books on Team Roles at Amazoncom

Books on Team Roles at Amazoncouk

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

This page - wwwpgagroupcomteam-rolescfm - served Fri 9 Apr 2004Privacy middot Terms amp Conditions middot Copyright copy 1987ndash2004 PGA Group Occupational Psychologists all rights reservedPGA Group Occupational Psychologists Slough United KingdomWeb wwwpgagroupcom middot E-Mail pga pgagroupcom middot Tel +44 1753 535035 middot ContactLocate Us


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

I want to include people 3

2

People include me 2

I want people to include me 2

0

I control people 8

I want to control people 5

3

People control me 6

I want people to control me 2

4

I am open with people 2

I want to be open with people 2

0




2

Figure 1







Tip of The Iceberg


Figure 2

Iceberg Analogy

References





















of William Schutz





NEED FOR INCLUSION






NEED FOR CONTROL




NEED FOR AFFECTION

































Nobody




















I - C - A - I - C - A - I - C - AA - C - I














A SECOND LOOK











NOTES


22 Ibid p 18

23 Ibid p 20
















FIRO Team Roles





































Shaper[Shaper]


Plant[Plant]






















References



















2

Figure 1







Tip of The Iceberg


Figure 2

Iceberg Analogy

References





















of William Schutz





NEED FOR INCLUSION






NEED FOR CONTROL




NEED FOR AFFECTION

































Nobody




















I - C - A - I - C - A - I - C - AA - C - I














A SECOND LOOK











NOTES


22 Ibid p 18

23 Ibid p 20
















FIRO Team Roles





































Shaper[Shaper]


Plant[Plant]






















References




































of William Schutz





NEED FOR INCLUSION






NEED FOR CONTROL




NEED FOR AFFECTION

































Nobody




















I - C - A - I - C - A - I - C - AA - C - I














A SECOND LOOK











NOTES


22 Ibid p 18

23 Ibid p 20
















FIRO Team Roles





































Shaper[Shaper]


Plant[Plant]






















References


















of William Schutz





NEED FOR INCLUSION






NEED FOR CONTROL




NEED FOR AFFECTION

































Nobody




















I - C - A - I - C - A - I - C - AA - C - I














A SECOND LOOK











NOTES


22 Ibid p 18

23 Ibid p 20
















FIRO Team Roles





































Shaper[Shaper]


Plant[Plant]






















References



















NEED FOR CONTROL




NEED FOR AFFECTION

































Nobody




















I - C - A - I - C - A - I - C - AA - C - I














A SECOND LOOK











NOTES


22 Ibid p 18

23 Ibid p 20
















FIRO Team Roles





































Shaper[Shaper]


Plant[Plant]






















References















































Nobody




















I - C - A - I - C - A - I - C - AA - C - I














A SECOND LOOK











NOTES


22 Ibid p 18

23 Ibid p 20
















FIRO Team Roles





































Shaper[Shaper]


Plant[Plant]






















References



































Nobody




















I - C - A - I - C - A - I - C - AA - C - I














A SECOND LOOK











NOTES


22 Ibid p 18

23 Ibid p 20
















FIRO Team Roles





































Shaper[Shaper]


Plant[Plant]






















References




















Nobody




















I - C - A - I - C - A - I - C - AA - C - I














A SECOND LOOK











NOTES


22 Ibid p 18

23 Ibid p 20
















FIRO Team Roles





































Shaper[Shaper]


Plant[Plant]






















References




























I - C - A - I - C - A - I - C - AA - C - I














A SECOND LOOK











NOTES


22 Ibid p 18

23 Ibid p 20
















FIRO Team Roles





































Shaper[Shaper]


Plant[Plant]






















References



















I - C - A - I - C - A - I - C - AA - C - I














A SECOND LOOK











NOTES


22 Ibid p 18

23 Ibid p 20
















FIRO Team Roles





































Shaper[Shaper]


Plant[Plant]






















References






















A SECOND LOOK











NOTES


22 Ibid p 18

23 Ibid p 20
















FIRO Team Roles





































Shaper[Shaper]


Plant[Plant]






















References
























NOTES


22 Ibid p 18

23 Ibid p 20
















FIRO Team Roles





































Shaper[Shaper]


Plant[Plant]






















References

























FIRO Team Roles





































Shaper[Shaper]


Plant[Plant]






















References




















































Shaper[Shaper]


Plant[Plant]






















References





































Shaper[Shaper]


Plant[Plant]






















References























Shaper[Shaper]


Plant[Plant]






















References
























References




























Documents

14974608 FIRO Element B