Assessing the interpersonal needs of an individual using the psychological test of

fundamental interpersonal relations orientation behaviour (FIRO-B)

Eugene R Schenelle and Allen L Hammer.

Department of Psychology, Shyama Prasad Mukherjee

University of Delhi

Ananya Gulati

October 27, 2023

 Understanding the Application of Fundamental Interpersonal Relations

Orientation Behaviour

Aim: Assessing the interpersonal needs of an individual using the psychological test

of fundamental interpersonal relations orientation behaviour (FIRO-B) by – Eugene R

Schenelle and Allen L Hammer.

A definition of personality with an objective of social learning and having relevance

to the study of organisational behaviour could be accepted. It is based on the key idea that

personality represents the personal characteristics which leads to consistent pattern of

behaviour. A well-known personality theorist, Salvatore Maddi, had proposed the following

definition of personality:

“Personality is a stable set of characteristics and determine those commonalities and

differences in the physiological behaviour (thoughts, feelings and actions) of people

that have continuity in time and that may not be easily understood as the sole result of

the social and biological pressures of the moment”.

Interpersonal behaviour is the interaction between two or more persons. It is

imperative to building and maintaining any type of relationship in our social world. However,

when looking at interpersonal behaviour in the workplace, things become a little more

complicated. People spend a large portion of their time in an organisation interacting with

others. These interactions provide the connective tissues that help to hold the subparts of the

organisation together. Thus, there may be either cooperative interpersonal behaviour or

conflicting interpersonal behaviour. Reasons for such behaviour can be attributed to different

dimensions of organisational behaviour viz., personality, perception, learning, attitudes,

values, emotional intelligence, and motivation, shape and individual’s behaviour.

 Transactional analysis is the study of individual in the organisation when he/she is

interacting with individuals on social front or professional front. In other words, TA refers to

a method of analysing and understanding interpersonal behaviour. When people interact,

there is a social interaction in which one person responds to another. The study of these

transaction between people is called Transactional Analysis. TA was originally developed by

Erie Berne for psychotherapy in 1950. Transactional analysis offers a mode of expression of

personality and dynamics of self and its relationship with others. It is a method of analyzing

and understanding interpersonal behaviour. Transactional analysis involves the following

factors:

Interpersonal Relationships Behaviour

Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation- Behaviour (FIRO-B) is the second

iteration of a psychometric instrument (FIRO) created by William Schutz in 1958. The short

but powerful test measures behaviour that drives from interpersonal needs and shapes how

one behaves with other people, and how they expect others to act towards them. It is one of

the most widely used self-report tool in areas of personal development, individual and couple

counselling, management development, career and team development. This personality test

helps people understand: -

• the difference between how they see themselves and how others see them

• why conflict develops between well-meaning people and identify

• potential sources of conflict between two cultures.

• their own needs and how to manage them as they interact with other

• how to work more effectively with others, increase productivity of teams and identify

the contributions of individual team members

• design leadership developmental programs

 The FIRO-B is a way to identify one's set of interpersonal needs that is most comfortable

for them. Can be used to show current patterns of interpersonal behaviour and expectations,

raise questions about how satisfied or dissatisfied one is with these patterns and suggest

alternative ways to increase one's effectiveness if they aren't satisfied with their current

patterns. When used properly the test provides individuals and teams with increased insight

into and appreciation of interpersonal effectiveness and satisfaction in working with

or relating to others. The FIRO-B can also be used in a wide range of research settings as an

independent variable, to measure individual differences and an outcome variable to study the

effects of treatment or training interventions.

Background

The instrument was created in the late 1950s by William Schutz, PhD. A pioneer of

the human potential movement, Schutz developed the FIRO-B theory to aid in the

understanding and predicting of how high-performance military teams would work together.

In 1952, as the head of the Team Performance Section of the Navy Research Laboratory in

Washington, D.C., William Schutz sought to improve the performance of the shipboard

Combat Information Centre (CIC). The resulting research from the above assignment and a

research contract at Tufts and Harvard University resulted in a Three-dimensional Theory of

Interpersonal Behaviour (1958). William Schutz developed the FIRO-B test based on the

theory that goes beyond our need to survive and talk about unique interpersonal needs which

strongly motivate us and we tend to become uncomfortable and anxious if these needs are not

met. In addition to his own observations of group behaviour, Schutz was influenced by the

psychological literature, including the works of Freud, Adorno, Fromm, Adler, and Jung,

among others. He posited that interpersonal needs could be grouped into three categories:

Inclusion, Control, and categories of interpersonal need along two dimensions: expressed and

wanted.
Interpersonal Needs

The term interpersonal was used by Schutz to describe any interaction real and or

imagined occurring between people. For e.g. an individual communicating with others (in

person or not) is an interaction because it anticipates a reaction from others. This behaviour

also expresses an interpersonal need, and Schutz used the term "need" because it was

congruent to the understanding of biological needs i.e. a physical or Psychological condition

which requires to be met in order to avoid discomfort or anxiety thus motivating people to

satisfy them.

Inclusion:

Refers to the need to maintain satisfactory interactions and associations with other

people. It describes the degree to which one wishes to establish contact and participate in

shared activities with others. Inclusion behaviours represent an attempt to establish areas of

mutual interest and common ground based on the recognition that everybody is a unique

individual. The need manifests itself through the attempts of including others in one's

activities and the want for being included in their activities. In groups, it describes an

individual's need to belong and a desire to be noticed. Suggesting that the extent of

prominence a person seeks is also a component of Inclusion.

Control:

It reflects the degree to which one wishes to influence or direct other's behaviour, thus

illustrating an individual's behaviour with respect to responsibility, power, influence and

decision making. The interpersonal need for control is also reflected in the degree of comfort

one experiences in assuming the role of a leader or as a follower, thus also is concerned with

how much responsibility a person wants or is willing to accept. The need for control also

describes the extent to which a person wants to be perceived as competent, decisive, and in
charge. So, it's also related the degree to which people are willing to seek dominance in a

group or interpersonal settings often by wanting to plan the team activities and common

agendas.

Affection:

It describes a person's behaviour in forming close, personal relationships with others,

however unlike the need to be included, it only applies to one-to-one interaction. And

determines the degree of openness, warmth and personal connection one seeks to establish

with others. It also describes the extent to which people need to be liked and appreciated, and

in some contexts, it can reflect the desire to love or be loved. Further, another aspect of this

need is the amount of personal disclosure one wants and is comfortable with, either from

oneself or from others.

Table 1. Characteristics associated with the three interpersonal needs:

INCLUSION CONTROL AFFECTION

Association Power Being personal

Interaction Authority Closeness

Distinction Influence Openness

Prominence Responsibility Supportiveness

Attention Leadership Being affirmed

Participation Consistency Warmth

Involvement Distinctiveness Empathy

Contact Dominance Encouragement

Belonging Competitiveness Appreciativeness

Expressed and Wanted needs

The FIRO-B describes how much each of the three interpersonal needs are expressed

or wanted. The expressed dimensions of a need describe the degree to which a person

behaves towards others, in a way that is initiated by their need. It indicates how much one

prefers to initiate the behaviour (I.e., what is easily observable to others). On the other hand,

the wanted dimensions of a need describe the extent to which a person prefers to receive

those behaviours from others: the degree to which one wants others to behave that way

toward oneself and what a person openly wants from others. Expressed and Wanted

behaviours operate differently between individuals. How individuals respond to Expressed

behaviours from others depend on how much they want that type of behaviours.

Table 2. Expressed and wanted needs of the three dimensions

DIMENSION/NEED INCLUSION CONTROL AFFECTION

EXPRESSED Inviting others to Assuming Reassuring and

join Positions of Supporting others

In your activity. Authority

Managing Showing concern about

Involving others Conversation other’s life

in Trying to Sharing your personal

Projects and Influence Opinions and

meetings. Other’s Feelings with

Opinions. others

Involving

everyone’s Establishing

Policies and
 Ideas and Procedures.

suggestion

Taking personal

interest

In others.

WANTED Getting involved Deferring to the Being flexible and

In high profile Wishes, needs, Accommodating

Activities and and

projects. Request of others. Listening carefully

To others

Doing things to Raising issues for

get Others to consider Trying to please

Noticed. Or decide. Others

Involving others

Going along with in Making yourself

Majority opinion Decision. Available to others.

Wearing

distinctive

Clothing.

The FIRO-B model describes the interaction of the three interpersonal needs with the

expressed and wanted dimensions of those needs. The model is represented in the form of a

3X2 grid, where individuals can have a combination of high, medium and low needs in the

six categories defined by the model.

 Compatibility theory

In FIRO-B terms, compatibility generally deals with the extent to which people's

needs are satisfied in a relationship. As stated by compatibility is the dominant factor in

explaining the productivity of groups and once compatibility is established between two

people it easy to identify it in group settings. Further, Schutz discusses three kinds of

compatibility:

Originator compatibility: measures how much two people will come into conflict

about who initiates and receives behaviours. For e.g. two people having high needs for

expressed control and low needs for wanted control will both want to originate the behaviours

associated, with the control needs, and neither will want to receive those behaviours. Thus,

both persons will want to set the agenda, take responsibility, and direct and structure the

actions of others, similarly neither will feel comfortable taking direction. Therefore, having

such people in a group could lead to competition or even conflict.

Reciprocal Compatibility: Measures how well each person can get what he or she

wants and can act in ways to meet his or her needs in a relationship. For e.g. if a person has

high need for expressed control and a low need for wanted control and a second person has

the opposite pattern, there is a degree of reciprocal compatibility because the individuals will

have their control needs met in the relationship. One will take charge; the other will be happy

to let him or her assume responsibility.

Interchange Compatibility: Measure how much individuals share the same need

strengths. For e.g. two people with high needs for expressed and wanted affection will be
compatible because both will see affection behaviours as the basis of the relationship, and

they will engage each other around affection needs.

Group development: This is an extension of FIRO-B theory. In 1966 Schutz

explained that all groups must deal with the issues of Inclusion, Control and Affection, in that

order; to resolve issues and maintain functionality of the group. However, these issues do not

necessarily represent distinct phases, as they are always present to some degree. These issues

can be understood throughout the process of group formation. As group is forming, the first

task at hand is to determine who is to be a member ("in" or "out") and how to recognise

members and membership (Inclusion). The group then turns to the issues of decision making,

responsibility and the distribution of power and influence (Control). Once these issues are

resolved, Affection becomes an issue, as the group members must then decide how close or

personal, they want to be with one another.

Application of FIRO-B

Team building and Culture: to accelerate the team formation process and allow

members to overcome barriers and progress to higher levels of performance. It is also used to

ensure that employees get the most out of working relationships by helping them understand

how to meet the interpersonal needs of customers and stakeholders. It's can also be used

to Identify existing communication and interpersonal dynamics that affect team's success.

Leadership development and coaching: FIRO-B Supports effective leadership

development, one-on-one coaching, communication and team effectiveness and performance.

It is used to identify leadership styles and help leaders unlock greater team performance by

meeting the interpersonal needs of managers, peers, and direct reports. It also assists them to

increase employees' self-awareness for better understanding of how their positive behavioural
changes boost morale, productivity, and engagement; improve skills for assessing different

types of conflict and applying emotionally intelligent strategy.

Relationship building: Since teams need to operate on trust and a solid foundation of

good working relationships to achieve high performance; FIRO-B instrument is useful in

ensuring that employees get the most out of working relationships by helping them

understand how to meet the interpersonal needs of customers and stakeholders. The tool can

also help repair broken relationships and takes good, functional relationships to a higher

level. It is the key that unlocks the potential in workplace interactions.

Counselling: FIRO-B can be used to create opportunities to effect behavioural

change quickly by providing specific insights into people's interpersonal needs and work as

stand-alone tools or can be combined with other tools, to provide a comprehensive view of

personality, interpersonal needs and behaviour. It also has application in the setting of couple

counselling, where it is viewed as a cooperative counsellor-client procedure

that aids both counsellor and client in conceptualizing interpersonal compatibility, specifying

counselling goals, assessing behaviour change, and facilitating an action-oriented counselling

process.

Related studies

Peter Dominick conducted research on leadership and organizational behaviour. He

explored how an individual's interpersonal needs, as measured by the FIRO-B, influence

leadership styles and group dynamics within organizations. His work highlighted the

importance of understanding and addressing interpersonal needs

Blake and Mouton were well-known for their managerial grid model, which assessed

leadership styles based on task and people orientations. They incorporated the FIRO-B into

their studies to better understand how an individual's interpersonal needs align with their
leadership style. Their research emphasized the significance of balancing task and people

concerns in leadership.

Ray Birdwhistell, an anthropologist, explored nonverbal communication and

nonverbal behaviour in human interactions. He used the FIRO-B as a tool to examine how

interpersonal needs and behaviour are expressed through nonverbal cues and gestures,

shedding light on the nonverbal dimensions of communication.

David and Roger Johnson are known for their research in cooperative learning and

group dynamics in educational settings. They integrated the FIRO-B into their studies to

investigate how students' interpersonal needs influence their collaborative efforts in learning

environments. Their research underscored the importance of addressing these needs to

promote effective cooperation among students.

Barry Simon's research focused on conflict resolution and effective communication

within organizational and team contexts. He used the FIRO-B to understand how individuals'

interpersonal needs and behaviours impact their ability to resolve conflicts and communicate

effectively with others. His work emphasized the role of self-awareness and interpersonal

understanding in conflict management.

M. David Merrill applied the FIRO-B in the field of instructional design and

educational technology. He conducted research to assess how understanding interpersonal

needs, as measured by the FIRO-B, can inform the development of instructional materials

and the facilitation of effective communication in educational and training settings.

Method

Respondent’s Demographics

Age: 20
Sex: Female

Education: Pursuing Graduation

Occupation: Student

Description of the test

FIRO-B created by William Schutz in 1958 is a short, self-report measure of

behaviour that draws from interpersonal needs and shapes how one behaves with other

people, and how they expect others to act towards them. The FIRO-B scale outlines each of

the six patterns that represent combinations of three need areas of Inclusion, Control and

Affection. Along with two behavioural dimensions of Expressed and Wanted. The items of

the scale are ordered and scoring cut-offs are established using the Guttman scaling

technique.

Development

The six scales of FIRO-B instrument were constructed using a measurement

technique known as Guttman scaling (1974). When items are written to be consistent

with Guttman scaling procedures, the items reflect increasing intensity or difficulty of

acceptance. Because the technique was originally developed for use in the measurement of

attitudes. Considering, the example from the expressed and affection scale of the FIRO-

B instrument. The content in the first few items in the series, appear repetitive. However,

some of the content is repeated on the scale so that the person has the opportunity to indicate

both the frequency and the sensitivity with which they behave regarding that need.

Also, in a perfect Guttman Scale, a person who agrees with any "higher-level" or

more intense statement will also agree with all the "lower- level" or milder statements that are

ordered below it. Converse, also being true that once a respondent stops agreeing they will no
longer agree with any item higher in the hierarchy. Thus, in a FIRO-B context this technique

attempts to order items and construct scoring in a way as to find the threshold at which a

person will reject an item. This technique of creating scales also supplements the reliability

and reproducibility of a traditional psychometric test.

Reliability: refers to consistency of a set of scores in a particular population. An

instrument is said to be reliable if it constantly yields the same relative results for a group of

people. The re-productability of all scales is very high and consistent. The table 3 also shows

the internal consistency reliability of the FIRO-B scales based on co-efficient alpha. Evidence

for the extent to which FIRO-B scales represent separate and distinct psychological

constructs is found in the correlations among the scales. The person product moment

correlation coefficients among FIRO-B scales in two populations, national sample and the

standardized sample used by Schutz in developing the instrument. Although the pattern of

correlation is about the same in both, the range is greater in the national sample.

The Expressed and Wanted dimensions within Inclusion and Affection show

high correlations but the control areas are uncorrelated. The Inclusion and Affection scales

also correlate to almost same extent as Expressed and Wanted within scale correlations. These

cross-scale relationships are higher within the same Expressed and Wanted dimensions (I.e.

eL is more highly correlated with eA than it is with wA, and wI is more highly correlated

with wA than with eA) .

Validity: FIRO-B scores are considered variables and are analysed using a

correlational analysis. The six FIRO-B cell scores are considered from 0-9. Research results

also support the validity of this instrument. A number of studies have shown the FIRO-

B assessment to be related to the measures of leadership. (e.g. Fiedler's least preferred co-

worker scale -0.43 to 0.46), personal value such as community service (0.5 to0.27) and
relationships/ friendships (-0.3 to 0.27). Additionally, relationships are also found with

assessments such as the MBTI from M instrument (0.56 to 0.29) and the CPI instrument (0.48

to 0.51)

Norms: norms are based on a national sample of 3000 adults, and was calculated in

1997 as part of the FIRO-B instrument and its scales of expressed inclusion, expressed

control, expressed affection, wanted inclusion, wanted control, wanted affection,

total expressed, total wanted, total inclusion, total control. Total affection and overall need.

The demographic characteristics of the national sample was gender (males and females),

ethnic groups (whites, blacks, Hispanics), education (high school graduate,

college, postgraduate level), age (26-30, 30-41, 41-50, 51-60, 61-71 and over 71), culture

(individuals from 17 countries) and organisational level (hourly, first, middle, upper middle

executive, top).

Materials

FIRO-B manual, self- scoring page and a pencil

Instructions

The respondent was made to sit comfortably in a well-lit and ventilated room. Prior

to giving a brief overview of the purpose of the instrument and a verbal consent was given by

the respondent, the following instructions were given to her: -

1. There are four sections of questions and you must carefully read the instructions that

precede each section.

2. The items have no right or wrong answers.

3. There is no passing or failing association with the results.

4. Certain questions might be repetitive in nature.

5. Answer each question and don't dwell too long on any given response.
 6. The results are non-judgemental and are to be used for learning and development.

7. The results may provide insights about how people interact with others and how

others perceive you.

Administration: The materials were set on a table in front of the respondent. After

the instructions were read out it was asked if she has any queries about how to attempt the

questionnaire and the she started answering the items on the questionnaire once she felt

ready. Later, she was asked about her experience with answering the FIRO-B questionnaire.

Introspective Report: there were too many and often boring and repetitive, I also

found it to be time consuming.

Behavioural Report: the respondent was a little distracted but did ask me questions

whenever she felt confused about the wording. She completed the questionnaire in an

appropriate amount of time.

Scoring

The FIRO-B instrument consists of 54 items. The respondent was asked to answer

each item on one of the two 6-point scales. One rating scale elicits if the respondent engages

in the behaviour described in the items, where the points on the scale being- Nobody, one or

two people, few people, some people, many people and most people. While the other scale

elicits the frequency with which the individual engages in that behaviour and the options are-

never, rarely, occasionally, sometimes, often or usually.

There are 12 scores that are commonly used in interpretations of the FIRO-B instrument:

1 overall need score

2 total behaviour scores (total expressed or wanted)

3 total need scores (inclusion, control, affection)

 6 individual cell scores (el, wl, ec, wc, ea, wa)

Results

The individual and total scores of the respondent on different dimensions of FIRO-B

instrument have been depicted in the following tables for further interpretation.

Table 3. Representing FIRO-B scores

Expressed Inclusion Expressed control Expressed Total expressed

(el) (eC) affection

1 0 (eA) 1

Wanted inclusion Wanted control Wanted affection Total wanted

(wI) (wC) (wA)

1 4 5

10

Total inclusion Total control Total affection Overall

(I) (C) (A) (eI+eC+eA+wC+wA)

2 4 5 11

Table 4. Representing Overall Need Score and Its Meaning

Type Score Category Meaning

Overall need 11 Low • Involvement with others is not a primary

source of need satisfaction.

 • Others needs, e.g., intellectual

stimulation or solitary pursuits,

predominate

• Tend to need privacy to do their best

work.

• Prefer to keep to themselves and tend to

have a small circle of friends

• Highly selective about how often with

whom they interact.

Overall Need Score

12

11
10

0
OVERALL NEED

Graph 1. Depicting Overall Need Score

Table 5. Representing Total Behaviour Scores and their Meaning

Type Score Category Meaning

Total Expressed 1 Low Are not

comfortable

initiating social

behaviour

Total Wanted 10 Medium Are selective:

Reactivity varies

by person or

situation

Total Behaviour Scores

12

10
10

1
0
TOTAL EXPRESSED TOTAL WANTED

Graph 2. Depicting Total Behaviour Scores

 Table 6. Representing total dimension/need scores and their meaning
Type Score Category Meaning

Total Inclusion 2 Low Generally, have a low preference for being with others, no matter who

initiates it.

Total Control 4 Low Usually prefer less structured situations and have a laid-back attitude

to authority, generally preferring not to give or receive orders.

Total Affection 5 Low Generally, like to keep things impersonal and prefer more formal,

business-like relationships.

Total Dimensions Score

6

5
5

4
4

2
2

0
TOTAL INCLUSION TOTAL CONTROL TOTAL AFFECTION

Graph 3. Depicting Total Dimension Score

 Table 7. Representing Individual Cell Scores and their Meaning

Type Score Category Meaning

Ei 1 Low Preference for expressing inclusion

is low.

wI 1 Low Preference for wanting inclusion is

low.

eC 0 Low Preference for expressing control is

very selective

wC 4 Medium Preference for wanting control is

moderately selective.

eA 0 Low Preference for expressing affection

is very selective.

wA 5 Medium Preference for wanting affection is

moderate.

Individual Cell Scores

6

5
5
4
4
3

1
1 1 0 0
0
EI WI EC WC EA WA

Graph 4. Depicting Individual Cell Scores

Interpretation

The FIRO-B tool was developed by William Schutz in 1958 based on the theory of

interpersonal relations. It was developed to help individuals understand their behaviour

towards others and actions directed towards them by others, thus, FIRO-B measures a

person’s need for Expressed Behaviour (what a person wants to do and how much they want

to initiate actions) and Wanted Behaviour (how much a person wants others to initiate actions

and be the recipient of that action). The total deals with three main interpersonal needs

observed in most social situations (Inclusion, Control, Affection) and each of these needs are

measured on the dimensions of Expressed and Wanted Needs. This leads to the following 6

combinations- Expressed Inclusion (efforts made to include others in their activities), Wanted

Inclusion (how much a person wants others to include them), Expressed Control (how much

an individual tries to exert control on others), Wanted Control (how much an individual tries

to get clear instructions from others and work in a structured environment), Expressed

affection (how much an individual tries to get close to people and expressing personal

feelings) and Wanted Affection (how much a person wants others to act warmly towards

them).

Since FIRO-B can help employees better understand of their interpersonal needs, this

tool plays an important role team building, leadership, executive development, relationship

building, career development and conflict management in an organisation. Thus, by analysing

the pattern of the respondent’s each interpersonal need on two dimensions of Expressed and

Wanted, using FIRO-B; we can understand how she would behave in situations, which deal

with all of these aspects of work life mentioned.

The overall need score of the individual was 11 which is categorized as low score.

This can be interpreted as that individual’s interaction with others in all areas of Inclusion,
Control and Affection is not likely to be a strongly felt need. They may prefer to concentrate

on more impersonal and objective concerns than on relationships with people. Their personal

style may be rather cool, may have a strong preference for own company, for making

decisions independently, and for being close to only a few people you have known for a long

time. They tend to need privacy to do their best work and highly selective about how often

with whom they interact.

The total expressed score, as evident in table 3 and its corresponding graph, is 1. The

score represents the extent to which an individual takes initiative to get involved in social

activites, take control, responsibility and share personal feelings. the respondent’s score falls

in the low range which means that she doesn’t like to initiate activities and or form

relatiosnhips. This result is consistent with a study conducted by Sharma E. in 2014 titled-

“Personality Mapping wand to Organizational Performance”. The study correlated FIRO-B

scores with the Big Five personality factors which found that total expressed needs positively

correlated with extraversion. Thus, individuals who score low on expressed needs are not

extraverted and not very talkative or friendly, hence not likely to form new relationships.

Further, total wanted score for Wanted Needs as seen in table 3 and its corresponding graph,

is 10 which is categorized as medium which shows that the individual’s reactivity varies by

person to person. They want to be involved in events initiated by selective person. The

discrepancy in the total expressed and wanted scores shows that wanted score is significantly

higher than expressed score which can be interpreted that the person probably prefer that

others take the initiative more than doing so themselves.

Schutz used the term interpersonal to indicate any interaction, real or imagined, that

occurs between people. The term need was used by Schutz in a manner that was congruent

with how biological needs are commonly understood. Individuals vary greatly in what

constitutes satisfaction and dissatisfaction and therefore in the level of interpersonal need
experienced by each. This led him to posit that interpersonal needs could be in three

dimensions: inclusion, control and affection.

The interpersonal need for inclusion is the need to establish and maintain satisfactory

interaction and associations with other people. Studies examining the need for inclusion

often explore how individuals seek to be part of social groups, the extent to which they want

to be included in activities, and their reactions to inclusion or exclusion in various contexts.

Research has shown that people vary in their preferences for social inclusion, and

understanding these differences can be crucial in team dynamics, classroom settings, and

interpersonal relationships. The total need score of the individual was 2 which can be

categorized as low score meaning that the person has a low preference for being with others,

no matter who initiates it. According to table 4 referencing the dimension wise score- the

respondent doesn’t make much effort to form new associations by including others in shared

activities, and also doesn’t seek a lot of contact and prominence from being included in

other’s groups. This pattern of low inclusion on both expressed and wanted inclusion is

highlighted in the table and its corresponding graph above; it can be interpreted – The

respondent prefers to work in small groups of people; is selective about who she gets

acquainted to and avoids forming too many friendships at work. She also needs time alone to

do her best work and find recognition less important than accomplishment of the task, thus

avoids being the focus of attention in meetings.

The interpersonal need for Control describes an individual’s behaviour with respect to

responsibility, power, influence, and decision making. It reflects the degree to which one

desires to influence or direct the behaviour of others. Research on the need for control has

looked at how individuals seek to influence or make decisions in various situations. This

research explores how people's preferences for control impact their leadership styles,

decision-making processes, and responses to authority and autonomy. Understanding these

preferences can be valuable in organizational management and teamwork. The individual

scored 5 on this dimension which can be categorized as low. This means that the person

usually prefers less structured situations and have a laid-back attitude to authority, generally

preferring not to give or receive orders. According to table 1 referencing the FIRO-B Model;

these scores reflect that the respondent doesn’t make any efforts whatsoever to assume

responsibility and influence, direct and persuade others from a position of authority. She also

does not enjoy being told what to do but still would prefer getting structured and well-defined

instructions over organising and making decisions by herself. This pattern of low control

highlighted in table 4 and its corresponding graph can be interpreted as- The respondent

prefers to not make important decisions however, still expects others to do so. Further, she

avoids moving out of her comfort and prefers not to work on projects that are politicized

which has the potential of straining her relationship with her co-workers.

The interpersonal need for Affection describes a person’s behaviour in forming close,

personal relationships with others. Studies related to the need for affection often investigate

how individuals express and receive emotional support, warmth, and affection in their

relationships. Research has shown that people differ in their levels of comfort with emotional

expression and physical affection. These studies can be valuable in understanding the

dynamics of romantic relationships, friendships, and family interactions. The individual

scored 5 in this category which can be characterized as a low a score thus, it can be

interpreted that the person usually prefers to keep things impersonal and prefer more formal

business, like relationships. According to table 4 and its corresponding graph; it can be

interpreted as- The respondent is optimistic, friendly and trustworthy and may want to

motivate others and aid in conflict resolution. However, these tendencies may only be true for

selective group of individuals. Further, the respondent may want to be motivated and

encouraged and need others to show more level of sensitivity or openness towards herself.
 The FIRO-B (Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation-Behavior) assessment

measures an individual's preferences in interpersonal behavior and is typically scored in

terms of an individual's raw or scaled scores on three core dimensions: Inclusion, Control,

and Affection. The individual cell scores provide a more detailed breakdown of an

individual's preferences within each of these three dimensions. Researchers and practitioners

may examine these scores to gain a deeper understanding of an individual's interpersonal

behavior and needs. The scores calculated for each individual cell which consisted of 6

dimensions, i.e., expressed inclusion(eI), wanted inclusion(wI), expressed control(eC),

wanted control(wC), expressed affection(eA), wanted affection(wA). The individual scored 1

on eI which falls in the low category thus, showing that the person’s preference for

expressing inclusion is low. The individual scored 1 on wI which indicates that their

preference for wanting inclusion is low. The scores obtained on the dimension of eC is 0

which shows that preference for expressing control is very selective. Whereas the score

obtained in wC dimension is 4 which falls in the medium category meaning that the

individual’s preference for wanting control is moderately selective. The score obtained in eA

dimension is 0 falling in the low category which shows that the preference for expressing

affection is very selective. Whereas the score of wA is 5 that is medium which means that the

preference for wanting affection is moderate.

Since the score of the respondent in all three needs across both dimensions, mainly lie

in the low range, she does not exhibit any extreme desire to satisfy her inter-personal need for

Inclusion, Control or Affection. From an organisational standpoint this might be treated as a

challenge; she might find it hard to deal with realistic situations involving leadership roles,

exhibit repulsion towards figures of authority and may have trouble trying to find the balance

between too much and too little responsibility. Therefore, by an overall analysis of

respondent’s FIRO-B results, we arrive to the conclusion that, the respondent should probably
work in a setting that does not require too much responsibility and interaction, work with

people according to her own schedule without much resistance from authority figures hence,

being self employed would be a good career choice for the respondent.

The results are supported with the study conducted by Baroda and Kataria in 2015,

which analyses the correlation of FIRO-B interpersonal need score with the successful

application of several leadership styles on varied types of contexts. Through this study we

can better understand the application of the overall need score of the respondent on the FIRO-

B scale; As this study also suggests that, the respondent would not be good in leadership

positions. Since the score for, need for control and inclusion is required to be significantly

higher than what is currently scored by the respondent, on the FIRO-B measure.

Conclusion

At an organisational level FIRO-B can be used for identifying the drivers underlying

th behaviours that shape relationships for individuals and teams within an organisation and be

beneficial for increasing workplace performance, delivery and efficiency. This instrument is

also beneficial in understanding the pattern of interpersonal needs and predict how

individuals are likely to react when faced with a conflict. Therefore, FIRO-B instrument is a

great tool for achieving high performance and strengthen relationships

References

Baroda H. & Kataria S. (2015) “monitoring the impact of interpersonal dimensions on

Leadership Styles”. IOSR Journal of Business and Management

Gaur D. (2018) “Self-leadership and Interpersonal competencies of future aspiring

professionals in the Arab Middle East: Reference to FIRO-B. New York USA
Sharma E. (2014). “Personality Mapping wand to Organizational Performance”. Journal of

Business Theory and Practice.

Schutz, W.C (1958). FIRO: A three-dimensional theory of interpersonal behaviour. New

York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Schutz, W.C. (1978). FIRO Awareness Scales Manual. Mountain View, Ca: CPP, Inc.

Speigalman S. (2017). “Affection in the Workplace: Perceptions, Personality and Affection”.

Oregon State University, USA