FIRO Theory as it relates to small group communication
Research about FIRO Theory theory as it relates to small group communication. Write one-page document in which you present some of the research you found. The more formal research will come from an academic journal article provided below in bold.
. Researchers have been embarking on the
exploration of different domains of interpersonal
relationship for quite some time and trying to build up its
importance not only in terms of social skill enhancer or
social exchange process between supervisor and
subordinates but also with regard to managerial
effectiveness and skill building specifically across servicemanufacturing dichotomy (Di Marco; Ahmetogluet al.;
Siegel & Schultz; Umashankar & Charithra). With the
undeniable impact of globalization on our existing and
upcoming workforce, exploration of employee relationship
with each other and also with the management has become
necessary to get a better understanding of the workplace
dynamics about various policy formulations.
Globalization is a term that is most researched in the present
context considering its impact on world technology,
economic growth, employability, attrition rate as well as
overall lifestyle dimension of youth population specifically
(World Youth Report, UNESCO). The ever-changing work
culture has been demanding our present and future work
generation to be able to take risks while keeping up with the
ongoing competitiveness encompassing various fields and
striking a balance between their professional and personal
commitments (Gratton). With global changes happening at
different levels in terms of the economic, technological,
psychological, emotional and professional domain of an
individual, is making it a challenging task for them to strike
an equilibrium in varied aspects of their life. Keeping up
with these challenges has surely become a strenuous process
at the cost of employees well- being (Idris et al.) considering
professional identity to be one of the most essential part of
one’s self- concept (Hogg & Terry). Hence, in this
exhausting process of growth, organizations are banking on
their most important resource that is their employees to gain
a sustainable competitive advantage over the other players in
the professional domain (Jassim & Jaber). Emphasis has
been given on the needs, values, expectations and well-being
of the employees over the years. To have a more sustainable
workforce (Őnday) thus leading to its greater focus on
building a more interconnected, endurable social exchange
and communication process across hierarchy which has
been a real test for both the leader and the subordinates
presently. As Gratton had put it across that collaborative
working is going to be the primary concern in the coming
years rather than work in isolation and, gradually we must
have to grow to prioritize the quality of experience over the
standard of living.
According to Stoetzer, interpersonal relationship at
workplace builds on the pattern of communication among
co-workers, managers and employees which Patricia (2015)
felt is potential enough to influence workplace performance
if only teamed with goal-directed, cooperative behaviours
from the organizational management.
Pincus and Ansell had defined ‘interpersonal’ as a term “to
convey a sense of primacy, a set of fundamental phenomena
important for personality development, structuralization,
function, and pathology. It is not a geographic indicator of
locale: it is not meant to generate a dichotomy between what
is inside the person and what is outside the person” (212).
Interpersonal relationship first received its due attention
when Sullivan emphasised its importance in personality
development, considering the development to be entangled
in the complex interpersonal relationships (Fiest & Fiest).
From a Social Exchange theory perspective, the
interpersonal relationship can be described as a series of
interactions that are considered as interdependent and
contingent on other people’s actions
Wiggins &
Trapnell). Wiggins and Pincus had explained an
interpersonal relationship to be “complimentary if the
behaviours of the two participants endorse and confirm each
other’s self- presentations with respect to both dominance
and nurturance” (484). They also went ahead explaining
how needs get complemented “on the basis of ‘reciprocity’
with regard to dominance (dominance pulls submission,
submission pulls dominance) and ‘correspondence’ with
regard to nurturance (hostility pulls hostility, friendliness
pulls friendliness)” (484) in interpersonal circle. While
(Blau). Social
Exchange Theory is built on a few of the assumptions which
hold interpersonal relationship as an integral part of
maintaining a trusted, mutual, committed exchange between
two parties. According to Cropanzano and Mitchell, rule of
reciprocity and rule of negotiation govern the social
exchange process along with a series of probable tangible
and non- tangible exchanges that might occur between two
potential parties (Foa & Foa). People work for multiple
varied reasons and social exchange relationships are often
being considered as important motivators for people to work
as it fulfil few important human needs like the need for
dominance and the need for nurturance (
89
A Quarterly Journal
SCMS Journal of Indian Management, October-December – 2019
explaining the desirability of the social contact, Hill
emphasised on four specific social rewards, “(a) Positive
affect or stimulation associated with interpersonal closeness
and communion, (b) attention or praise, (c) reduction of
negative affect through social contact, and (d) social
comparison” (1008).
However, in spite of being such an essential and integral part
of management, and being the focus of discussion for the
longest of time, interpersonal relationship orientation of the
employees had been one of the least explored domains of
organizational behavior and human resource management
specifically in India (Natarajan et al.)
1.4.2. Theories of Fundamental Interpersonal Relationship
Orientation (FIRO).
The Theory of Fundamental Interpersonal Relationship
Orientation proposed that interpersonal relationship is
measured by the person’s intention to interact with others
(Schutz, 1958). As Schutz, the proponent of this theory
emphasised the fact that a person’s intention to interact with
others depends on three basic needs of the concerned
individual: the need for inclusion, control and affection
which get expressed in two behavior directions- expressed
and wanted behavior. The interaction between these needs
and behaviors provide us with a matrix involving six
dimensions- Expressed Inclusion, Wanted Inclusion,
Expressed Control, Wanted Control, Expressed Affection
and Wanted Affection. As defined by Schutz , ‘Need for
Inclusion’ is the inner drive “to establish and maintain a
satisfactory relationship with people with respect to
interaction and association” (18). An individual can hold a
desire within to be included in a group leading to “Wanted
Inclusion” or might have a need to connect to people to avoid
being isolated and lonely leading to “Expressed Inclusion”.
Schutz had proposed ‘Need for Control’ as “the need to
establish and maintain a satisfactory relationship with
people with respect to control and power” (18). “Expressed
Control” means the need of a person to demonstrate control,
influence, organize and direct people whereas “Wanted
Control” defines the extent to which an individual is
permitting others to direct or influence him or her (Schutz).
The ‘Need for Affection’ as proposed by Schutz is “the need
to establish and maintain a satisfactory relationship with
others with respect to love and affection” (20). How much an
individual would make an effort to have intimate supportive
relationship with others, define “Expressed Affection”
whereas how much they want others to initiate warm,
supportive acts towards them, define “Wanted Affection”.
The characteristics associated with three interpersonal
needs, according to Schnell and Hammer is as follows:
w Inclusion- It involves distinction, recognition, attention,
participation, involved, association, acknowledgement,
contact, belonging, and acceptance.
w Control- It involves power, authority, influence,
responsibility seeking behavior, managerial skills,
directive, leadership behavior, decisive, consistency,
regulation.
w Affection: It involves supportive, sensitive, empathetic,
open, affirming nature, consensus-oriented, closeness,
faithfulness, and warmth.
Series of research studies were organized to explore the
application of FIRO theory in various practical situations. In
this context, a study by Li and Lai, demonstrated how
interpersonal need orientation could be explored from three
different levels: individual level (one person), family level
(more than two persons) and group level (much more than
two). Another study by Liddell and Slocum had proposed
how interpersonally congenial groups make faster decisions
registering fewer errors than random and discordant groups.
FIRO theory found its ground in terms of its association with
the leadership and managerial studies. Daft had defined
management as the ‘attainment of organizational goals in an
effective and efficient manner through planning, organizing,
leading, and controlling organizational resources’ (4).
However, the lens of Human Behavior School helps to
perceive management to be majorly concerned with getting
work done with and through the people (Koontz) which
invariably emphasize on the importance of studying group
dynamics and interpersonal relationships as a part of the
socio- psychological relationship (Koontz). The draft had
mentioned how managerial skills and abilities get reflected
through the way a manager connect, coordinate, support,
facilitate and motivate the employees while resolving the
conflicts among team members. Leading the team or
supervising them is often considered to be the two most
important roles played by the managers (Cieślińska).
Hence, Leader – Member exchange theories also analyse the
relationship between an employee and his or her leader or
supervisor as a kind of social exchange relationship
(Wayne). It is being studied how the discriminatory
90
A Quarterly Journal
SCMS Journal of Indian Management, October-December – 2019
treatments by a supervisor to employees often lead them to
discuss the unfairness of the treatment among team
members, influencing the communication among them as
well (Gaur & Ebrahimi).
Service- Manufacturing Dichotomy
The basic division between Goods and Services according to
Stevenson, is that “Goods are physical items that include raw
materials, parts, subassemblies such as motherboards that go
into computers, and final products such as cell phones and
automobiles” whereas “Services are activities that provide
some combination of time, location, form, or psychological
value”. Manufacturing sector deals with production of
tangible goods. Whereas service sector involves serving the
customers, a greater degree of customer connect and also
revolves mostly around the interaction between service and
customers. In spite of being grossly different from each
other, service and manufacturing units are getting merged in
various organizations currently which follow unique
operations management emphasising mostly on the process
of the production of goods as well as services (Jiang). Over
the years, investigations have been leading to a scenario
when increased business service openness with regard to
greater trades and Foreign Direct Investment impacting
manufacturing industries like heavy machinery, motor
vehicles, chemicals and electronic equipment to quite some
extent (Francois & Woerz). The Indian service sector is
expanded, starting from the unorganized sectors to the
Information technology and financial sectors whereas
Indian [product industry includes mining, manufacturing
and electricity (Union Budget & Economic Survey). Indian
economy witnesses the dominance of service sector after it
reflects a sharp growth in its contribution to GDP starting
from 33.5 percent in 1950-51 to a whopping 56.3 percent in
2011-12 whereas manufacturing sector starts showing a
decline in growth from 2.7 percent in 2011-12 to 1.9 percent
in 2012-13 (Union Budget & Economic Survey). Globally,
the service sector has started transforming into a skill
intensive sector encountering a high demand for
technological superiority which eventually leading to a
wage-based inequality (Buera & Kabosky; Ramaswamy &
Agarwal) than what is there in manufacturing sector.
Besides, Indian manufacturing and service sector do differ
in terms of workplace allocation, informal employment and
size of the enterprise, age-specific workforce distribution,
wage distribution and assurance of social security
(Ramaswamy & Agarwal). However, multiple research
studies have been highlighting the contrast between these
two industries in terms of operational management, market
presence, customer involvement, productivity etc. (Morris
& Johnston; Evangelista; Miozzo & Soete; Amin; Guerrieri
& Meliciani). On the contrary, multiple research initiatives
are taking place investigating the probable transmission of
different supply chain strategies from manufacturing sectors
to service sector (Anderson & Morris; Sengupta et al.). And
innovation has been registering a lot of interest considering
the consistently blurred boundaries between services and
manufacturing sector with regard to automation and
implying various innovation strategies (Collier; SegarraBlasco). According to Hughes and Woods, manufacturing
and service sector do differ mostly within their own sectoral
distribution rather than between themselves especially in the
field like innovation.
Research Gap:
Review of existing literature gives an overview of the
application of FIRO theory across service and
manufacturing dichotomy with regards to different variables
like supervisor- subordinate lifestyle (Marco); predicting
the leadership capabilities and managerial level of
attainment (Ahmetoglu et al.); preferred social skills among
U.S. auditors (Siegel & Schultz); and also in terms skill
requirements of young professionals (Umashankar &
Charitra). However, none of these research studies provides
any detailed profile based understanding of the interpersonal
orientation of the employees across the servicemanufacturing dichotomous sector. Besides, interpersonal
relationship orientation of the employees seems to be the
least explored area of interest for the research scholars with
regard to FIRO based interpretation in the Indian context
Objectives of the Study
(1) To determine the extent to which employees from
service sector and employees from manufacturing
sector differ each other with respect to their
interpersonal relationship orientation.
(2) Determine detailed Interpersonal Relationship
Orientation profile of the employees the of the service
sector and the employees of manufacturing sector
organizations.
(Manoharan & Suresh; Sayeed; Natarajan et al.). Hence, the
research study was an attempt to connect the loose ends in
the research studies in exploring the present variable from
the FIRO perspective in the Indian context.
91
A Quarterly Journal
SCMS Journal of Indian Management, October-December – 2019
Hypotheses
The research aimed at testing the following hypothesis:
H1: There is a significant difference between the employees
belonging to the service sector organizations and the
employees belonging to the manufacturing sector
organizations in terms of Interpersonal Relationship
Orientation [i.e., i. Individual cell scores (A. Expressed
Inclusion, B. Expressed Control, C. Expressed Affection, D.
Wanted Inclusion, E. Wanted Control, F. Wanted Affection),
ii. Total Behavior score of the employees (A. Total Wanted,
B. Total Expression), ii. Total Need score of the employees
(A. Total Inclusion, B. Total Control, C. Total Affection), iii.
Overall Need Score of the employees].
Methodology
(I) Data Collection: The present research study was done to
explore the significant differences of Interpersonal
Relationship Orientation of the employees from service
organizations and employees from manufacturing
organizations in Kolkata, West Bengal. Kolkata was
considered to the present research context due to the
availability of the sample and role this city has been playing
in terms of its performance in world economy and also in
Indian GDP (Berube et al. in Global Metro Monitor Report;
Bouchet et al. in Global Metro Monitor Report) However, It
was an Ex-post facto research where the data was collected
following the cross sectional survey research design
considering its comparative approach to different sectors.
The service and manufacturing organizations situated in
Kolkata were selected following multistage stratified
random sampling method after considering five zones of the
city, Kolkata- North, South, East, West, and Central (As
mentioned in Brief Industrial Profile of Kolkata District,
West Bengal by MSME, Govt. of India). Informed consent
was procured from all the employees before following it
with FIRO- B questionnaire. It took 6 months (August 2015
to January 2016) to the completion of data collection
procedure with one month of analysis following that.
(ii) Final Sample: The final sample was comprised of 235
employees form service organizations and 202 employees of
manufacturing organizations leading to 437 employees from
these two operational sectors. Only middle managers who
had served their organizations for a minimum of 2 years
were considered for the study. The age range of the
participants was decided to be between 25 years and 55
years. Only male employees were considered due to the lack
of female participants in those organizations. Also, the
criterion for the educational background was kept to the
minimum level of graduation and above.
(iii) Measures Used: Interpersonal Relationship Orientation
of the employees was measured with the FIRO- B scale
developed by William Schutz in 1958. Schutz (1958) created
this instrument to measure the interactions between two
individuals for the research purpose and later modified it for
general usage in larger settings. However, FIRO- B
instrument has 54 items that provide feedback on six aspects
of interpersonal behavior while element B provides the same
information with twelve additional measures providing a
single response scale with simplified wording and greater
scale integrity. FIRO element B focuses on the behavior (i.e.
of two types- Expressed and Wanted) in three interpersonal
need areas: Inclusion, Control and Affection (Schutz, 1958).
12 types of scores can be generated in FIRO-B instrument: 1
: Overall Need Score, 2 : Total Behavior scores (Total
Expressed , and Total Wanted), 3 : Total Need Scores (Total
Inclusion, Total Control, and Total Affection), six individual
cell scores expressed by eI (Expressed Inclusion), wI
(Wanted Inclusion), eC (Expressed Control), wC (Wanted
Control), eA (Expressed Affection), wA (Wanted
Affection). This is a self- administered scale developed
using Guttman Scaling Procedure and can be administered
to individuals ranging from 14 years to 90 years. All of the
scales hold good internal consistency reliability [eI = .87, wI
= .96, eC = .93, wC = .86, eA = .86, wA = .85]. Informed
consent was taken before proceeding with the scale
administration with each participant. The data were
analysed using descriptive statistics and One Way Analysis
of Variance (One way ANOVA) as inferential statistics.
However, Levene’s Test of Homogeneity was considered to
check the homogeneity of variance across different sample
groups. In few cases, Levene’s Test result did come
significant proving those samples to not be homogeneous by
nature. In those cases, Brown Forsythe Test was applied (as
an alternative to One way ANOVA) as it is considered to be
the most robust and reliable test to be followed when
heteroscedasticity increases or when small deviations from
homogeneity of variances occur in an otherwise balanced
data (Mendes & Pala