FIRO-B Analysis
There are several ways your scores
on this questionnaire can be analyzed and
interpreted. You can compare your
expressed total with your wanted total to
determine the extent to which you are
willing to give as much behaviour as you
want to get. Individuals who have high
expressed scores and low wanted scores
are called controllers because they want to
express but are unwilling to accept in
return. The reverse pattern, high wanted
scores and low expressed scores, is called a
passive pattern because these individuals
want to receive but are unwilling to initiate
interaction.
By comparing each need score, you
can determine which is your most
important interpersonal need. Your highest
score may indicate the need that is least
satisfied.
Another way to interpret your
scores is to compare them with the national
norm data in Table 1. The numbers at the
top of each box (e.g., 4 to 7) refer to the
average range of scores. At least 50 percent
of adults fall within that range. The
numbers at the bottom (e.g., 5.4) refer to
the average scores in the cells. At least 50
percent of adults score within 1.5 of those
scores. If you scored 6 in the expressed
control cell you score higher than 75
percent of the people on that need; if you
scored 2 in the expressed affection cell, you
score lower that 75 percent.
Table 1 Average FIRO-B Scores and Ranges
INCLUSION
Expressed Toward Others 4 to 7
5.4
Wanted From Others 5 to 8
6.5
Column Totals 9 to 15
11.9
The score in the lower right-hand
corner (the sum total of the expressed and
wanted scores) is called the social
interaction index. This score represents the
overall interpersonal need level.
The highest possible score is 54.
Individuals with high scores have strong
needs to interact with other people. They
are likely to be gregarious, friendly, and
involved with others. Low scores are more
typical of shy, reserved people.
It has been found that business
school students differ significantly on the
social interaction index, depending on their
majors. Accounting and systems analysis
students had means of 22.3 and 22.6,
respectively (lower than average), while
marketing and human resource majors had
means of 31.0 and 31.9, respectively (higher
than average). Finance, small business, and
engineering students were in the middle.
This difference turned out to be statistically
significant, which suggests that career
selection may have something to do with
interpersonal orientation.
The greatest usefulness of the
scores lies in analyzing interpersonal
compatibility – matching one person’s
scores with those of another. Individuals
can be interpersonally incompatible in
three ways. To explain these three
incompatibilities, two hypothetical scores
are used in Table 2.
CONTROL AFFECTION ROW TOTALS
2 to 5 3 to 6 3 to 18
3.9 4.1 13.4
3 to 6 3 to 6 11 to 20
4.6 4.6 15.9
5 to 11 6 to 12 20 to 38
8.5 8.9 29.3
 Table 2 Examples of Two FIRO-B Scores
M ANAGER
INCLUSION CONTROL AFFECTION ROW TOTALS
Expressed (e) 9 9 1 19

Wanted (w) 8 4 3 15

Column Total 17 13 4 34

SUBORDINATE
INCLUSION CONTROL AFFECTION ROW TOTALS
Expressed Toward Others 3 8 6 17

Wanted From Others 2 2 8 12

Column Totals 5 10 4 29

The first type of incompatibility is interpersonal conflict to arise in this area,

reciprocal. It refers to the match between
one person’s expressed behaviour and
another person’s wanted behaviour. For
example, if one person has a high need to
express control but the other person does
not want to be controlled, there is a
reciprocal incompatibility. The formula for
computing reciprocal incompatibility is:
|Manager’s e – Subordinate’s w| +
|Subordinate’s e – Manager’s w|
The straight lines indicate absolute values
(no negative numbers). The data in Table 3
show that in the inclusion area, a reciprocal
incompatibility exists between the manager
and the subordinate. Using the formula
above, we have:
|9 - 2| + |3 - 8| = 12
Any score higher than 6 means that there is
a strong possibility of incompatibility. In this
case the manager has a strong need to
include others and to be included by them,
but the subordinate has low needs in both
aspects of inclusion. There is a potential for
particularly if inclusion behaviour (i.e.,
teamwork) is required in the relationship.
Originator incompatibility is the
second type. This refers to the match
between the expressed scores of both
individuals. Originator incompatibility
occurs either when both people want to
initiate in an area or when neither wants to
initiate. The formula for computing
originator incompatibility is:
(Manager’s e – Manager’s w) +
(Subordinate’s e – Subordinate’s w)
The parentheses in the formula
indicate that negative numbers should be
computed. The data from Table 2 in the
control area make clear that an originator
incompatibility exists. Both the manager
and the subordinate want to control, but
neither has a high need to be controlled.
Their incompatibility score is computed as
follows:
(9 – 4) + (8 – 2) = +11
Table 3 Incompatibility Scores for a Hypothetical Manager and Subordinate
INCLUSION
Reciprocal incompatibility 12
Originator incompatibility 2 11
Interchange incompatibility 12
Total incompatibility
(Sum of absolute values)
Any score higher than +6 indicates
high competitive originator incompatibility.
A score of less than -6 indicates high
apathetic originator incompatibility.
Apathetic incompatibility occurs either
when neither individual wants to initiate in
the area or, in this case, when neither
person wants to control or take charge;
both want the other to do it.
The third type of incompatibility is
interchange. This refers to the extent to
which two individuals emphasize the same
of different interpersonal needs.
Interchange incompatibility exists if one
person emphasizes control needs highly
while the other emphasizes affection needs
highly. When interpersonal problems arise,
one person would likely define the problem
as one of control, direction or influence
while the other person would likely define
the problem as one of closeness, warmth
and affection. The difficulty would be in
getting the two people to see the situation
as the same problem. The formula for
computing interchange incompatibility is:
|Manager’s e + Manager’s w| -
|Subordinate’s e + Subordinate’s w|
Again, the straight lines in the
formula enclose absolute values. In the
affection area in Table 2, an interchange
incompatibility exists. Affection is a high
CONTROL AFFECTION
11 10
-4
3 10
75
need area for the subordinate but a low
need area for the manager. (The reverse
case exists in the inclusion area.) Computing
the interchange incompatibility score gives
us:
|1 + 3| - |6 + 8| = 10
Scores above 6 indicate a strong possibility
of incompatibility. The need of the
subordinate in the affection area is likely to
be ignored or rejected in the relationship.
Using these three
incompatibility formulas allows us to
compute a total incompatibility score which
combines the three types of
incompatibilities in the three need areas.
These are computed in Table 3 for the
hypothetical manager and subordinate.
The incompatibility scores indicate
that this manager and subordinate have a
high probability of interpersonal difficulty in
their relationship. Potential problems of not
meeting one another’s needs in any of the
three interpersonal need categories
(reciprocal incompatibility), or both wanting
to control but not wanting to be controlled
(originator incompatibility in the control
area) and of having different need
emphases (interchange incompatibility in
the inclusion and affection areas) would
probably lead these two people to have a
conflict-ridden relationship.
 Research confirms this prediction.
Low incompatibility scores result in more
favorable attitudes of subordinates toward
managers. Teachers attitudes are more
favorable toward students when
compatibility scores are high. Students
achieve higher levels in cases when
compatibility with the teacher is high, and
friends are usually chosen from among
those with compatible scores. Even the
success of therapist-patient treatment is
affected my interpersonal incompatibility
(Brown, 1997; Fisher, Macrosson, & Walker,
1995; Kabes, 1992; Schutz, 1992).
There is strong evidence that
groups composed of compatible individuals
are more satisfying to members and more
effective than groups composed of
incompatible individuals. The following are
some characteristics that studies have
found typical of interpersonally compatible
groups (Fisher, Macrosson, & Walker, 1995;
Hewett, O’Brien, & Hornik, 1974; Liddell &
Slacun, 1976):
 More interpersonal attraction
among members
 More positive group climate
 More cooperative behavior on tasks
 More productivity in accomplishing
tasks
 Faster problem solving
 Fewer errors in solving problems
 Less hostility among members
Knowing your interpersonal orientation can
be an important factor in your managerial
success. Not only does it enhance good
interpersonal relations by helping you
diagnose potential areas of incompatibility,
it also helps you generate alternatives for
behavior when you attempt to solve
interpersonal difficulties. Some problems
can be solved simply by increasing inclusion
activities, by allowing someone else to
express a little more control, or by
redefining an issue as an affection problem
instead of a control problem.
SUMMARY
Corporate America has begun to discover
the power of developing self-awareness
among its managers. Each year, millions of
executives complete instruments designed
to increase self-awareness in companies
such as Apple, AT&T, Citicorp, Exxon,
General Electric, Honeywell, 3<, and the
U.S. Army. An awareness of how individuals
differ in their priorities, learning style
orientation towards change and
interpersonal orientation has helped many
companies cope better with interpersonal
conflicts, botched communications,
breakdowns in trust and
misunderstandings. After requiring his top
100 managers to undergo self-awareness
training, the president of the computer
reservations company of Hilton Hotels and
Budget Rent-a-Car stated:
We had some real morale problems. I
realized I had a mixed bag of people
reporting to me and that this training
could help us better understand each
other and also understand how we
make decisions. We wouldn’t have
made it through [a recent company
crisis] without self-awareness training
(Moore, 1987).