Team Compatibility
(Excerpted from The Team Compatibility Report™)
Henry L. Thompson, Ph.D., and Will Schutz, Ph.D.

The primary purpose of Will Schutz’ Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation (FIRO) theory and the accompanying instrument, FIRO-B™, was to predict interaction behaviors between people. The ultimate use of the prediction was to increase compatibility within work groups. FIRO Element B™, the next generation of the FIRO-B instrument, appears to be even more powerful in this regard.

Team Compatibility is designed to provide working hypotheses about team member compatibility based on the results of FIRO Element B. It is not intended to be an exact or terminal assessment, but rather a point of departure for exploration of interpersonal relations within the team. This exploration can occur at different Levels as well as within two types of compatibility. Each will be discussed in turn.

Levels of Compatibility

There are at least two useful Levels from which to view team member compatibility, person-to-team and person-to-person (pairs of team members). The person-to-team view looks at what a particular team member wants relative to what the team as a whole provides, based on the results of team members’ FIRO Element B scores. For example, a person may want to be a member of a team that likes to work together on projects and has frequent communication and contact. To the degree the team provides what the person wants, there is person-to-team compatibility.

A deeper level of analysis is the person-to-person Level. In this case, each person is paired with every other person on the team. This allows for examination of each pair’s compatibility.

Atmosphere Compatibility
“Birds of a feather flock together”

Schutz (1994) describes Atmosphere Compatibility as the working environment and approaches to decision making. The Atmosphere is composed of shared behavior, beliefs, values and settings and may incorporate different Levels and types of Inclusion, Control and Openness (p. 123). Atmosphere may also be referred to by such labels as climate, culture and attitude. One way to experience a team’s Atmosphere is to watch team members working on a task. Their interactions give indications as to the team’s Atmosphere in the areas of Inclusion, Control and Openness, as well as the magnitude of each.

Inclusion Atmosphere: The amount of interaction I want with team members and the team as a whole.

Control Atmosphere: The amount of structure I want with team members and the team as a whole.

Openness Atmosphere: The amount of sharing of personal feelings I want with team members and the team as a whole.

There is no evidence that one particular Atmosphere is better than another in terms of team performance. Each type of Atmosphere has advantages and disadvantages.

Role Compatibility
“Opposites Attract”

Schutz (1974) describes Role Compatibility as the parts we play with respect to each other as we interact in the work Atmosphere (p. 126). Thus, Role Compatibility revolves around initiating and receiving: that is, “how I behave toward you” and “how you want me to behave toward you.” Schutz goes on to describe three types of Role Incompatibility: Confrontive, Apathetic and Frustrating. Thompson (1999) expanded Schutz’ Frustrating dimension into Frustrating-Confrontive and Frustrating-Apathetic.

Confrontive Incompatibility occurs when each member of a pair initiates a behavior toward the other and neither person wants to receive that behavior. For example, John and Mary each initiate controlling behaviors toward the other while neither of them wants to be controlled. The result is a Confrontive relationship in the FIRO dimension of Control.

Apathetic Incompatibility occurs when each member of a pair wants to receive a behavior from the other and neither person wants to initiate that behavior. For example, Betty and Joe each want to be included by the other but neither of them wants to initiate Inclusion behaviors toward the other. The result is that neither gets what they want from the other in their relationship in the FIRO dimension of Inclusion. They both sit back and wait.

Frustrating Incompatibility results when one member of the pair exhibits a Confrontive position and the other exhibits an Apathetic position. Debra wants to include Michele (who doesn’t want to be included) and wants Michele to include her (Michele does not want to). The result is a Frustrating relationship for both people, but each sees the relationship differently.

For example, Debra becomes frustrated as a result of Michele’s resistance to her Inclusion initiatives and lack of receiving Inclusion initiatives from Michele. From Debra’s perspective this is a Frustrating-Apathetic relationship.

Michele perceives a different relationship. She is including Debra less than Debra wants (Apathetic), and Debra is including Michele more than Michele wants (Confrontive). From Michele’s perspective, this is a Frustrating-Confrontive relationship. Resolution of the incompatible relationship requires recognizing that Debra and Michele have different perspectives on the source of the incompatibility in the FIRO dimension of Inclusion.

For more information on Dr. Thompson’s work on Team Compatibility, you may contact him at info@hpsys.com