Continued from chapter-4a:

4.3.1. Profiles of Managers

Illustrative profiles of three managers are depicted in Figure 4.3.1. Mr. A, 37 years, has a post graduate degree in Veterinary Science and is Deputy Manager-AI (Artificial Insemination) Programme. His job is mainly to conduct experiments in the areas of animal reproduction and animal health. When talking of him, his peers say he is "too sincere in his work; doesn't while away his time in gossiping with others, like many of us do." His FIRO profile shows that he scores very low on all variables except WEO and WRO, on which his scores are moderate. His FIRO strength is low (20 out of 108).

Mr. B, aged 45, is a Science graduate and is Depot Manager in a cooperative dairy-product marketing organisation. Prior to this job, he had been a sales executive in a private pharmaceutical company for 11 years. His present job involves supervision of sales staff and warehouse management, looking after matters related to sales tax, insurance cover, etc. and providing support and guidance to sales officers and field staff. He has earned a reputation of being `very dependable'. His FIRO strength is 50. His FIRO profile shows moderate scores on perceived-expressed Inclusion and Openness, but he wants to reduce them to lower levels; his perceived-expressed Control is extremely high and wants to keep it high with a slight reduction. His perceived-received Inclusion (other people seeking his company) is very high and he wants to reduce it drastically; the same is the case with his received openness from others. His current level of received control is high and wishes it to come down to a much lower level, though not as drastically as he wants in the case of his received inclusion and openness. Compared to Mr. A, the Depot Manager is high on all the variables, except WEO, WRI and WRO; he seems to be very wary of others in the domain of inclusion and openness, but seems to be ready to receive a limited degree of control from others (his superiors?).

Mr. C, aged 48, is a graduate in Veterinary Science and is Manager - P&I and CD (Procurement & Inputs and Cooperative Development) in a State-level dairy Federation. His job is mostly concerned with cooperative education of society members, employees and the elected board members. He has a number of male and female extension workers to work for him, who refer to him as a "good boss, having a very good nature". His people orientation score is 91. His FIRO profile shows that he is extremely high on PEC, WEC, PRI, PRO and WRI; he is also very high on PEI and WEI: that is, he exercises a lot of control over others, wants to maintain this control, others seek his company a lot and are highly open with him and he very much likes the company of others; people are also extremely open with him. His own openness with others is moderate and would like to increase it slightly; he wishes that others be not so highly open with him as they presently are. His received control is moderate and would like it to continue.

4.3.2 Profiles of Students

Figure 4.3.2 portrays illustrative profiles of three students. Student D, 22 years of age, is an Engineering graduate. He has been known to his classmates as a serious-minded philosopher; very knowledgeable and good to discuss things with, but is often seen alone. His FIRO strength is 29. His profile shows he is extremely low on PEI, PEC and PRI, very low on PEO, WEC and WRI, and low on PRC and WRC. His WEO and WRO are relatively high. This profile tells us that this person is not a socialiser and hardly ever does he influence others. He wants to socialise a little more than he does now. He wants to be much more open with others than he is at present and wants others to be more open with him, too. But he wants limited and choice company: PEI and PRI are hardly any, WEI is moderate, and WRI is very low.

Student E, aged 20, is a Science graduate. He is not a loner; he does mix with people. His classmates as well as some of his teachers remember him as "endlessly argumentative, but no good in arguments; doesn't make a point; isn't convincing; just goes on and on with the same point." His FIRO-strength score is 45. His profile shows medium to very low scores on all the perceived aspects (PEI, PEC, PEO, PRI, PRC and PRO); very high scores on WEI, WEC and WRI; very low on WRC. That is, the score profile says that student E, though actually a low socialiser at present, desires socialisation very much (very high WEI & WRI); he hardly has an impact on others, but greatly desires to do so (very low PEC and very high WEC); he does not want to be influenced by others at all. The impression his peers and others have of him (mentioned above) may very well be the resultant of E's interpersonal behaviour triggered by his FIRO combination, especially of very high WEC, very low PEC and very low WRC.

Student F was a 28-year old Veterinary graduate, with some work experience. He is still remembered in the campus for his firm, but non-violent, revolt against some rules and restrictions at the Institute. His FIRO strength is 85-high. His profile shows high scores on almost all variables (extremely high on PRO and WRO), but, relative to his other scores, distinctly low on PRC and WRC.

4.4.0 Correlational Analysis

In order to examine the inter-variable associations that might exist among the variables and to compare differences, if any, between managers and students in the way their respective scores are inter-related, the Pearson's Correlation analysis was carried out. Table 4.4.1 presents the coefficients of correlation among 13 (FIRO plus Age) variables for the managers. Comparable coefficients for the students are contained in Table 4.4.2.

4.4.1 Correlation Coefficients of Managerial FIROs

Managers' age is seen in Table 4.4.1 to be positively correlated with their perceived-expressed Inclusion and Control. That is to say, as managers advance in age, they seem to socialise more and also enhance their impact on others. Age and openness are seen to be unrelated.

Social contact and interpersonal influence among the managers seem to be fused together, as indicated by the high and positive PEI-PEC coefficient of 0.52 (p<.001). Given the correlations of 0.66 and 0.69 (both at p<.001) between PEI & PRI and between WEI & WRI, respectively, the present inclusion behaviour amongst the managers appears highly reciprocal and the managers want the reciprocity to be even higher. Received inclusion and received openness show a positive association (PRI & PRO = 0.52, p<.001). The observed high correlation (0.58, p<.001) between PEC and PRI could be indicative of implied coercion that might characterise their social contacts as obliging events, especially in the realm of Inclusion between superiors and subordinates. The positive correlation of 0.55 (p<.001) between WEC and WRI seems to be in support of this possibility.

While correlations between the present and the wanted levels of a behavioural dimension can readily be understood and would, therefore, normally not require a discussion, the observed relationship between the perceived and wanted aspects of received control appears counter-intuitive. Intuitively, a negative relationship between the two may be accepted easily, for the more one experiences being controlled (high PRC), the more likely is one to seek freedom from that control (low WRC). However, the positive correlation of 0.59 (p<.001) between PRC and WRC suggests that an adaptation of sorts to the prevailing control levels may be taking place: when you receive little directive influence from others, you want even lesser of it; in the event of being subjected to increasing degrees of external guidance and hand-holding, you begin to expect and want more of it.

Three negative coefficients, statistically significant at p<.01, are observed in Table 4.4.1. The negative correlation between WEC & WRC implies that the extent to which a manager wants to exercise control on others varies inversely with the extent to which he would be willing to submit himself to control from others. The inverse relationship between PRC and PRO indicates that managers who, as of now, receive high openness from others (subordinates, perhaps) receive low control from them and that managers who receive high control from others (superiors, perhaps) receive low openness from them. The same kind of relationship is observed in the wanted aspects of these dimensions. The negative correlation between WRC and WRO can be interpreted as follows: Managers want more and more openness from others to be accompanied by lower and lower control from them. More of openness or disclosures from others (superiors?) may be perceived as entailing an increased accountability, which arouses anxiety.

4.4.2 Correlation Coefficients of Student FIROs

In the case of students (see Table 4.4.2), age is not correlated with any of the FIRO variables. Coefficients in this table resembling those in the previous table may be interpreted similarly. We shall, therefore, take up for discussion here only those coefficients that are dissimilar to the ones in Table 4.4.1.

Managers' PRC was seen (Table 4.4.1) to be associated only with PRO (inversely) and with WRC (directly). In the students, however, it is found to have two additional associations, namely, with PEC and PRI, both of which bear a negative sign (see Table 4.4.2). The negative correlation between PEC and PRC (-0.27, p<.001) says that students have diminishing control over those who increasingly control them, while the one between PRI and PRC (-0.18, p<.001) tells us that they perceive less of control from those who include them more and that those who control them more include them less (the latter is very likely to reflect the faculty-student relationship, though not exclusively). The lack of these correlations in the managers could be taken to mean that their exercise of control is independent of the degree of control they receive from others and that receiving social calls or invitations from people is not perceived as necessarily instrumental in getting influenced by them.

Table 4.4.1 : Correlation Coefficients of FIRO Variables for Managers
___________________________________________________________________________
......... AGE PEI PEC PEO WEI WEC WEO PRI PRC PRO WRI WRC WRO
___________________________________________________________________________

AGE .... -- .17* .19* -.03 .. .10 .. .05 ... -.09 . .15 .. -.02 .. .04 ... -.02 .. .10 ... .04

PEI ............ -- .. .52** .36** .54** .22** .16 .. .66** .11 .. .40** .40** .13 .. .27**

PEC .................. -- ... .25** .22** .50** .10 ... .58** -.01.. .44** .26** .01 .. .26**

PEO ............................-- ... .21** .05 ... .58** .29** .04 ... .38** .11 ... .10 .. .20*

WEI ..................................... -- .... .39** .18*. .33** .13 ... .19*.. .69** .07 ... .39**

WEC .............................................. -- ... .10 .. .23** .03 ... .18* . .55** -.16*. .40**

WEO ....................................................... -- ... .23**-.01 ... .32** .20* .. .01 .. .35**

PRI ................................................................... -- ... -.03 ... .52** .42** .05 ... .30**

PRC ........................................................................... -- .... -.16* .06 ... .59** -.06

PRO ...................................................................................... -- ... .19* -.09 .... .50**

WRI ................................................................................................ -- .. -.10 ... .49**

WRC ....................................................................................................... -- .... -.18*

WRO ................................................................................................................... --

___________________________________________________________________________

N = 253; 2-tailed significance: * = .01; ** = .001

AGE ... -- .01 .. .05 .. .02 .. -.04 .. -.02 .. -.02 .. -.08 .. .04 .. -.06 .. -.08 .. .13 .. -.09.

PEI ............-- ... .46** .15* .64** .32** .11 ... .60** .03 ... .31** .51** -.05 ... .32**

PEC ................... -- ... .10 .. .24** .48** .01 .. .49** -.27** .25** .27** -.09 .. .15*

PEO ............................ -- ... .13 .... -.01 ... .55** .17* .10 ... .31** .09 .. -.01 ... .29**

WEI ...................................... -- ..... .43** .20** .37** .14* .20** .68** -.02 .. .34**

WEC ................................................ -- .... .08 .. .19** -.04. .16*. .55** -.15* .. .24**

WEO ........................................................... -- ... .14 ... .05 .. .31** .16* .. .07 ... .40**

PRI ........................................................................ -- .. -.18** .40** .42** -.13 .. .33**

PRC ................................................................................. -- .. -.20** .02 ... .39** -.07

PRO ........................................................................................... -- .. .20** -.21** .55**

WRI ..................................................................................................... -- ... -.19** .41**

WRC .............................................................................................................. -- ... -.15*

WRO ......................................................................................................................... --

___________________________________________________________________________ N = 322; 2-tailed significance: * = .01; ** = .001
[Go back to text?]

While PRI and WEO are positively correlated in the managers (Table 4.4.1, above), meaning that managers want to be more open with those who include them more, and less open with those who include them less, the students do not seem to have such a tendency; the two variables do not show a correlation in the students. It is also noticed that the PEO-WEI and the PEC-PEO coefficients are statistically not-significant in the students, whereas they are positive in the managers. The life-style of the management students is, perhaps, more individualistic and less interdependent than that of the managers.

4.5.0 Sub-group Comparisons Within Managers

The focus of discussion in the foregoing sections was to compare the two major groups of managers and students on FIRO variables. In diagnosing organisational issues, however, it is useful to examine the issues at the level of distinguishable sub-groups rather than at the general organisational member level (Cooper & Marshall, 1977). We may, therefore, examine sub-group differences within managers and students. This section examines variations among the sub-groups of managers alone and the next section will discuss sub-groups of students. The technique of Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used when more than two sub-groups were to be compared. Wherever the sub-groups were just two, the Student t-test was applied. The inferences drawn from these analyses are presented in the following sub-sections.

4.5.1 Differences Among Age Groups of Managers

In sub-section 4.4.1, we noted that managers' age correlated with PEI and PEC. Analysis of variance unfolded further information. Table 4.5.1 shows four of the FIRO variables differing across the different age groups of managers. They are: PEI, WEI, PRI and PEC. Managers above 35 years of age tend to exhibit higher inclusion behavior (both expressed and received) and exert higher control than younger managers do. All managers, young or old, want to increase their power and influence on others (WEC is uniformly high) and at the same time want to reduce others' influence on them (WRC is uniformly low). Irrespective of age, managers express a rather low degree of openness in their interpersonal relations.

4.5.2 Differences Among Academic-Discipline Groups of Managers

Table 4.5.2 reveals that none of the F-ratios is statistically significant. This indicates that the managers' interpersonal orientations are independent of what academic background they come from. Could it be said that such orientations are so basic to managers as humans that they do not vary significantly on grounds other than individual personality differences, which include age? Let us look at a few more sub-groups.

4.5.3 Differences Among Departments

In the context of interpersonal relations, Roy (1992) found that all the three departments of Production, Engineering and Administration that he studied had an equally high score on expressed inclusion (IE) and that all of them had a lower score on wanted inclusion (IW). Akhilesh and Menon (1991), on the other hand, found significant inter-departmental differences (albeit, in the context of organisational stressors and their effects on managerial performance), which they attributed to `inherent differences in the activities and features of the different departments'. The results of the present study, presented in Table 4.5.3, show that managers of different departments significantly differ in some aspects of their people orientations. While all managers want a fairly high degree of Inclusion (both WEI and WRI), actual meeting and mingling with people (PEI and PRI) is engaged in more by managers of Marketing and P&I (Procurement and Inputs) departments than by those of Production and Quality Control departments. Though these results are at variance with those of Roy (1992), they seem to confirm the popular opinion that the nature of production and quality-control jobs is not conducive for people orientation or interpersonal relations. Roy's finding of wanted inclusion (IW) being low, as against the finding by the present study that both WEI and WRI are high, might have been a result of the inherent confusion that was part of the older version of FIRO-B, which he used in his study.

The Quality Control managers seem to exert the least control, although their desire to control is as high as (or even higher, when compared to Marketing) that of managers from other departments. As for openness with people, managers of Production and Quality Control departments are less open than those of Marketing and P&I departments. In response to the question raised in 4.5.2 above, it may, therefore, be said that manifestations of basic interpersonal orientations are likely to be influenced by differences in the nature of work done by managers of different departments.

4.5.4 Differences Among FIRO-Strength Groups of Managers

Do managers of different people-orientation strengths vary in the composition of their interpersonal behaviour? In Section 4.3 above, we saw that individuals in different FIRO-strength groups did demonstrate such a variation. Our interest now is to see whether FIRO-strength groups exhibit such variations or not. Table 4.5.4 shows that the three groups are different from one another (p<.001) on every one of the twelve variables. Looking at the variations within each group, we find that in the low-FIRO group WEI and PRC peak up, followed by PEI, WRC, and all aspects of openness, in that decreasing order of magnitude. This group scores lowest in WRI & PEC, and highest in WEI, indicating that managers whose people orientation or overall social interaction is low (i.e., those with a weak FIRO) want to include people, but they do not receive commensurate inclusion from others (PRI lower than PEI & WEI) and they also perceive themselves as powerless over others (low PEC); then they shy away (low PEI), frustrated, perhaps. The frustration might give rise to anxiety, leading to perception of actual or potential rejection, resulting in their not wanting to be included by others (very low WRI); they prefer to be let alone.

The highest score of the medium-FIRO group is in WEC, followed by WEI and WRI, and their lowest is in WRC, indicating that managers of this category are predominantly concerned with influencing others, whose company they would like to seek and be taken in. These managers seem to want power first and inclusion next.

The high-FIRO group is interaction-intensive. Managers of this group seem to be predominantly concerned with Inclusion, indicated by its top score of WRI and very high scores of WEI, PEI and PRI. Their very high score of WEC and high score of PEC, combined with their lowest score of WRC indicates that they very much want to exercise power over others and be let off from control by others. These managers seem to want inclusion first and influence next.

4.5.5 Differences Between Regional Sub-groups of Managers

The FIRO responses of managers from the North and the South were compared by the Student-t test. The results, presented in Table 4.5.5, show that the FIRO strength of South Indian managers as a group is higher than that of North Indian managers. This indicates that managers from the South are more interpersonally oriented than those from the North. The results also show intra-FIRO differences on PEI, PEO, PRI and PRC, indicating that, besides higher expressed and received Inclusion, South Indian managers tend to be more open in their interpersonal relationships and more receptive to control than North Indian managers are. These differences are statistically significant (Table 4.5.5).

4.5.6 Differences Between Effective and Ineffective Managers

Poor or not-so-effective managers and effective managers are seen in Table 4.5.6 to differ in four of the FIRO variables: PEC, WEC, PRO and WRO. The PEC of the effective managers is significantly higher than that of the ineffective ones (p<.001) and the WEC of the poor managers is significantly lower than that of the good managers (p<.01). That is, the poor managers not only fail to exercise much control, but even their desire to express control is less than that of the good managers. Further, paired t-test results (Table 4.5.7) showed that the good managers' PEC mean score of 7.02 was significantly higher than their PEI mean score of 5.76 at p.<001. For the poor managers, the relationship of these variables was found to be reverse (Table 4.5.8): their PEI was significantly higher than their PEC at p<.001. These results corroborate McClelland's (1976) finding that good managers had a higher need for Power than for Affiliation. As regards openness, effective managers seem to receive as well as want to receive more openness from the concerned people than the ineffective managers do. On Expressed openness, however, the two groups do not differ; both are moderately open in their relationship with others.

4.6.0 Sub-group Comparisons Within Students

Age was found to be unrelated to any of the FIRO variables in the case of students (see Table 4.4.1). Analysis of variance confirmed this lack of relationship, except for WRC. Table 4.6.1 indicates that as one grows older one tends to want or accept more control from others (p<.05). The general lack of relationship with age, observed in the case of students, might be due to the limited range of the students' age, which happens to be much narrower than that of managers. Analysis of variance by the academic background of students showed none of the F-ratios (Table 4.6.2) to be statistically significant. It may be recalled that Table 4.5.2 also had similar results to present about managers. On the basis of these results, we may state firmly that peoples' academic discipline and FIRO are unrelated.

Continue ...