No abstract

Although the FIRO-B instrument has been used widely for a large number of purposes, it was not designed as a general purpose instrument. Several years ago, after revising the FIRO theory underlying the instrument based on over 20 years' experience with the instrument and related activities, the author revised the FIRO-B extensively, so extensively it was given a new name, Element B. The new instrument is much stronger both theoretically and psychometrically while at the same time retaining the simplicity and shortness of the original. In addition, two new instruments based on the same theory were designed, developed, and tested. They measure feelings (Element F) and self-concept (Element S). All three instruments have, over the past 10 years, been used primarily as training instruments. When given in conjunction with other methods, they have been used for improving self-awareness, teamwork, morale, and productivity in such organizations as Procter & Gamble, AT&T, NASA, Amdahl Corporation, the Swedish Army, and about 100 companies in Japan. Included is a comment on scales anchored both logically, using methods such as facet design and unidimensional scaling, and empirically, such as the "big five."

Studies of administrative performance may be classified into the following types:1. Character trait: studies that focus on individual properties of administrators as predictors of administrative performance. 2. Group factors: studies that focus on the interplay of factors present in the group situation as determinants of administrative behavior.3. Role expectation: studies concerned with internal attitudes and perceptions of both leaders and followers and with the relation of these attitudes to administrative success. 4. Organizational models: studies that concentrate on forces within the total organization to gain an understanding of the actions of administrators. Character TraitsAfter scanning the literature for a summary of leadership behavioral traits, Gibb (1954), drawing chiefly from Stogdill (1948), listed the following: physical and constitutional factors (height, weight, physique, energy, health, and appearance); intelligence; self-confidence; sociability; will (initiative, persistence, ambition); and surgency (geniality, expressiveness, originality). He emphasized, as did Stogdill and most other studies, that different leadership characteristics are needed in varied situations.Stogdill drew up a listing of the major criteria that had been used up to 1948. Fifteen studies substantiated traits that leaders and administrators possessed in greater degree than average group members, in most cases: intelligence and scholarship, dependability in exercising responsibility, activity and social participation, and socioeconomic status. Ten studies added sociability, initiative, persistence, self-confidence, popularity, ability to adapt, and verbal facility. Stogdill then divided these characteristics into general categories: capacity, achievement, responsibility, participation, status, and situational factors.Borg, Burr, and Sylvester (1961) combined characteristics from thirtyfive different studies of educational administrators using four functional criteria: ratings of principals by superintendent; anonymous teachers' ratings; independent observers' ratings; and principals' self-ratings. Common variables, which differed slightly for each educational criterion, were personality, administrative ability, general knowledge, professional knowledge, cooperation, tact, stimulation of co-workers, social activity, good judgment, originality, communicativeness, forcefulness, physical character, and attitude toward teachers. Several studies have been made that used various research and questionnaire formats to choose the working criteria for their studies. At the

No abstract

No abstract