{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018805309734513276, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004424778761061947, 'mean_word_length': 5.510791366906475, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
When Compatibility Interferes with Group Effectiveness

The proposition that persons who are capable of coexisting in harmony work together more effectively in groups is highly plausible. Indeed, it is almost a tautology in group dynamics that compatible groups are more effective than incompatible groups. Schutz (1958) propounded this view most emphatically in his theory of interpersonal relations (FIRO). He asserted that there are three interpersonal needs-inclusion, control, and affection-that are necessary and sufficient to explain group behavior. Inclusion was defined as the need to establish and maintain a satisfactory interactive relation with others, control was defined as the need to establish and maintain satisfactory relations with others with respect to authority and power, and affection was defined as the need to be liked and loved by others. Depending upon childhood experiences,