A Managerial Perspective on Common Identity-based and Common Bond-based Groups in Non-governmental Organizations. Patterns of Interaction, Attachment and Social Network Configuration


  • Elena - Mădălina VĂTĂMĂNESCU National University of Political Studies and Public Administration
  • Florina PÎNZARU National University of Political Studies and Public Administration
  • Lucian Claudiu ANGHEL National University of Political Studies and Public Administration


The paper approaches the common identity and common bond theories in analyzing the group patterns of interaction, their causes, processes and outcomes from a managerial perspective. The distinction between identity and bond referred to people’s different reasons for being in a group, stressing out whether they like the group as a whole — identity-based attachment, or they like individuals in the group — bond-based attachment.  While members of the common identity groups reported feeling more attached to their group as a whole than to their fellow group members and tended to perceive others in the group as interchangeable, in bond-based attachment, people felt connected to each other and less to the group as a whole, loyalty or attraction to the group stemming from their attraction primarily to certain members in the group. At this level, the main question concerned with the particularities of common identity-based or common bond-based groups regarding social interaction, the participatory architecture of the group, the levels of personal and work engagement in acting like a cohesive group. In order to address pertinently this issue, the current work was focused on a qualitative research which comprised in-depth (semi-structured) interviews with several project coordinators from non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Also, to make the investigation more complex and clear, the research relied on the social network analysis which was indicative of the group dynamics and configuration, highlighting the differences between common identity-based and common bond-based groups.


Back, K.W. (1951). Influence through social communication. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46, 9–23.

Berscheid, E., & Reis, H.T. (1998). Attraction and close relationships. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.). The Handbook of Social Psychology (pp. 193–281), vol. 2. New York: McGraw-Hill.

D’Andrea, A., Ferri, F., & Grifoni, P. (2010). An Overview of Methods for Virtual Social Networks Analysis. In A. Abraham, A. Hassanien & V. Snasel (Eds.). Computational Social Network Analysis Trends, Tools and Research Advances (pp. 1-26). Springer-Verlag London Limited.

Farzan, R., Dabbish, L., Kraut, R., & Postmes, T. (2011). Increasing Commitment to Online Communities by Designing for Social Presence. Submitted for review to CSCW 2011.

Grabowicz, P.A., Aiello, L.A., Eguíluz, V.M., & Jaimes, A. (2013). Distinguishing Topical and Social Groups Based on Common Identity and Bond Theory. WSDM’13, February 4–8, Rome, Italy.

Lea, M., Spears, R., & Watt, S. (2007). Visibility and anonymity effects on attraction and group cohesiveness. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 761–773.

Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1998). Breaching or building social boundaries? Side-effects of computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 25, 689–715.

Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2000). Refining the cognitive redefinition of the group: Deindividuation effects in common bond vs. Common identity groups. In T. Postmes, R. Spears, M. Lea & S. Reicher (Eds.). Side effects centre stage: Recent developments in studies of deindividuation in groups (pp. 63–78). Amsterdam: KNAW.

Postmes, T., Spears, R., Sakhel, K., & De Groot, D. (2001). Social influence in computer-mediated communication: The effects of anonymity on group behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1243–1254.

Prentice, D.A., Miller, D.T., & Lightdale, J.R. (1994). Asymmetries in attachments to groups and to their members: Distinguishing between common-identity and common-bond groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20 (5), 484–493.

Ren, Y., Kraut, R., & Kiesler, S. (2007). Applying common identity and bond theory to design of online communities. Organization Studies, 28 (3), 377–408.

Sassenberg, K. (2002). Common bond and common identity groups on the internet: Attachment and normative behavior in on-topic and off-topic chats. Group Dynamics: Theory and Practice, 6 (1), 27–37.

Sassenberg, K., & Postmes, T. (2002). Cognitive and strategic processes in small groups: Effects of anonymity of the self and anonymity of the group on social influence. British Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 463–480.

Turner, J.C. (1985). Social categorization and the self-concept: A social cognitive theory of group behavior. In E.J. Lawler (Ed.). Advances in group processes: Theory and research, Vol. 2. (pp. 77–122). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Turner, J.C. (1991). Social influence, London: Open University Press.

Utz, S., & Sassenberg, K. (2002). Distributive justice in common-bond and common-identity groups. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 5 (2), 151–162.




How to Cite

VĂTĂMĂNESCU, E. .-. M., PÎNZARU, F., & ANGHEL, L. C. (2014). A Managerial Perspective on Common Identity-based and Common Bond-based Groups in Non-governmental Organizations. Patterns of Interaction, Attachment and Social Network Configuration. Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy, 2(2), 265–282. Retrieved from https://www.managementdynamics.ro/index.php/journal/article/view/60