Description
The task is related to a course focused on the leadership and management of engineering teams. To fulfill the requirements of this assignment, it is essential to thoroughly examine the article provided and follow the specified guidelines. The case study includes five questions which are centered around the unique aspects of leadership within engineering groups. It is imperative to address each question comprehensively.please read and read and read the article first and the the slides for lecture 3 and 4. after that answer case 3 then case 4
Unformatted Attachment Preview
ISE 544
Leading and Managing Engineering Teams
Prof. Ali Nowroozi
Spring 2024
USC ID: ______________________________
Student ID: _____________
(DO NOT WRITE YOUR NAME)
INSTRUCTIONS:
1. Print your Student ID on all pages. DO NOT PUT YOUR NAME ANYWHERE.
2. On the first 20 questions, you must CIRCLE the selected choice. Do not use check marks
or crosses or you will lose points in cases of ambiguity. Do not write any notes on these
questions.
3. All descriptive answers must be typed in BLUE font, without changing font size and
line/paragraph spacing. Handwritten responses will NOT be graded.
4. Use Bold, underline, italic, or other font types to communicate your ideas more easily.
5. Submit ONLY one PDF file named as ([last for digits of ID].pdf). Example: “8673.pdf”.
NO OTHER FILES PLEASE.
6. This exam is Take-Home. However, students may not share notes or documents with
each other. “TEAMWORK IS NOT ALLOWED HERE”!
Question
Points
1-20
2 each
21
30
22
25
23
30
24
25
1
ISE 544
Leading and Managing Engineering Teams
Prof. Ali Nowroozi
Spring 2024
USC ID: ______________________________
1. What form of Organizational Structure applies to this course instruction team (our
ISE544 teaching team), assuming this was a company? (Lecture 1, slide 3):
a. Pure Functional Structure: all responsibilities are clearly distributed and lines of
communication are strict, without cross-functional communications
b. Transitioning Weak ← Moderate → Strong Matrix: An explicit structure is defined,
but the team implicitly deviates from this structure, moving back & forth on the
organizational continuum from time to time, on an as-needed basis
c. Pure Project Structure: All team members work together without any explicit
distribution of work and there are no formal lines of communication
d. This is a pure work group; different members have completely separate goals with
no alignment of objectives
2. In the article “Breaking the Boundaries: The Fractal Organization” (Handout, Lecture 1),
the “Soft Matrix” features include:
a. Vertical authority, horizontal learning
b. Vertical learning, horizontal authority
c. All learning is within the team, all authority is only vertical
d. The team is fully empowered and all learning and authority is within the team
3. Which one is NOT a typical weakness of a functional organization?
a. Typically, slower and lengthier decision-making process
b. Decisions are made mostly hierarchically (top to bottom)
c. Hard to attract people with highly specialized/focused task competencies (KSA)
d. Less creative solutions for problem-solving
4. Which problem, if observed in a team, is HARDEST to associate with team size for teams
that are too large?
a. Common information effect is stronger and more present
b. Team fragmentation (internal breakdown into sub-groups)
c. Team sub-optimization (losing site of the organization’s goal at the expense of the
team goal)
d. Personal Conflict has a better chance to emerge (Effective intervention will be more
difficult)
5. In the “Ideal Team Player” fable, on page 38. Bobby’s statement: “accusations from one
group to another, mostly about who was slacking off and who was pulling their weight.”
most closely relates to:
a. In-group bias and team fragmentation, as discussed in class
b. Thompson’s Productivity Equation: AP=PP+S-T
c. Jim Collins’ Productive Paranoia
d. Lencioni’s Artificial Harmony
6. In the Article “Breaking the Boundaries: The Fractal Organization”, on page 336 the
authors state: “The concept of homeostasis is well-known, referring as it does to the ability
2
ISE 544
Leading and Managing Engineering Teams
Prof. Ali Nowroozi
Spring 2024
USC ID: ______________________________
of a system to return to a stable state after being disturbed.” As we know, the butterfly
effect of chaos theory states the reverse: “A disturbance at a time or place can affect the
system at another time or place”. How do you address this puzzle?
a. The authors are wrong, disturbing a system will always impact its long-term
behavior.
b. The butterfly effect only applies to organisms, not other systems.
c. Homeostasis is about small perturbations to the fractal attractors, butterfly effect is
a result of big changes to the fractal attractors.
d. Homeostasis is about a random perturbation to a point in the chaos game process,
butterfly effect is a result of small changes to the fractal attractors.
7. Think what could be the best effect of job rotation, focusing on the team performance
a. Improving individuals’ technical KSA
b. Improving group entitativity in our culture model
c. Preventing Mr. T. from becoming too strong on our conflict-cohesion Seesaw
d. Improving task significance in the Hackman & Oldham model
8. Which one of the 5 P’s of Thompson most directly relates to “integration” in the team
performance model in Chapter 5 of Thompson (P. 112, Exhibit 5-1)?
a. People
b. Power
c. Place
d. Plan
9. In “The Wisdom of Teams, Katzenbach & Smith” (Handout), five “vital signs” of teams’
performance are discussed. Which sequence of the Team Performance model by
Thompson (P. 112, Exhibit 5-1) is nearly forgotten in this discussion?
a. Team Culture Motivation Cohesion
b. Team Design KSA Productivity
c. Organizational context Strategy Integration
d. Team Design Motivation Learning
10. Which statement can be directly implied from the Team Productivity Equation? AP = PP
+ S – TT
a. Potential productivity decreases with teamwork threats
b. Cohesion increases as synergy increases
c. With sufficient and timely provision of resources, team synergy improves
d. To increase actual productivity, reduce teamwork threats, and increase synergy
11. Most people regard themselves to be better-than-average drivers. This is called:
a. Selective Perception
b. Dispensability of effort
c. Transparency illusion
d. Positive illusion bias
3
ISE 544
Leading and Managing Engineering Teams
Prof. Ali Nowroozi
Spring 2024
USC ID: ______________________________
12. Which empowerment pothole (Holpp – Ch.4) is the opposite of “Leading by Example”[1]?
a.
b.
c.
d.
The Dump
Bait-and-switch
Yes, but…
Try it, you’ll like it
[1] Alexander the Great, the king of Macedonia, was one of the most superb leaders of all time. He became king at the
age of 19, when his father, Philip II, was assassinated. In the next 11 years, he conquered much of the known world,
leading his armies against numerically superior forces. Yet, when he was at the height of his power, the master of the
known world, the greatest ruler in history to that date, he would still draw his sword at the beginning of a battle and lead
his men forward into the conflict. He insisted on leading by example. Alexander felt that he could not ask his men to risk
their lives unless he was willing to demonstrate by his actions that he had complete confidence in the outcome. The sight
of Alexander charging forward so excited and motivated his soldiers that no force on earth could stand before
them.(“Opportunities are Unlimited”, Brian Tracy).
13. A team whose members truly believe that it is capable and competent to perform effectively
has a high (select the one that is DIRECTLY implied):
a. Collective Orientation
b. Mutual Trust
c. Group Potency
d. Cohesion
14. Which practice does NOT reduce common information effect:
a. Building trust and familiarity
b. Increase accountability
c. Develop and use TMS
d. Minimize status diversity
15. Task conflict (to a proper level and with proper intervention) is likely to:
a. Improve TMS
b. Have no effect on TMS
c. Reduce TMS
d. Jeopardize performance
16. Based on our class discussion, there was a general agreement that it is probably more
difficult / less useful for technical experts (e.g. engineers) to work in teams, because:
a. Group socialization is not instrumental to their personal success.
b. Based on the ERG model, the need for growth (the need to be right) is stronger than
the need for relatedness (the need to be liked)
4
ISE 544
Leading and Managing Engineering Teams
Prof. Ali Nowroozi
Spring 2024
USC ID: ______________________________
c. Because of their uniqueness (expertise), they are more effective in working
independently and do not need too much TMS (interdependence) and personal
identity becomes stronger than group identity.
d. All the above
17. In-group bias can be a direct result of:
a. Artificial Harmony
b. Exaggerating Team Synergy
c. Common Information Effect
d. Transactive Memory System
18. Leadership scholars (such as Jim Collins, Patrick Lencioni, Jerry Parros) and practitioners
(such as Jack Welch, Bill Gates, and Colin Powell) all agree on one thing:
a. You must have a clearly-defined and unchangeable strategy to grow your business
b. Your Vision must be SMART
c. A vision is an unchangeable dream and without action, it’s just that.
d. Your values must change in order to adjust and adapt to the chaotic world
19. Which character in the Five Dysfunctions book by Lencioni BEST describes Thompson’s
“Romance of Leadership”, making Lencioni’s fable more of a dream than a reality, and
why (BOTH PARTS SHOULD BE CORRECT):
a. Mickey, because of her non-verbal cues in meetings in various parts of the story
b. Catherine, throughout the story, because of her consistent personality and flawless
emotional intelligence
c. Nick’s vulnerability statement on page 65, confirms our class statement “Your
strength, if overemphasized, becomes your weakness”
d. Jeff’s conflict with Catherine on page 33 on priorities, because it relates to our
discussion on the tension between short-term (making a sale) and long-term (fixing
the team) goals
20. Peter Drucker’s famous statement “Efficiency is doing things right, effectiveness is doing
the right things” is BEST AND MOST DIRECTLY related to the relationship between
which two performance targets in the Team Performance model. (Ref. Thompson P.23)
a. Productivity Integration
b. Cohesion Learning
c. Learning Integration
d. Cohesion Productivity
5
ISE 544
Leading and Managing Engineering Teams
Prof. Ali Nowroozi
Spring 2024
USC ID: ______________________________
(Extra Credit) In the following paragraph, which chaos theory characteristics are most
clearly observed in the culture of an organization? Tip: “eerily” means “inharmoniously”
e. Tension, without creating tension you can’t get people to work
f. Fuzziness, leaders can never give exact & clear instructions
g. Self-affinity, behaviors replicate themselves at various levels, with some variations
h. Butterfly Effect, culture must be preserved, small changes to culture could have
catastrophic results down the road
“I am often struck by eerily similar behaviors exhibited by people in an organization, whether
I am meeting with a factory floor employee or a senior executive. I might detect a recurring
penchant for secrecy, or for openness, for name-calling, or for thoughtfulness. These recurring
patterns of behavior are what many call the culture of the organization”.
Leadership and the New Science, Margaret J. Wheatley (1999) – P. 128
6
ISE 544
Leading and Managing Engineering Teams
Prof. Ali Nowroozi
Spring 2024
USC ID: ______________________________
21. Referring back to Workshop #1, the Excel file containing the criteria for each team, my
initial expectations (color-coded), and the actual results, is also provided. Keep in mind,
that a higher score means “worse”. The experiment’s original guidelines are also
enclosed for your reference. (Tip: X̄ shows group assessment, R shows level of
disagreement). (30 Points)
Your job is to pick TWO-course topics (two paragraphs, up to 15 lines each), analyze
these results, and make conclusions about the teams’/individuals’ behaviors. You can
analyze the variations “within teams” or “between teams”. Explain how and why the
team behavior confirmed (or rejected) a predicted behavior that you learned in this
course.
● Discuss 2 topics only, one paragraph (5 lines each) for each topic
● Do not associate yourself with your team/individual. Do not make personal
comments.
● Do not just repeat the class discussions, unless if have something “new” to add.
Focus on creativity and connectedness to the course materials.
Note: You will ONLY submit this file in PDF format. Do not attach any excel files to
your submittal. You can copy/paste your tables and analyses into this file, after your
answer.
7
ISE 544
Leading and Managing Engineering Teams
Prof. Ali Nowroozi
Spring 2024
USC ID: ______________________________
22. Alfie Kohn, and educator and critic of the modern education system, says “The ideal
amount of competition in any company is none”. Explain how this statement contradicts
the “tension” concept of chaos theory, on the surface. (ONE PARAGRAPH – 5 lines)
Explain the “genius of AND” between the two theories which shows they actually confirm
each other, fundamentally. (1 PARAGRAPH – 10 LINES) (25 Points)
8
ISE 544
Leading and Managing Engineering Teams
Prof. Ali Nowroozi
Spring 2024
USC ID: ______________________________
23. Given the three types of teams described in Thompson – Chapter 1, Exhibit 1-1, page 8
(tactical, problem-solving, creative), Review “Table 10.2 – Proposed Competencies for
Teams” of “Lecture 2 – HO4: Team Competencies” and categorized them based on
which features you expect to be the most dominant in which team type. Also, provide up
to 2 lines of explanation for each. (30 Points)
9
ISE 544
Leading and Managing Engineering Teams
Prof. Ali Nowroozi
Spring 2024
USC ID: ______________________________
Team Type
Knowledge
Skills
Attitudes
Tactical
Problem Solving
Creative
Brief Explanation (reasons, areas of distinction & overlap, etc.):
10
ISE 544
Leading and Managing Engineering Teams
Prof. Ali Nowroozi
Spring 2024
USC ID: ______________________________
24. One of the techniques to avoid groupthink is “Face – Saving Mechanism” (Thompson P.
176), which explains: “Often, face-saving concerns prevent people from changing course,
even when the current course is clearly doubtful. Teams that are given an excuse
[mechanism] for poor performance before knowing the outcome of their decision are less
likely to succumb to groupthink than teams that do not have”. In other words, leaders
provide external scapegoat for the team failure in advance, to protect them. (1
PARAGRAPH – 5 LINES for each part) (25 Points)
a. Explain how this can be explained as an intentional reversal of fundamental
attribution error (Thompson, P. 57) with positive consequences.
b. Subsequently, explain how this technique appears to contradict Jim Collins’
observation of visionary leaders’ attitude towards luck: “looking into the mirror, or
out the window”. But in fact, it confirms it (find the GENIUS OF AND).
11
ISE 544
Leading and Managing Engineering Teams
Prof. Ali Nowroozi
Spring 2024
Case #3
DUE: 04/1/2024 11:59 PM
(75 Points)
PLEASE READ THE INSTRUCTIONS WITHOUT FAIL!
Instructions:
1. Answer all the questions in this file. Do not delete the questions. Type in your answers
below the questions. It’s a graduate-level course, so formatting should not be an issue. We
are not going to be strict about formatting, just write answers below the questions, you can
modify (add/delete) spaces according to you.
2. We expect precise and succinct answers. Add citations, references, and screenshots
wherever necessary.
3. Follow the deadline for submission. Late submissions will receive a penalty as stated in
the syllabus.
4. Name the file as the last four digits of your USC ID and submit it as a PDF. (For Example,
you must name it 1234.pdf if your USC ID is XXXXXX1234)
5. Not following the instructions will result in penalties.
All the best!!
ISE 544
Leading and Managing Engineering Teams
Prof. Ali Nowroozi
Spring 2024
1. Why is this research performed on “non-government Organizations”? What characteristics
of government organizations make them undesirable for this kind of research? (one
paragraph. 5 lines) – (15 points)
2. Think about your ISE544 term project (one paragraph. 5 lines for each bullet) – (20
points)
a. Explain the opportunities and challenges to apply the methodology discussed in the
Procedure and measure sections of this paper for data collection in your project
b. Based on the features of common bond-based and common identity-based teams,
explain the purpose of designing highly diversified teams in this course
c. Explain why diversification in the team design is not enough and it is up to the team
itself to overcome the challenges outlined in this article
d. What are the opportunities and challenges to developing a Common Identity within
your team, focus on the “Team Identity” and “Group Bonding” elements of our
Culture Development Model (Lecture 4, Slide 11)
e. Assuming there is a pre-existing Common Bond among some members, use the
diversity model discussed in Lecture 3, Slide 19/Lecture 2, HO3: Diversity to show
how it could result in unfavorable consequences without proper leadership, and
favorable consequences with proper leadership (Focus on Hypothesis H3)
f. Explain how the effects of Common Bond discussed in Hypothesis H1 could be
observed in your Hybrid team, in spite of having a fully diversified team with
absolutely no pre-existing relation.
Tip: One-on-one relationships can quickly develop in a Hybrid team, as opposed
to many-to-many relationships. It is also helpful to read Chapter 12 (Virtual
Teamwork) to get some ideas.
g. Explain why some or all of the hypotheses may be rejected for an ISE544 team.
Use some of the arguments within the case to support your conclusion
3. Relate the following Hypotheses in the article to the corresponding course topics and
provide your reasons (no more than 5 lines for each bullet) – (20 points)
a. Based on H1, if correct, would common bond-based teams manage communication
biases better or common identity-based teams (explain ONLY 3 communication
biases)
b. Based on H2, if correct, would a common bond-based team develop a Transitive
Memory system faster or a common identity-based team?
c. Compare two companies; A with common bond-based domination and B with
identity-based domination in team culture. Which one do you think is a more “selfsimilar” organization based on H3, if correct?
ISE 544
Leading and Managing Engineering Teams
Prof. Ali Nowroozi
Spring 2024
d. Based on H4, if correct, is a common bond-based team more prone to
polarization/fragmentation or a common identity-based team?
e. Based on H5, if correct, which team (common bond-based or common identitybased) better facilitates group socialization and which one is more prone to
routinization (assuming there is no change to the tasks and/or processes)
f. Based on H6, and using the productivity equation (AP=PP+S-TT), explain how the
team productivity is impacted as a result of a (good) employee departure. Using
the equation show the difference between common bond-based or common
identity-based in this respect. Tip: Do not forget “TI”
4. Based on the article, and the general observation of the two types of teams (i.e. common
bond-based or common identity-based) behaviors: – (20 points)
a. How would you hypothesize the optimal distinctiveness point for each team type?
What are the lessons for you as a leader of the organization (NOT just the team)?
(no more than 10 lines)
b. Draw a graph (KPI versus longevity) showing how ONE of the parameters in this
study (as a KPI) can change for common bond-based teams as members stay
together for a longer period.
Parameters (KPI): topical discussion, loafing, adherence to norms, reciprocity,
welcoming newcomers, and uneasy with turnover
Tip: Also refer to the Routinization Versus Innovation Trade-offs discussion in
Thompson p. 159, but stay focused on the common bond versus common identity
topic (and the possibility of their interchange in time)
FOR DEMONSTRATION ONLY, DELETE AND REPLACE
NOT THE RIGHT GRAGH, NO LOGIC BEHIND THIS.
☹)
KPI (e.g.
Loafing
FOR DEMONSTRATION ONLY
How does it look?
Show & annotate important points.
No explanation needed.
Longevity
5. (Extra Credit) The article concludes: “In real life, groups seem to be created from a mix of
identity and bond-based attachment, although they tend to lean more towards one side or
ISE 544
Leading and Managing Engineering Teams
Prof. Ali Nowroozi
Spring 2024
the other”. Explain how you observe the following features of chaos theory1 in this article
metaphorically, focusing on this conclusion (You can pick two topics only):
(no more than 3 lines per bullet) – (10 points)
a. Butterfly effect
b. Fuzzy Boundaries
c. Chaos Game (tension)
d. Self-Organization (order emerging from chaos)
e. Self-Similarity (K-strategy versus r-strategy)
Note: Question #5 is an Extra-credit assignment and students will not lose any points if they do
not answer this question. For the same reason, this question will be graded very rigorously and
students who come up with creative new ideas (more than just repeating course materials like
going beyond stating the obvious “tension” between the two types of attachment) will be awarded
full credit and the exceptionally interesting ideas will be shared with the class.
1
Also refer to the first handout; breaking the boundaries (1993), Zimmerman & Hurst
ISSN:2286-2668
Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy
Volume 2 (2014) no. 2, pp. 265-282; www.managementdynamics.ro
© College of Management (NUPSPA) & Tritonic Books
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
College of Management
National University of Political Studies and Public Administration, Romania
6 Povernei St., Sector 1, Bucharest, Romania, 010643
[email protected]
Florina PÎNZARU
College of Management
National University of Political Studies and Public Administration, Romania
6 Povernei St., Sector 1, Bucharest, Romania, 010643
florina.pî[email protected]
Lucian Claudiu ANGHEL
College of Management
National University of Political Studies and Public Administration, Romania
6 Povernei St., Sector 1, Bucharest, Romania, 010643
[email protected]
Abstract. 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 refers 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 report feeling more attached to their group as a whole than
to their fellow group members and tend to perceive others in the group as interchangeable, in
bond-based attachment people feel 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 concerns 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 focuses on a qualitative research which comprised in-depth (semi-structured) interviews with several project coordinators from non-governmental organizations (NGOs). To make the investigation more complex
and clear, the research relies on social network analysis which is indicative of the group dynamics and configuration, highlighting the differences between common identity-based and
common bond-based groups.
266 | Elena – Mădălina VĂTĂMĂNESCU, Florina PÎNZARU, Lucian Claudiu ANGHEL (2014)
A Managerial Perspective on Common Identity-Based and Common Bond-Based Groups in Non-Governmental Organizations
Keywords: common identity, common bond theory, NGOs, groups, social networking.
Introduction
Group members have certain common goals, but simultaneously, they have
their individual goals or interests. At this level, occasionally, achieving common goals is in conflict with the fulfilment of individual goals. Interaction in
social groups may turn into a burden when an individual’s goal fulfilment does
not only dependent on his/her own behaviour, but also on other individuals’
behaviour within the group. Thus, the more a member’s goal achievement is
related to the other actors’ behaviour, the stronger the interdependencies are.
A salient theory about the formation of social groups assumes that individuals
join groups driven by either strong personal connections with other members or by the interest in the group as an entity. Thus, depending on the main
motivation of people, spontaneously created groups can be classified as either
social or topical. This theoretical categorization is known as common identity
and common bond and affirms that the two types of groups have different
and well-defined features that characterize them in terms of group dynamics,
patterns of interaction, subgroup structure, motivation policies, managerial
intervention or moderation, individual commitment etc.
The theory has been widely commented and elaborated by social scientists
from a theoretical perspective and through small-scale experiments, but a validation over large-scale datasets together with the development of rigorous,
automated methodologies to distinguish the group types is missing (Grabowicz, Aiello, Eguíluz & Jaimes, 2013).
Moreover, in recent years, much of the research on identity-based and bondbased commitment has fallen back upon laboratory experiments to investigate
the consequences of different types of group commitment. Due to the controlled nature of the psychological laboratory, the question remains whether
methods used to induce identity-based and bond-based commitment would
be powerful enough to have behavioural effects in natural environments. Also,
as Farzan, Dabbish, Kraut and Postmes (2011, p. 2) argue that “most social
psychological experiments lack adequate measures of long-term behavioural
commitment and focus instead on short-term psychological variables such as
self-reported attachment and social influence”.
Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy | 267
Volume 2 (2014) no. 2, pp. 265-282; www.managementdynamics.ro
Due to the fact that common identity and common bond are yet to be discussed, the current paper intends to approach the common identity and
common bond theories by analyzing the group’s patterns of interaction, their
causes, processes and outcomes. The emphasis lays on a qualitative research
which comprises in-depth (semi-structured) interviews with several project
coordinators from non-governmental organizations and on the social network analysis which is indicative of the group dynamics and configuration,
highlighting the differences between common identity-based and common
bond-based groups.
Literature review
Common identity and common bond are two concepts rooted in the social
psychological research of voluntary real-world groups (Prentice et al., 1994).
The difference between identity and bond relies on people’s distinct reasons
for being in a group – either they admire the social group as a whole, developing an identity-based attachment, or they admire individuals in the group,
developing bond-based attachment (Back, 1951). Whenever individuals feel
identity-based attachment to a group, they are liable to perceive others in the
group as exchangeable (Turner, 1985). This situation implies that identity remains mainly stable in spite of the turnover in membership. On the contrary,
in bond-based attachment, individuals feel interdependences between each
other and less to the group as a social entity. In this case, if some members
leave the group, many others tend to drift away as well.
In many situations, the emphasis lays on the behavioural commitment of
group members towards their group. The psychological research provides evidence that individuals become committed to a group in two different ways:
through group members’ internalization of specific features of the group as
an entity (e.g., norms and stereotypes, common interests, group history, competition with out-groups, shared views etc), which is the basis for commitment to common identity groups, or through interpersonal attractions among
individual group members, which is the basis for commitment to common
bond groups (Prentice, Miller & Lightdale, 1994; Ren, Kraut & Kiesler, 2007;
Tausczik et al., 2014).
Prior research in social psychology stresses out that bond based and identity
based attachments have different antecedents. On the one hand, the foundation of bond based attachment is represented by interpersonal relations
268 | Elena – Mădălina VĂTĂMĂNESCU, Florina PÎNZARU, Lucian Claudiu ANGHEL (2014)
A Managerial Perspective on Common Identity-Based and Common Bond-Based Groups in Non-Governmental Organizations
among individual group members and relies on communication and reciprocal self disclosure, repeated exposure, interpersonal similarity (Berscheid
& Reis, 1998). On the other hand, identity-based commitment stems from a
connection to the group as a whole. It is very likely for individuals to identify with a group if it consists of a well-defined repertoire of common attributes, purposes, goals, homogeneity among members, and obvious distinctions from the out-groups (Postmes, Spears, Sakhel & De Groot, 2001; Chiu
& Cheng, 2014).
Furthermore, a myriad of studies reveal that groups created on common
bonds and common identities may both generate strong commitments, but
in different ways. For example, common bond groups may elicit higher levels
of interest in the individual group members and in within-group communications while common identity groups may treat individual group members
as relatively interchangeable. At this point, the preservation of homogeneity
stands for an imperative in order to maintain unity in these groups (Farzan,
et al., 2011). Despite the existence of many similarities, social psychological
research frequently deems that these two types of groups cannot be combined
with each other. It is assumed that overestimating the presence of individuals
may afflict the common identity and overestimating the presence of the group
as a whole may afflict common bonds (Turner, 1991; Postmes, Spears & Lea,
1998; Sassenberg, 2002).
In order to investigate the difference between common identity and common
bond feelings, Prentice et al. (1994) conducted a study in university clubs.
Hereby, they discussed about two group categories – topic-based groups (e.g.,
the school newspaper, art groups, sports teams) as common identity groups,
and relation-based groups (e.g., fraternities, residential units, and eating
clubs) as common bond groups. As the results proved, individuals of the common identity groups were more attached to their group as an entity than to
their fellow group members, while individuals of the common bond groups
were attached to the group as a whole and to group members at the same time.
The authors concluded that “the two perspectives might … be viewed as describing two separable processes in the development and maintenance of
groups, either of which might dominate under a given set of circumstances” (Prentice et al., 1994, p.490). Anyway, rather than giving salience to the
existence of cardinal different group types, this classification points out to
distinct attachment processes within groups. In what group development is
concerned, groups which arise on the basis of common identity may as well
Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy | 269
Volume 2 (2014) no. 2, pp. 265-282; www.managementdynamics.ro
develop networks of interpersonal bonds, just as interpersonal networks may
also develop a shared group identity.
Focusing also on a dichotomous approach, Brewer and Gardner distinguished
between “the collective self (corresponding to perceiving the self in terms of
group membership) and the relational self, where the latter corresponds to
identities grounded in dyadic personal relationships and small face-to-face
groups that are essentially networks of interpersonal relationships” (Brewer
& Gardner, 1996, p.83 cited in Lea, Spears & Watt, 2007, p.763). Also, while
personal attraction is the outcome of typical ties between people and is not
under the group’s influential considerations in principle, group-based social
attraction stands for the result of categorization of self and others in terms of
the group.
The discrimination between identity-based and bond-based attachment has
also been approached in the context of virtual communities
