Levels Issues in Theory Development, Data Collection, and Analysis

Abstract

De<plt» past entreaties to organizational theorists and reseontchars to address levels issues more carefully, levels issues continue to arouse confusion and controversy within &e organizational literature. We highlight three alternative assumptions that underlie the specification of levels of theory throuj^out mganizational behavior: (a) homogeneity within higher level units, (b) independence from higher Uvel tinits. and (c) heterogeneity within higher level ludts. These assumptions influence the nature of theoretical constructs and propositions and should, ideally, also influence data collection, analysis, and interpretation. Greater attention to levels issues will strengthen organizational theory development and research.Consider a levels-of-analysis issue arising in contemporary American politics: How should electoral college votes be allocated In the presidential election? Currently, electoral college votes are allocated at the state level in all but two states (Maine and Nebraska). Thus, in 48 states, the candidate who wins the state's popular vote wins all of that state's electoral college votes. Some states are now considering a shift to the congressional district level. Like Maine and Nebraska, these states may decide that the candidate who wins a congressional district's popular vote wins all of that district's electoral college votes. Is this shift in level of analysis from state to district a big deal? Yes, indeed. Had electoral college votes been universally allocated at the congressional district level of analysis, Nixon would have beaten Kennedy in 1960 and Ford would have beaten Carter in 1976 (WiU, 1992.Levels-of-analysis issues arising in contemporary organizational behavior are hardly this momentous. They will not change the course of

A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation.

“…In order to substantively interpret these models, one should also consider the theoretical implications of variables and constructs used at two levels of analysis via an examination of the linkages among levels of measurement, levels of effect, and the nature of the constructs in question. Such linkages have been explored by many authors (e.g., Bliese, 2000;Chan, 1998;Hofmann, 2002;Klein, Dansereau, & Hall, 1994;Rousseau, 1985;van Mierlo, Vermunt, & Rutte, 2009). These discussions emphasize the importance of establishing the relationships among measurement tools and constructs at multiple levels of analysis, how higher level phenomena emerge over time from the dynamic interaction among lower level parts, as well as how similar constructs are conceptually related at multiple levels of analysis.…”

A multi-level analysis of team climate and interpersonal exchange relationships at work

“…To justify the appropriateness of aggregating affective climate as a group-level construct, we had to evaluate both between-group variability and within-group agreement of affective climate (Hofmann, 1997;Klein, Dansereau, & Hall, 1994). The average rwg of group climate across 36 teams was .90, which meets the within-group agreement requirement discussed earlier.…”

Effective Group Training Techniques in Job-Search Training.

“…On the other hand, group techniques characterized by a highly supportive learning environment and preparation of the participants for setbacks in the job-search process would decrease psychological distress and symptoms of depression. As we were interested in cross-level effects of the group-level training techniques on the individual outcomes, we needed to simultaneously control for the effects of individual-level perceptions of the groups and for the cross-level effects of the group characteristics on the individual outcomes (Klein, Dansereau, & Hall, 1994). In light of previous findings on the differential effectiveness of job-search training with those at risk for depression (Price, van Ryn, & Vinokur, 1992;Vinokur et al, 1995;Vuori et al, 2002), we also hypothesized that these group-level training techniques would be most effective for individuals at risk for depression assessed prior to the training.…”