Search results

Multi-level research provides a better understanding of trust and distrust, and better-specified theory, when attending to processes one-level up and one-level down from the behavior it seeks to explain. Looking to the cross-level dynamics immediately surrounding the level on which a study of trust and of distrust would focus, advantages are identified when middle-range models are tested to capture trust and distrust in particular contexts, such as families, organizations, or communities.

This chapter sets forth a form of comparative analysis that is explicitly organizational, in the sense that it uses cross-level, contextual or compositional, analysis to explain organizational-level observations, especially comparisons between organizations. Inter-organizational comparisons often surface paradoxical results, in the form of unexpected differences among similar kinds of organizations, or unexpected similarities among different kinds of organizations. The value of using comparative analysis in these cases is that the information required to unravel organizational-level puzzling results is often located at a higher or lower levels. The proposed form of comparative analysis thus extends the conventional top-down, unidirectional form by adding a bottom-up component – making it bi-directional. In addition to introducing an organization-centered form of comparative analysis, the chapter offers suggestions for its practice and speculates about the potential benefits of its broad application within organizational studies.

Entrepreneurship research has grown in both quality and quantity over the past decade, as many theoretical innovations and important empirical research findings have been introduced to the field. However, theoretical approaches to understanding entrepreneurship remain fragmented, and empirical findings are unstable across different contexts. This chapter describes features of a multi-level process view of new venture emergence that adds coherence to the entrepreneurship theory jungle and brings order to idiosyncratic empirical results, by explaining how ideas become organized into new ventures. The centerpiece of this effort is enactment theory, a general process approach specifically developed to explain organizing processes. Enactment theory – and Campbellian evolutionary theorizing more generally – has a long history of use within and across multiple levels of analysis. Consequently, the description here illustrates how organizing unfolds across multiple levels of analysis and multiple phases of development. After describing the theorizing assumptions and multi-level process view of new venture organizing, the chapter explores implications of applying this perspective by suggesting new research directions and interpretations of prior work. The aim is to advocate process theorizing as a more productive approach to understanding new venture emergence.

McComb, Barringer and Bourne have presented a multi-level perspective for understanding the phenomenon of part-time employment that can serve as a very useful framework or roadmap for future research. Within this commentary particular attention is given to reinforcement of a number of issues raised by the authors, as well as some suggestions for further elaboration on their “cross-level moderator” and “mixed determinant” models of work arrangements. Some specific comments are offered pertaining to further examination of individual-, organizational-, and group-level variables.

While the topic of team adaptation is gaining in prominence within the broader team effectiveness literature, there remain numerous unanswered questions about the way it affects, and is affected by, team dynamics over time. In particular, within this chapter, we seek to more fully examine the relationship between team adaptation and team cohesion to set the stage for additional investigations of team adaptation – team emergent state relationships. However, beyond merely suggesting that a linear relationship exists between team adaptation and cohesion, we envision the relationship as likely being curvilinear as well as reciprocal in nature. Additionally, we consider how temporal factors may shape this relationship by considering how the team’s performance on prior disruptions may influence the link between team cohesion and different adaptive outcomes (i.e., meritorious, maintenance, or maladaptation) as well as flowing along a feedback loop to affect team adaptation processes and team adaptability. By theorizing about these underexamined relationships, our intent is to introduce a framework that can be utilized as a foundation upon which future team adaptation research can build. Finally, we discuss how practitioners can leverage our thoughts in order to more effectively manage adaptation and cohesion within their teams.

In response to recent calls to better understand the brain’s role in organizational behavior, we propose a series of theoretical tests to examine the question “can brains manage?” Our tests ask whether brains can manage without bodies and without extracranial resources, whether they can manage in social isolation, and whether brains are the ultimate controllers of emotional and cognitive aspects of organizational behavior. Our analysis shows that, to accomplish work-related tasks in organizations, the brain relies on and closely interfaces with the body, interpersonal and social dynamics, and cognitive and emotional processes that are distributed across persons and artifacts. The results of this “thought experiment” suggest that the brain is more appropriately conceived as a regulatory organ that integrates top-down (i.e., social, artifactual and environmental) and bottom-up (i.e., neural) influences on organizational behavior, rather than the sole cause of that behavior. Drawing on a socially situated perspective, our analysis develops a framework that connects brain, body and mind to social, cultural, and environmental forces, as significant components of complex emotional and cognitive organizational systems. We discuss the implications for the emerging field of organizational cognitive neuroscience and for conceptualizing the interaction between the brain, cognition and emotion in organizations.

As the preceding chapter and commentaries reveal, the field of organizational creativity and innovation is both complex and multifaceted. Many core constructs are ambiguously defined, and levels issues are often confounded within constructs and among proposed relationships. When attempting to advance the understanding of social influence factors and organizational creativity and innovation, multi-level perspectives are particularly well suited to address these complexities. The commentaries of Dionne and Runco represent alternative approaches to facing these challenges. This response to their commentaries discusses our perspective on their recommendations and presents some final thoughts on how multi-level approaches should form the basis for moving the field forward.

Accountability is ubiquitous in social systems, and its necessity is magnified in formal organizations, whose purpose has been argued to predict and control behavior. The very notion of organizing necessitates answering to others, and this feature implies an interface of work and social enterprises, the individuals comprising them, and subunits from dyads to divisions. Because the nature of workplace accountability is multi-level as well as interactive, single-level conceptualizations of the phenomenon are incomplete and inherently misleading. In response, this chapter sets forth a meso-level conceptualization of accountability, which develops a more comprehensive understanding of this pervasive and imperative phenomenon. The meso model presented integrates contemporary theory and research, and extends our perspectives beyond individual, group, unit, or organizational perspectives toward a unitary whole. Following this is a description of challenges and opportunities facing scholars conducting accountability research (e.g., data collection and analysis and non-traditional conceptualizations of workplace phenomenon). Theoretical and practical implications are discussed, as are directions for future research.

Teams are best positioned for success when certain enabling conditions are in place such as the right mix of individuals. Effective team staffing considers team members’ knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics (KSAOs) as well as the configuration of team member KSAOs and their relations, called team composition. In practice, however, how to integrate team composition considerations into team staffing to facilitate outcomes such as team cohesion can seem nebulous. The purpose of this chapter is to describe how team member KSAOs and their configurations and relations affect team cohesion, and suggest how this information can inform team staffing. We frame team cohesion as an aspect of team human capital to understand when it may be an important consideration for staffing. We describe multilevel considerations in staffing cohesive teams. We summarize theories that link team composition to team cohesion via interpersonal attraction, a shared team identity, and team task commitment. Finally, we propose a six-step approach for staffing cohesive teams, and describe a few areas for future research.