Search results

“Multi-Level Issues in Strategy and Methods” is Volume 4 of Research in Multi-Level Issues, an annual series that provides an outlet for the discussion of multi-level problems and solutions across a variety of fields of study. Using a scientific debate format of a key scholarly essay followed by two commentaries and a rebuttal, we present, in this series, theoretical work, significant empirical studies, methodological developments, analytical techniques, and philosophical treatments to advance the field of multi-level studies, regardless of disciplinary perspective.

In this response, we provide our insights and replies on the commentaries of Riordan and Lawrence. To Lawrence’s point that few organizational scholars grow up in multi-level communities, we offer the adage “sad, but true.” We agree with Riordan and Lawrence that better multi-level education is necessary to improve the diversity and demography field, and therefore offer suggestions regarding how to increase our levels-based proficiencies in research. Primarily, however, we focus our suggestions on improving levels-based theoretical proficiencies within diversity and demography research and augment those recommendations we provided in our review study. Before addressing levels-based measurement and analytic issues, the overwhelming inattention paid to multi-level theoretical issues within diversity and demography must be reconciled.

We appreciate the perspectives developed in the Riordan and Lawrence commentaries regarding our evaluation of levels of analysis issues in diversity and demography research. We will address both commentaries, as each tended to focus on a different aspect of our diversity and demography review. For example, Riordan makes the point that we did not provide specific enough solutions to direct future research in the diversity and demography area, while Lawrence takes a more philosophical approach to examining the concepts of diversity and demography research as a whole.

In this chapter, I propose a model for how school-level leaders manage their emotions. This model consists of six components. School-level leaders typically have little direct influence over the first component of the model, which are the socio-contextual factors in the schools, school communities and jurisdictions in which they work. A school-level leader's identity, sense of self and their personal characteristics comprise the second component of the model. The third component of the model is a multi-directional arrow demonstrating connections and interactions between the socio-contextual factors and a school-level leader's sense of self. Factors that heighten school-level leaders' emotional experiences in schools are considered as part of the fourth component of this model for school-level leaders' emotional regulation. The fifth component are the emotional regulation strategies school-level leaders use to manage emotions that emerge as part of their workday, while influence of supports and professional learning are considered as part of the sixth component, Finally, the model also accounts for the chain reactions and feedback loops that can occur when an individual utilizes an emotional regulation strategy that is unsuccessful. Those processes produce new emotions that must be regulated using similar, or different, emotional regulation strategy(ies).

This commentary provides a review of the Dionne, Randel, Jaussi and Chun paper on levels of analysis issues within diversity and demography research. The commentary points out the complexity of levels of analysis issues within the field of diversity. Additionally, it identifies some questions that researchers should be addressing about levels of analysis issues within diversity research.

The quantitative literature on levels of analysis emphasizes identifying the level of a construct as a confirmation rather than a discovery process. Based on the comments we received from Parry and Gephart we integrate some of their ideas regarding discovery in our earlier model to augment the verification process associated with construct validation. However, we also emphasize the need to use structure even with qualitative methods, given the nature of the level verification process. We begin by discussing their specific comments as well as our reactions to these comments. We then discuss the ideas of theoretical sampling, discovery and levels of abstraction, and include an example to demonstrate the utility of using a “discovery”-oriented approach to level specification for construct validation. Finally, we provide a brief conclusion for our reply.

“Multi-Level Issues in Social Systems” is Volume 5 of Research in Multi-Level Issues, an annual series that provides an outlet for the discussion of multi-level problems and solutions across a variety of fields of study. Using a scientific debate format of a key scholarly essay followed by two commentaries and a rebuttal, we present, in this series, theoretical work, significant empirical studies, methodological developments, analytical techniques, and philosophical treatments to advance the field of multi-level studies, regardless of disciplinary perspective.

In response to Ford and Sullivan's chapter, this commentary poses a number of questions intended to help future research efforts ascertain whether levels of analysis and phases of new-venture emergence happen concurrently. Strongly in agreement with Ford and Sullivan's call for a process approach toward the study of entrepreneurial ventures, the commentary focuses on the potential processes associated with different levels of analysis that might possibly underlie the enactment and effectuation processes depicted in their model. Through the examination of these underlying processes, questions for future research are raised to help address the question, “Do levels and phases of new-venture emergence always happen together?”

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.

Agars, Kaufman, and Locke's (this volume) review of social influence within the creativity and innovation literature provides an introduction to multi-level issues within creativity research. Their chapter reveals that relevant social influences may differ by level, relevant domain characteristics may not hold across other domains, and creativity may be influenced differently than innovation. Building on Agars et al.'s work, this commentary offers several suggestions pertaining to multi-level research as a means of advancing creativity research, specifically as it relates to social influence. Suggestions for future research include consideration of levels-based boundaries within theoretical construct development, employment of a bracketing technique to review construct implications at levels above and below the construct of interest, and improvement in multi-level modeling of particular social influence and/or creative processes that are non-linear in nature.

This study aims to examines both accrual and real-based earnings management (EM) behavior of listed corporations in tax-free countries during different economic situations. It also addresses the link between firm- and country-level determinants of accrual and real-based EM and explores economic conditions' influence on these determinants.

The study examines 1,608 firm-years, covers sixteen years (2004–2019), clustered into three periods according to the global financial crisis (GFC): four years prior (2004–2007), two years during (2008–2009), and ten years post the GFC (2010–2019). We employ the modified Jones model (performance-matched) developed by Kothari et al. (2005) to measure the accrual-based EM (positive and negative discretionary accrual EM) and the three levels model for Dechow et al. (1998) to measure the real-based EM (cash flow from operating, discretionary expenses and abnormal production cost).

The study finds a significant increase in EM practices in the listed corporations in tax-free countries during the economic downturn. These corporations are found to understate their earnings during the economic stress period. Simultaneously, the firm-level determinants of EM practices were at the same level of significance during different economic conditions in accrual-based EM. In contrast, the country-level EM determinants vary based on the economic conditions.

Financial reports' users gain a deep understanding of the quality of financial reports in the context of tax-free country. And, the study outcomes inspire policymakers to develop relevant legislation to mitigate financial reports' risk and adequately protect the financial reports' users.