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…
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.
Most research issues in strategic management are essentially problem focused. To one extent or another, these problems often span levels of analysis, may align with…
Most research issues in strategic management are essentially problem focused. To one extent or another, these problems often span levels of analysis, may align with different performance metrics, and likely hold different implications from various theoretical perspectives. Despite these variations, research has generally approached questions by taking a single perspective or by contrasting one perspective with a single alternative rather than exploring integrative implications. As such, very few efforts have sought to consider the performance implications of using combined, integrated, or multi-level perspectives. Given this reality, what actually constitutes “good” performance, how performance is effectively measured, and how performance measures align with different perspectives remain thorny problems in strategic management research. This paper discusses potential extensions by which strategic management research and theory might begin to address these conflicts. We first consider the multi-level nature of strategic management phenomena, focusing in particular on competitive advantage and value creation as core concepts. We next present three approaches in which strategic management theories tend to link levels of analysis (transaction, management, and atmosphere). We then examine the implications arising from these multi-level approaches and conclude with suggestions for future research.
The process approach to multi-level organizational behavior is based on the assumption that multi-level organizational behavior is processual in nature. This article…
The process approach to multi-level organizational behavior is based on the assumption that multi-level organizational behavior is processual in nature. This article defines group and organizational processes and their representation as process frameworks. Both functional and inclusional classes of levels exist, each of which has at least five categories of levels. All ten categories are special cases of process frameworks. This article provides examples of each category level, which it uses to illustrate new models of organizational work, extended models of interdependence, a new typology of theories based on their levels of processes, and a new tool for survey research called knobby analyses. After explaining the basic idea of knobby analysis, the article briefly describes the processual theory of the organizational hologram, the use of linear programming, and causal-chain analysis to provide multi-level explanations of employee opinion data. These ideas are embodied in conducting a strategic organizational diagnosis, which is the first stage of organizational design. Organizational design encompasses multiple stages, each of which itself involves multiple, multi-level phenomena and analyses. The basic point is that the processual nature of multi-level organizational phenomena gives more hope for improvements in theory building and their application if one uses the process approach rather than a variable approach.
Researchers and practitioners are interested in developing frameworks that can improve the understanding of the emerging field of global talent management (GTM) within and…
Researchers and practitioners are interested in developing frameworks that can improve the understanding of the emerging field of global talent management (GTM) within and across the subsidiaries of multinational enterprises (MNEs). A few studies have proposed such frameworks but only implicitly include constructs at different levels of analysis. This paper is a step toward bridging the gap. Grounded in multi-level theory, international human resources management (IHRM) frameworks, and the ability-motivation-opportunity model, the purpose of this paper is to develop a multi-level framework that describes the processes through which antecedents at four levels of analysis affect a subsidiary’s GTM system, which in turn directly affects outcomes at three levels of analysis.
This paper develops a multi-level framework that describes the processes through which antecedents at four levels of analysis affect a subsidiary’s GTM system. Along with including four levels of analysis and highlighting cross-level interactions in our proposed multi-level framework, several testable propositions are offered.
The framework developed in this paper depicts the causal relationship between the subsidiary IHRM strategy (subsidiary level) and subsidiary GTM system (subsidiary level), and the several moderating variables that specify conditions under which the subsidiary IHRM Strategy affects a subsidiary GTM system. The moderator variables include national culture distance (country level), MNE headquarters (HQ) orientation (MNE HQ level), and the required dynamic cross-cultural competencies (expatriate level). In addition, the framework shows the outcomes of a subsidiary’s GTM system across three levels: knowledge transfer (MNE HQ level), localization (subsidiary level), and cross-cultural learning (expatriate level). In the context of multi-level analyses (the authors discuss this next), the framework shows several top-down processes (e.g. P2, P4 and P5) and several bottom-up processes (e.g. P3 and P7).
The proposed multi-level framework describes important antecedents and outcomes of a subsidiary’s GTM system, and proposes several propositions for future empirical and theoretical research that could be the focus of a systematic research program and agenda on GTM in subsidiaries. In addition, the proposed framework enables us to advance the GTM literature by improving the understanding of and offering insights about the GTM system of a subsidiary, and specifically contribute to research in IHRM and GTM in a number of ways.
Existing scholarly GTM frameworks used by practitioners do not take into account the multi-level complexities that exist when a subsidiary IHRM strategy may not align with the subsidiary GTM system. As such, both practitioners and researchers would benefit by adopting a multi-level framework that accounts for these complexities and how they interact with one another to influence the way subsidiaries manage their expatriate talent.
By using multi-level theory to examine subsidiary GTM systems, the authors advance both the GTM literature and the IHRM literature. Overall, this paper attempts to shift the focus of each subsidiary’s GTM system to a broader, multi-level perspective and contribute to new theory building in GTM research, specifically in subsidiary GTM-MNE research and provide some thoughtful suggestions for HR practitioners wanting to enhance the effectiveness of their MNEs.
This chapter reviews research on multi-level organizational justice. The first half of the chapter provides the historical context for this issue, discusses organizational-level antecedents to individual-level justice perceptions (i.e., culture and organizational structure), and then focuses on the study of justice climate. A summary model depicts the justice climate findings to date and gives recommendations for future research. The second half of the chapter discusses the process of justice climate emergence. Pulling from classical bottom-up and top-down climate emergence models as well as contemporary justice theory, it outlines a theoretical model whereby individual differences and environmental characteristics interact to influence justice judgments. Through a process of information sharing, shared and unique experiences, and interactions among group members, a justice climate emerges. The chapter concludes by presenting ideas about how such a process might be empirically modeled.
Organizational researchers have become increasingly interested in multi-level constructs – that is, constructs that are meaningful at multiple levels of analysis. However, despite the plethora of theoretical and empirical work on multi-level topics, explicit frameworks for validation of multi-level constructs have yet to be fully developed. Moreover, available principles for conducting construct validation assume that the construct resides at a single level of analysis. We propose a five-step framework for conceptualizing and testing multi-level constructs by integrating principles of construct validation with recent advancements in multi-level theory, research, and methodology. The utility of the framework is illustrated using theoretical and empirical examples.
For many of the current leadership theories, models, and approaches, the answer to the question posed in the title, “Is leadership more than ‘I like my boss’?,” is “no,”…
For many of the current leadership theories, models, and approaches, the answer to the question posed in the title, “Is leadership more than ‘I like my boss’?,” is “no,” as there appears to be a hierarchy of leadership concepts with Liking of the leader as the primary dimension or general factor foundation. There are then secondary dimensions or specific sub-factors of liking of Relationship Leadership and Task Leadership; and subsequently, tertiary dimensions or actual sub-sub-factors that comprise the numerous leadership views as well as their operationalizations (e.g., via surveys). There are, however, some leadership views that go beyond simply liking of the leader and liking of relationship leadership and task leadership. For these, which involve explicit levels of analysis formulations, often beyond the leader, or are multi-level in nature, the answer to the title question is “yes.” We clarify and discuss these various “no” and “yes” leadership views and implications of our work for future research and personnel and human resources management practice.
This article presents a comprehensive and qualitative review of how levels of analysis issues have been addressed in the diversity and demography literature. More than 180…
This article presents a comprehensive and qualitative review of how levels of analysis issues have been addressed in the diversity and demography literature. More than 180 conceptual and empirical publications (i.e. book chapters and journal articles) in this field are reviewed and coded regarding the specific incorporation of levels of analysis in theory and hypothesis formulation, representation of levels of analysis in measurement of constructs and variables, appropriateness of data-analytic techniques given the explicit or implied levels of analysis, and alignment between levels of analysis in theory and data in regard to drawing inferences and conclusions. Although the body of diversity and demography literature continues to grow, levels of analysis issues are rarely considered. Only a few reviewed studies address levels of analysis issues in theory development, and no reviewed studies employ appropriate multi-level data analytic techniques. Implications for future research are discussed, and recommendations for incorporating levels of analysis into diversity and demography research are provided.
“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…
“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.
“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.