Search results

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.

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.

Traditional adaptive analysis based on a coarse mesh, using finite element method (FEM) analysis, produces the original solution. Then post-processing the result and figuring out the regions should be refined and these regions refined once. Finally, this new mesh is used to get the solution of first refinement. After several iterations of above procedures, we can achieve the last result that is closer to the true solution, which takes time, making adaptive scheme inpractical to engineering application. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

This paper based on FEM proposes a multi-level refinement strategy with a refinement strategy and an indicator. The proposed indicator uses value of the maximum difference of strain energy density among the elements that associated with one node, and divides all nodes into several categories based on the value. A multi-level refinement strategy is proposed according to which category the node belongs to refine different elements to different times rather than whether refine or not.

Multi-level refinement strategy takes full use of the numerical calculation, resulting in the whole adaptive analysis that only need to iterate twice while other schemes must iterate more times. Using much less times of numerical calculation and approaches, more accurate solution, making adaptive analysis more practical to engineering.

Multi-level refinement strategy takes full use of the numerical calculation, resulting in the whole adaptive analysis only need iterate twice while other schemes must iterate more times. using much less times of numerical calculation and approaches more accurate solution, making adaptive analysis more practical to engineering.

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.

“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.

“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.

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.

This study aims to provide an overview of sustainability in Flemish higher education (HE) by using the multi-level perspective (MLP) on sustainability transitions for a comprehensive empirical analysis of how sustainability is embedded in Flemish HE.

MLP was used as analytical framework to study the case and allow a focus on the interplay between innovative experiments in niche-practices, the characteristics of the prevailing regime (dominant structures, cultures and practices) and macro-trends at the landscape level. The data were collected through document analyses, surveys, in-depth interviews and a focus group. The empirical analysis was complemented with an extensive literature study.

In all, 9 landscape trends, 21 regime characteristics and 5 types of niches are identified. Furthermore, the multi-level analysis revealed 5 important lock-ins in the dominant regime that impede the upscaling of sustainable niches, 5 internal contradictions that destabilise the regime and can thus create windows of opportunity for niches to become viable alternatives and 16 opportunities for further embedding sustainability in HE.

The paper gives an original insight into the complexities of integrating sustainability in HE, highlights the important role of policy entrepreneurs to grasp emerging opportunities and offers them insight into how to create momentum and identify and fruitfully address windows of opportunity for a sustainability transition. It shows the potential and limits of the MLP for research on HE and outlines prospects for future research.

Multivariate latent growth modeling (multivariate LGM) provides a flexible data analytic framework for representing and assessing cross-domain (i.e., between-constructs) relationships in intraindividual changes over time, which also allows incorporation of multiple levels of analysis. Using the chapter by Cortina, Pant, and Smith-Darden (this volume) as a point of departure, this chapter discusses important preliminary data analysis and interpretation issues prior to performing multivariate LGM analyses.

The purpose of this paper is to focus on the relationship between college and university faculty collegiality, conceptualized as a set of prosocial behaviors, and job satisfaction.

A multi-level structural equation model was developed to examine the relationship between faculty collegiality and job satisfaction at the individual and institutional levels, the effects of gender and race/ethnicity, the effect of institutional type (i.e. research universities vs non-research universities), and whether institutional-level perceptions of faculty collegiality and job satisfaction influence perceptions of faculty collegiality and job satisfaction at the individual level.

Faculty collegiality was highly and significantly related to job satisfaction at the individual level (0.86) and at the institutional level (0.93). At the individual level, pretenured women faculty and faculty of color indicated significantly lower levels of collegiality. At the institutional level, pretenured faculty interactions with tenured faculty colleagues were positively and significantly related to individual-level perceptions of faculty collegiality.

Study limitations include self-report data that were dependent upon accurate responses from faculty participants, and cross-sectional data. Future analyses could extend study findings by examining the influence of faculty collegiality upon such outcomes as faculty productivity and retention in future multi-level analyses.

It is recommended that interventions be undertaken to embed prosocial behaviors into faculty research, teaching, and service activities, and to foster relationships between pretenured and tenured faculty members.

This paper underscores the importance of collecting nationally representative faculty data and conducting rigorous multi-level analyses to inform higher education policy and practice.