Multi-level Issues in Organizational Behavior and Processes: Volume 3

Francis J. Yammarino, Ph.D., is a Distinguished Professor of Management and Director and Fellow of the Center for Leadership Studies at the State University of New York at Binghamton. He received his Ph.D. in Organizational Behavior (Management) from the State University of New York at Buffalo. Dr. Yammarino has extensive research experience in the areas of superior-subordinate relationships, leadership, self-other agreement processes, and multiple levels of analysis issues. He serves on the editorial review boards of seven scholarly journals, including the Academy of Management Journal, Journal of Applied Psychology, and the Leadership Quarterly. Dr. Yammarino is a Fellow of the American Psychological Society and the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. He is the author of seven books and has published over 80 articles. Dr. Yammarino has served as a consultant to numerous organizations, including IBM, Textron, TRW, Lockheed Martin, Medtronic, United Way, and the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, and Department of Education.Fred Dansereau, Ph.D., is a Professor of Organization and Human Resources in the School of Management at the State University of New York at Buffalo. He received his Ph.D. from the Labor and Industrial Relations Institute at the University of Illinois with a specialization in Organizational Behavior. Dr. Dansereau has extensive research experience in the areas of leadership and managing at the individual, dyad, group, and collective levels of analysis. Along with others, he has developed a theoretical and empirical approach to theorizing about and testing theories at multiple levels of analysis. He has served on the editorial review boards of the Academy of Management Review, Group and Organization Management, and Leadership Quarterly. Dr. Dansereau is a Fellow of the American Psychological Association and the American Psychological Society. He has authored seven books and over 70 articles and is a consultant to numerous organizations, including the Bank of Chicago, Occidental, St. Joe Corp., Sears, TRW, the United States Army and Navy, Worthington Industries, and various educational institutions.

“Multi-Level Issues in Organizational Behavior and Processes” is Volume 3 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.

Part-time employment is a vital portion of the U.S. labor force, yet research to date has provided only limited insights into how to successfully create and manage this sector of the workforce. We propose that these limitations are due, at least in part, to an inadequate explication of the levels issues inherent in this area. In this article, we present a summary framework of constructs at the economic, industry, organization, individual, and work levels that influence part-time work arrangements. We then specify a cross-level moderator model that examines how the number of hours worked by employees influences their attitudes and behaviors. We posit that this relationship is moderated by a number of contextual effects at multiple levels. Using this sample model, we demonstrate the way in which researchers examining part-time work arrangements can effectively address levels issues. Our article concludes with a discussion of the implications that this summary framework has for researchers, practitioners, and policy makers.

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.

The McComb, Barringer and Bourne article provides an insightful review of recent developments in the part-time full-time research literature and suggests a cross-level model and research approach. Building and enriching on this model, this paper first offers suggestions about variables that might be included in research on part and full-time workers, with a focus on individual-level constructs. Second, suggestions are presented about ways to add methodological richness to this area of research.

The three preceding articles describe the complexity associated with researching part-time work arrangements. Taken together, they highlight the various constructs that must be considered and the complicated relationships among them. Building on Gallagher’s roadmap metaphor, we shift our focus in this article from the content of the roadmap to its use in guiding our future research. We highlight the decisions that must be made and the issues that must be considered while making these decisions.

Conceptualizing trust alone or as the starting point for understanding both trust and distrust is insufficient. Therefore, this chapter focuses on the construction of phenotypic trustscapes and distrustscapes that permit an abstract exploration of the concepts of trust and distrust using societal and dyadic relationships and perceptions of the individual as the units of analysis. For theoretical understanding of trust and distrust, it uses social and evolutionary biologic multi-level theory. This chapter builds on the existing trust literature in three ways: (1) by triangulating on trust and distrust through the use of a number of research methodologies; (2) by placing trust and distrust in value orientation theory and models; and (3) by extricating trust and distrust from reciprocity constructs, and placing them into separate phenotypes: trustscapes and distrustscapes. These efforts show that both trust and distrust are naturally occurring phenomena, with one or the other predominant in specific contexts. The chapter includes scenarios in Japan, Bulgaria, and Indonesia to demonstrate how micro- and macro-level examples of trustscapes and distrustscapes function.

In this commentary on Trustscapes…, The American University in Bulgaria Case section is praised. Its rich description of how those working to build a new university, who came from societies with different levels of generalized trust, struggle to create an organization with structures, policies and practices that reflect their own propensities to trust or distrust. The Case generated extended discussion of the power of distrust, governments’ roles in the production of trust and distrust, and how individuals seek to make sense of the multiple conflicting cues regarding whether to trust or distrust in their organizational settings.

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.

Multi-level analysis offers a useful approach to examine social and cultural questions, evolutionary biology, and research methods. Attempts to interlock the three streams of analysis can provide a rich, holistic view of past, current, and possible future research. A clarification of the possible importance of evolutionary biology and the research underpinnings of the original chapter on trustscapes and distrustscapes is attempted here.

This paper seeks to expand the value of multidisciplinary research and research methods that were discussed in the original chapter. First, I attempt to clarify the importance of studying and integrating both social and biological disciplines as they relate to organization trust and distrust issues. Second, I expand the discussion of evolutionary biological issues in ways that clarify their importance to an understanding of the social concepts of trust and distrust. Finally, I argue that multi-level analysis is best served by multi-research methodologies: methodologies that explore the researcher’s and research subject’s basic assumptions, their values, and their operating environments. All three issues are framed within the contexts of Denise Rousseau’s and Jone Pearce’s commentaries on “Trustscapes and Distrustscapes: A Multi-Level Approach for Understanding Stability and Change.”

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.

Organizational demography research tends to invoke multi-level concepts that require multi-level theories and analysis. Scholars originally paid little attention to this multi-level work. However, the complex issues involved in studying multi-level demographic phenomena are receiving increasing scrutiny. Three historical oppositions in social science have contributed to current limitations: the disciplinary differences between psychology and sociology; the analytical antagonism between quantitative and qualitative analysis; and the rhetorical distinctions between deductive and inductive discussion. These oppositions suggest that a more qualitative, inductive approach may uncover new directions for multi-level demographic theory. Two possibilities are discussed. One is to refocus on the phenomena themselves instead of their outcomes. Another is to explore how demographic misperceptions influence individual behavior.

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.

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.

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.

We review and extend the arguments of Chen, Mathieu and Bliese by providing some foundational and guiding questions to assist researchers in multi-level construct validation. First, we suggest that all multi-level researchers need to gain a firm understanding of the difference between individual and collective constructs. Second, we make a distinction between collective constructs that describe the collection of individuals within the group vs. those that describe the collective as a whole. This distinction provides a framework to sort the various compositional models discussed by Chen et al. into two broad categories. After discussing these two questions, we then develop a decision tree that guides researchers through a series of questions and ultimately helps researchers to identify the appropriate compositional model.

Chen, Mathieu and Bliese (this volume) propose a useful framework for conceptualizing, testing, and validating multi-level constructs. Their framework focuses on the differences in constructs that occur between individuals and groups. One key question arises with their approach: What happens if the validity of constructs is viewed as potentially varying not only between individuals and between groups but also within individuals and within groups? The focus on within-individuals and within-groups variations is called “frog-pond effects.” Based on such frog-pond effects, this chapter reconsiders the approach of Chen et al. and discusses some of the implications of adding this perspective to multi-level research.

In this chapter we respond to Hofmann and Jones and Kim, who provided insightful comments on our framework for conducting multi-level construct validation. We specifically address issues surrounding the meaning, structure, and function of multi-level constructs, extending our framework for validation of within-person constructs, and frog-pond effects. In so doing, we hope to clarify further the process of validating constructs across multiple levels of analysis.

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.

I briefly trace the development of Mackenzie’s work, spanning nearly four decades, against the backdrop of changes in university business administration teaching and research programs over the last 40 years or so. It is argued that his work is clearly processual and applied, integrates process with a number of different kinds of levels, and joins a number of other processual approaches different than his own to move beyond current mainstream Newtonian-based, “reality as a concrete structure,” organizational study emphases. Mackenzie’s and other processual work is discussed within tipping point (“that magic moment when an idea, trend, or social behavior crosses a threshold, tips and spreads like wildfire,” Gladwell, 2002, back cover) and dynamic systems notions (Sterman & Wittenberg, 1999) to predict the likelihood of these works’ reaching such a tipping point and ultimately becoming a crucial part of mainstream organizational studies. It is proposed that the ideas discussed above be incorporated into a formal dynamic systems model, along the lines of Sterman and Wittenberg’s.

If organizations and the behaviors within them are inherently processual in nature, then neither familiar variance-type theories nor conventional event sequence process theories may provide real explanations. Mackenzie’s chapter offers a paradigm-shaking alternative. Eschewing common units of analysis, he posits a new one. His “process framework” causally links agents, events and outcomes – these process frameworks are interdependently linkable one to another as well as compiled inclusionally across multiple levels. Mackenzie’s theory is conceptually anchored in a new ideal-type organization (the holonomic). It has both innovative data-gathering instrumentation and sophisticated analytic techniques. The theory is thus remarkably general and accurate but hardly simple. Its potential for both further organizational science work and managerial application appears substantial.

This paper describes the origins and a few main “course corrections” as the author evolved his processual models and theories for explaining and predicting organizational behavior. Interest in aggregation problems and their solutions lead to the evolution of the processual approach. The paper emphasizes the need for being engaged with the phenomena. Being engaged, however, can have the consequence that the researcher co-evolves with the research.

Paul D. Bliese is currently the commander of the U.S. Army Medical Research Unit – Europe. He received his Ph.D. in Applied Social Psychology from Texas Tech University. His research interests include multilevel methodology, leadership, and occupational stress. He is a consulting editor for the Journal of Applied Psychology, and also serves on the editorial boards of Leadership Quarterly and Organizational Research Methods. His work has appeared in the Human Performance, Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Journal of Organizational Behavior, and Organizational Research Methods.Kristina A. Bourne is a doctoral candidate in Organization Studies at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, where she also obtained a M.B.A. and a Women’s Studies Graduate Certificate. Her academic interests include gender and organization as well as family-friendly policies and benefits. She is currently working on her dissertation in the area of women business owners, and on a collaborative research project focusing on part-time work arrangements.Gilad Chen is an Assistant Professor of Psychology at the Georgia Institute of Technology. He received his Ph.D. in Industrial-Organizational Psychology from George Mason University. His research focuses on work motivation, teams, and leadership, with particular interests in modeling motivation and performance in work team contexts and the examination of multilevel organizational phenomena. His work has appeared in the Academy of Management Journal, Human Performance, Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Organizational Behavior, and Organizational Research Methods.Jae Uk Chun is a doctoral student in Organizational Behavior in the School of Management at the State University of New York at Binghamton, where he is also research assistant of the Center for Leadership Studies. His major research interests include leadership, group dynamics and group decision-making, and multiple levels of analysis issues.Vinit M. Desai is a doctoral student and researcher in Organizational Behavior and Industrial Relations at the Walter A. Haas School of Business, University of California at Berkeley. His research interests include organizational learning, sensemaking, and error cognition in high reliability organizations.Shelley D. Dionne is an Assistant Professor of Organizational Behavior and Leadership in the School of Management at Binghamton University, and a fellow in the Center for Leadership Studies. She received her Ph.D. in Organizational Behavior from Binghamton University. Her research interests include leadership and creativity, levels of analysis issues, and team development and training.Daniel G. Gallagher (Ph.D. – University of Illinois), is the CSX Corporation Professor of Management at James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Virginia. He currently serves on the editorial boards of the Journal of Organizational Behavior, Journal of Management, and Industrial Relations (Berkeley). His current research interests include the multi-disciplinary study of contingent employment and other forms of work outside of the traditional employer – employee relationship.David A. Hofmann (Ph.D., The Pennsylvania State University) is currently Associate Professor of Management at the Kenan-Flagler Business School at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. His research interests include safety issues in organizations, multi-level analysis, organizational climate/culture and leadership, content specific citizenship behavior, and the proliferation of errors in organizations. In 1992, he was awarded the Yoder-Heneman Personnel Research award by the Society for Human Resource Management. His research appears in a number of journals including the Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management Review, Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Management, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, and Personnel Psychology. He has also co-authored several book chapters, edited a book (Safety and Health in Organizations: A Multi-level Perspective), and presented papers/workshops at a number of professional conferences.James G. (Jerry) Hunt (Ph.D. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign) is the Paul Whitfield Horn Professor of Management, Trinity Company Professor in Leadership and Director of the Institute for Leadership Research at Texas Tech University. He is the former editor of the Journal of Management and current Senior Editor of The Leadership Quarterly. He founded and edited the eight volume leadership symposia series, and has authored or edited some 200 book and journal publications. His current research interests include processual approaches to leadership and organizational phenomena and the philosophy of the science of management.Kimberly S. Jaussi is an Assistant Professor of Organizational Behavior and Leadership in the School of Management at Binghamton University and a fellow in the Center for Leadership Studies. She received her doctorate from the Marshall School of Business at the University of Southern California. Her research interests include unconventional leader behavior, creativity and leadership, identity issues in diverse groups, and organizational commitment.Lisa M. Jones is a doctoral candidate in Organizational Behavior at the Kenan-Flagler Business School at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She received her B.A. from the University of California at Berkeley and her M.B.A. and M.A. from Brigham Young University. Her research interests include leadership, collective personality, and innovation implementation.Kyoungsu Kim is Associate Professor of Organization in the College of Business Administration, Chonnam National University. His major fields of interest are culture and leadership at multiple levels of analysis. His research focuses on charismatic leadership, organizational structure, roles, culture, and multiple levels of analysis.Barbara S. Lawrence is Professor of Human Resources and Organizational Behavior at the UCLA Anderson Graduate School of Management. She received her Ph.D. from the Sloan School of Management at MIT. Dr. Lawrence’s current research examines organizational reference groups, the evolution of organizational norms, internal labor markets and their effects on employees’ expectations and implicit work contracts, and the impact of population age change on occupations.Craig C. Lundberg is the Blanchard Professor of Human Resource Management at Cornell University’s School of Hotel Administration. He works with organizations facilitating organizational and personal development and publishes extensively (over 200 articles and chapters, five co-authored books). His current scholarship focuses on organizational change and culture, consultancy, alternative inquiry strategies, and sensemaking and emotions in work settings.Kenneth D. Mackenzie is the Edmund P. Learned Distinguished Professor in the School of Business at the University of Kansas. He is also the President of a pair of consulting companies which support and enrich his research. He is a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He serves on various editorial boards and has published numerous books and articles. He received a B.A. in Mathematics and a Ph.D. in Business Administration from the University of California at Berkeley. He has spent his career trying to overcome the handicap of “excessive theoretical education.”Peter Madsen is a doctoral student at the Walter A. Haas School of Business, University of California at Berkeley. His thesis work examines the processes by which organizations attempt to learn from past failures and the organizational actions and characteristics that facilitate such learning. His other interests include organizational reliability, strategic management, the work-life interface, and ethics.John E. Mathieu is the Northeast Utilities and Ackerman Scholar Professor of Management at the University of Connecticut. He received a Ph.D. in Industrial/Organizational Psychology from Old Dominion University in 1985. He has published over 50 articles and chapters on a variety of topics, mostly in the areas of micro- and meso-organizational behavior. He is a member of the Academy of Management, a Fellow of the Society of Industrial Organizational Psychology, and the American Psychological Association. His current research interests include models of training effectiveness, team and multi-team processes, and cross-level models of organizational behavior.Sara Ann McComb is an Assistant Professor of Operations Management at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. She obtained her Ph.D. in Industrial Engineering at Purdue University. Her research interests include alternative work arrangements and project teams. Currently, she is examining mutually beneficial links between organizations and part-time workers, particularly in the service sector. She is also studying the way in which project teams share information, a project for which she was award the National Science Foundation’s CAREER Award.Jone L. Pearce is Professor of Organization and Strategy in the Graduate School of Management, University of California, Irvine. She conducts research on workplace interpersonal processes, such as trust, and how these processes may be affected by political structures, economic conditions and organizational policies and practices. Her work has appeared in over seventy scholarly articles and her most recent book is Organization and Management in the Embrace of Government (Erlbaum, 2001). She is a Fellow of the Academy of Management and served as the Academy’s President in 2002–2003.Amy E. Randel is an Assistant Professor and the Coca-Cola Fellow in the Calloway School of Business & Accountancy at Wake Forest University. She received her Ph.D. in Organizational Behavior from the Graduate School of Management at the University of California, Irvine. Her research interests include identity in organizations, diverse group dynamics, group efficacy, cross-cultural management, and social capital.Richard Reeves-Ellington is currently Professor Emeritus in the School of Management at Binghamton University and an Associate Dean at Excelsior College. He taught at the American University in Bulgaria and Sofia University in Bulgaria as a Fulbright Senior Scholar. His fields of interest revolve around cross-cultural aspects of global organization, marketing, and business strategy. He also served on the Fulbright Selection Committee for SE Europe, the Muskie Foundation for students from the CIS, and the Fulbright Senior Scholars Program. His initial 33-year career in the pharmaceutical industry included 19 years of living in Asia, Europe, and Latin America.Christine M. Riordan is a faculty member in the Department of Management and also the Director of the Institute for Leadership Advancement in the Terry College of Business at the University of Georgia. Chris’ current research, which includes the study of labor force and cross-cultural diversity, has been published in journals such as the Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Management, Organizational Research Methods, and Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management.Karlene H. Roberts is a Professor of Business Administration at the Walter A. Haas School of Business, University of California, Berkeley. She has been on the review boards of many major journals in her field. She is a fellow of the American Psychological Association, the American Psychological Society and the Academy of Management. Her current research interests are in the design and management of organizations in which errors can have catastrophic outcomes. In this area she explores cross-level issues.Denise M. Rousseau is the H. J. Heinz II Professor of Organizational Behavior and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University. An organizational psychologist, her research focuses on worker-employer relationships and multi-level processes in organizational change. She is editor-in-chief of the Journal of Organizational Behavior, and in 2003–2004, President of the Academy of Management.Melissa Woodard Barringer is an Associate Professor of Management at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. She obtained her Ph.D. in Industrial and Labor Relations at Cornell University. Her research interests are in the areas of total compensation and alternative work arrangements. She is currently studying part-time work in the service industry, and contingent work in the accounting and academic professions.