Researchers once lamented the paucity of multilevel theory, models, and research in the literature(e.g., O’Reilly, 1990; Staw, 1984), but now management journals are replete with such studies. Around a decade ago, Hitt, Beamish, Jackson, and Mathieu (2007) noted that about a quarter of recent management publications were multilevel—undoubtedly, the trajectory remains positive. The proliferation may provide support for the adage that “the squeaky wheel gets the grease,” but it likely also reflects the field’s desire to develop more comprehensive, context-rich theory and findings. Moreover, the availability of “how to” volumes for developing multilevel theory and analyzing the associated data (e.g., Johns, 2001, 2006; Kozlowski & Klein, 2000), as well as the widespread availability of accessible statistical packages, contributes to the movement. The shift is both symbolic and substantive. The multilevel context—once treated as an unknown or messy source of error variance that needed to be controlled—is frequently at the heart of theorizing on a variety of topics. This is perhaps most evident in the teams literature (see Mathieu, Maynard, Rapp, & Gilson, 2008, for a review) where multilevel studies examine direct cross-level effects as well as contextual moderators that influence lower-level processes and outcomes (e.g., Yu & Zellmer-Bruhn, 2018).But, the influence is apparent in other streams as well, including strategic human resource management (Ployhart,Weekley, & Ramsey, 2009), emotions (Scott, Barnes, & Wagner, 2012), social networks (Brass, Galaskiewicz, Greve, & Tsai, 2004), and many others. Management researchers frequently import ideas from the basic disciplines of psychology, sociology, political science, anthropology, and economics. This fact is much to the chagrin of some (e.g., concerning a lack of distinct disciplinary foundation), but to the delight of others (e.g., in respect of multidisciplinary richness and alternative views) (see Shaw, Tangirala, Vissa, & Rodell, 2018). Regardless of opinion, multilevel research has played an important role in helping management, as a field, to distance itself from foundational theories that existed originally at different levels within the basic disciplines (for an example, see Sparrowe, Liden, Wayne, & Kraimer, 2001). Moreover, management theorists are adept at taking constructs originating at one level—whether borrowed from a basic discipline or formulated in situ—and developing constitutive definitions and associated empirical evidence for examination at other levels (e.g., Knight, Menges, & Bruch, 2018; Yu & Zellmer-Bruhn, 2018). When executed effectively, multilevel research can further enhance the stature of management research among social science researchers, by generating insights about uniquely organizational phenomena that are central to our understanding of organizations. The resulting theories, constructs, and insights are unlikely to be generated by researchers in other disciplines who typically theorize and analyze at single levels (see also Heath & Sitkin, 2001). Managers, who have to deal with the general messiness of organizing across individuals, teams, and departments, may be particularly appreciative of research that helps them to think about the consequences of what they do at one level for outcomes at other levels. Full paper available at https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2018.4003
