Although extensive work exists on multilevel theory building, testing and inference drawing in organizational research, work focusing on interpersonal relationships and the dyad as a level of analysis is scarcer compared to research focusing on individuals, groups/teams, and organizations. This scarcity is attributable to conceptual and methodological challenges in modeling dyads as a level of analysis. To address these challenges, we first present a discussion of the conceptualization of different dyadic configurations in work settings. Then, drawing on this conceptual treatment, we develop and illustrate the application of Random Coefficient Modeling (RCM) via nesting for independent dyads and cross-classification for dependent dyads in work settings. Across both independent and dependent dyads, we illustrate the application of Within and Between Analysis (WABA), another multilevel technique for dyadic analyses. RCM and WABA stem from differing statistical assumptions and are capable of testing different kinds of multilevel questions. We close with prescriptive implications for future multilevel conceptualization and data analysis using RCM and WABA, particularly involving interpersonal work relationships and dyads.
Beal, D., Weiss, H., Barros, E., & MacDermid, S. ( 2005). An episodic process model of affective influences on performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1054-1068.
2.
Bernerth, J.B., Armenakis, A.A., Feild, H.S., Giles, W.F., & Walker, H.J. ( 2007). Leader-member social exchange (LMSX): Development and validation of a scale. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 28, 979-1003.
3.
Bliese, P.D. ( 2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein & S. W. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions and new directions (pp. 349-381). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
4.
Bliese, P.D., & Hanges, P.J. ( 2004). Being both too liberal and too conservative: The perils of treating grouped data as though they were independent. Organizational Research Methods, 7, 400-417.
5.
Bryk, A.S., & Raudenbush, S.W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models . Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
6.
Campbell, L.J., & Kashy, D.A. ( 2002). Estimating actor, partner, and interaction effects for dyadic data using PROC MIXED and HLM5: A user-friendly guide. Personal Relationships, 9, 327-342.
7.
Chun, J.U., Yammarino, F.J., Dionne, S.D., Sosik, J.J., & Moon, H.K. ( 2009). Leadership across hierarchical levels: Multiple levels of management and multiple levels of analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 698-707.
8.
Colquitt, J.A. ( 2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386-400.
9.
Colquitt, J.A., Conlon, D.E., Wesson, M., Porter, C., & Ng, K.Y. ( 2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425-445.
10.
Colquitt, J., Scott, B., & LePine, J. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: A meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology , 92, 909-927.
11.
Dansereau, F., Alutto, J.A., & Yammarino, F.J. (1984). Theory testing in organizational behavior: The varient approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
12.
Dansereau, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W.I. ( 1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process . Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 46-78.
13.
Dansereau, F., & Yammarino, F.J. (2000). Within and between analysis: The varient paradigm as an underlying approach to theory building and testing . In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multi-level theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 425-466). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
14.
Dansereau, F., & Yammarino, F.J. (2006). Is more discussion about levels of analysis really necessary? When is such discussion sufficient? The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 537-552.
15.
Dansereau, F., Yammarino, F.J., Markham, S.E., Alutto, J.A., Newman, J., Dumas, M., Nachman, S.A., et al. (1995). Individualized leadership: A new multiple-level approach. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 413-450.
16.
Edwards, J.R. ( 1994). Regression analysis as an alternative to difference scores . Journal of Management, 20, 683-689.
17.
Edwards, J.R. ( 1995). Alternatives to difference scores as dependent variables in the study of congruence in organizational research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 64, 307-324.
18.
Edwards, J.R. ( 2001). Ten difference score myths. Organizational Research Methods, 4, 264-286.
19.
Gerstner, C.R., & Day, D.V. ( 1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory: Correlates and construct ideas. Journal of Applied Psychology , 82, 827-844.
20.
Gosserand, R.H., & Diefendorff, J.M. (2005). Emotional display rules and emotional labor: The moderating role of commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1256-1264.
21.
Graen, G.B. & Scandura, T.A. ( 1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. Research in Organizational Behavior, 9, 175-208.
22.
Greenberg, J. ( 1990). Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity: The hidden cost of pay cuts. Journal of Applied Psychology , 75, 561-568.
23.
Hofmann, D.A. ( 1997). An overview of the logic and rationale for hierarchical linear models. Journal of Management, 23, 723-744.
24.
Hofmann, D.A., Griffin, M.A., & Gavin, M.B. ( 2000). The application of hierarchical linear modeling to organizational research. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multi-level theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 467-511). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
25.
Huang, X., Wright, R., Chiu, W., & Wang, C. ( 2008). Relational schemas as sources of evaluation and misevaluation of leader-member exchanges: Some initial evidence. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 266-282.
26.
Kenny, D.A., & Judd, C.M. ( 1986). Consequences of violating the independence assumption in analysis of variance. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 422-431.
27.
Kenny, D.A., Kashy, D.A., & Cook, W.L. ( 2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York: Guilford.
28.
Konovsky, M.A., & Pugh, S.D. ( 1994). Citizenship behavior and social exchange. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 656-669.
29.
LeBreton, J.M., & Senter, J.L. ( 2008). Answers to 20 questions about inter-rater reliability and inter-rater agreement. Organizational Research Methods , 11, 815-852.
30.
Liao, H., & Rupp, D. ( 2005). The impact of justice climate and justice orientation on work outcomes: A cross-level multifoci framework. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 242-256.
31.
Markham, S.E., Yammarino, F.J., Murry, W.D., & Palanski, M.E. (2010). Leader-member exchange, shared values, and performance: Agreement and levels of analysis do matter . The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 469-480.
32.
Martins, L.L., Eddleston, K.A., & Veiga, J.F. ( 2002). Moderators of the relationship between work-family conflict and career satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 399-409.
33.
Masterson, S.S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B.M., & Taylor, M.S. ( 2000). Integrating justice and social exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 738-748.
34.
Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H., & Schoorman, F.D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709-734.
35.
Mayer, R.C., & Gavin, M.B. ( 2005). Trust in management and performance: Who minds the shop while employees watch the boss? Academy of Management Journal , 48, 874-888.
36.
Mott, P.E. ( 1972). The characteristics of effective organizations. New York: Harper & Row.
37.
Raudenbush, S.W., & Bryk, A.S. ( 2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
38.
Raudenbush, S.W., Bryk, A.S., Cheong, Y.F., & Congdon, R. & du Toit, M. ( 2004). HLM 6: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International, Inc.
39.
Schriesheim, C.A., Castro, S.L., & Yammarino, F.J. (2000). Investigating contingencies: An examination of the impact of span of supervision and upward controllingness on leader-member exchange using traditional and multivariate within- and between-entities analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 659-677.
40.
Schriesheim, C.A., Castro, S.L., Zhou, X., & Yammarino, F.J. (2001). The folly of theorizing ‘‘A’’ but testing ‘‘B’’. A selective level-of-analysis review of the field and detailed Leader-Member Exchange illustration. The Leadership Quarterly, 12, 515-551.
41.
Tangirala, S., Green, S.G., & Ramanujam, R. ( 2007). In the shadow of the boss’s boss: Effects of supervisors’ upward exchange relationships on employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 309-320.
42.
Tepper, B.J. ( 1995). Upward maintenance tactics in supervisory mentoring and nonmentoring relationships. Academy of Management Journal , 38, 1191-1205.
43.
Van Mierlo, H., Vermunt, J.K., & Rutte, C.K. ( 2009). Composing group-level constructs from individual-level survey data. Organizational Research Methods, 12, 368-392.
44.
Yammarino, F.J. ( 1998). Multivariate aspects of the Varient / WABA approach: A discussion and leadership illustration. The Leadership Quarterly , 9, 203-228.
45.
Yammarino, F.J., & Dansereau, F. ( 2008). Multi-level nature of and multi-level approaches to leadership . The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 135-141.
46.
Yammarino, F.J., Dansereau, F., Schriesheim, C.A., Castro, S., Cogliser, C., De Church, L., et al. (2000). Detect Interpretation Guide (DIG) for Within and Between Analysis (WABA). User’s guide with interpretations. Williamsville, NY: The Institute of Theory Testing .
47.
Yammarino, F.J., Dionne, S.D., Chun, J.U., & Dansereau, F. ( 2005). Leadership and levels of analysis: A state-of-the-science review. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 879-919.
48.
Yammarino, F.J., & Dubinsky, A.J. (1994). Transformational leadership theory: Using levels of analysis to determine boundary conditions. Personnel Psychology, 47, 787-811.
49.
Yammarino, F.J., Dubinsky, A.J., Comer, L.B., & Jolson, M.A. ( 1997). Women and transformational and contingent-reward leadership: A multiple levels of analysis perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 205-222.
50.
Yammarino, F.J., & Markham, S.E. ( 1992). On the application of within- and between-analysis: Are absence and affect really group-based phenomena? Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 168-176.
