Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Keywords

agreement consensus theory building dissent guiding questions

Introduction

Group and organization research involves the study of attributes of groups and the individuals comprising those groups. Often, the most intriguing, but also more complex, contributions emerge when these variables are combined at multiple levels, both theoretically and empirically (Hitt et al., 2007; Klein & Kozlowski, 2000; Peccei & Van De Voorde, 2019; Rapp et al., 2022). As a result, we have witnessed substantial advancements in knowledge over at least two decades regarding how group and individual elements mutually influence each other. This advancement has facilitated better decision-making for managers concerning group dynamics (Kozlowski et al., 2013; Matthews et al., 2022).

Simultaneously, significant progress has been made in research methods enabling such analyses (Henry & Muthén, 2010; Maas & Hox, 2005; Sarstedt et al., 2011; Vermunt, 2008; Zyphur et al., 2016). Therefore, it has become a common practice, often even a necessity, to complement individual data in organizations with information on team, group, and hierarchical structures (Maas & Hox, 2004). While this introduces more methodological complexity compared to single-level models, it has facilitated a better understanding of various management phenomena and allows for more advanced testing and elaboration of relevant theories for, at least, three reasons. First, management research pertains to human behavior primarily occurring through social interactions. Relevant management concepts shape and/or are shaped not only by singled-out individual decisions but also through interactions among people. Therefore, empirical findings often have greater face validity when accounting for the multilevel data structure in organizations, groups, and teams. Second, organizations operate within various hierarchies where management decisions and outcomes are inherently intertwined with (in)formal hierarchies, as well as with the organizational units within these hierarchies. Data and analyses that encompass or focus on more than one hierarchical level allow for operationalizing the complexity of individuals within groups. Also these groups as a whole can be conceptualized and studied. Third, various management concepts are only relevant –or even exist– because of their gradual emergence within multilevel structures (Lang et al., 2018). A multilevel approach has enabled robust measurement and analysis of such concepts (Klein & Kozlowski, 2000; Moritz & Watson, 1998).

In these studies, measures of group-level agreement (or consensus) are often reported, along with related measures on interrater reliability. For the vast majority of these multilevel studies, agreement is operationalized using concrete metrics and argued in terms of technical and methodological criteria. These metrics are used either as conditions for using data or to specify how data is used (e.g., r*_WG or Cohen’s Kappa) (Boyer & Verma, 2000; Brown & Hauenstein, 2005; LeBreton & Senter, 2008; Lindell & Brandt, 1999). They are also used to argue for or against applying multilevel model specifications (e.g. intra-class correlation [ICC]) (Bliese, 2000; Bliese et al., 2018; Boyer & Verma, 2000). This illustrates the predominant use of agreement (and interrater reliability) measures for methodological reasons focusing on data and the robustness of methods, rather than on theory development and testing (Loignon et al., 2019).

Here our frustration starts bubbling up as consensus, in itself, may hold significant theoretical value. We advocate for a substantial expansion in the use of agreement measures to facilitate theory development regarding how group or organizational consensus relates to other concepts central to the field of group and organization management research. In essence, we believe that the conventional measures (or adapted versions) used for assessing consensus or agreement should transcend their role in assessing validity and robustness. They could increasingly serve as primary variables in theoretical model testing. Moreover, we start our GOMusing with the observation that there are numerous relevant, robust, and adequate metrics available to operationalize group consensus. However, these metrics could be used to a greater extent in operationalizing consensus as a core theoretical element, rather than solely for methodological validation.

Our decade-long scavenger hunt through the management literature reveals that only a few management scholars have endeavored to integrate agreement metrics for operationalizing group consensus, as an integral component of theoretical reasoning in scientific articles. To inspire and provide a terminus a quo, we offer a far-from-exhaustive overview of key consensus studies in Table 1. We draw upon these contributions and the literature they reference to substantiate our claim.

Table 1.

Selection of Key Consensus Studies.

Citation	Consensus in the conceptual model	Consensus operationalization	Sample size
Ateş et al. (2020)	The impact of team managers’ visionary leadership on team members’ strategic consensus and commitment.	Within-team consensus using Tarakci et al.’s (2014) α-measure.	802 team members from 136 work teams, in two organizations.
Meyfroodt et al. (2019)	The impact of political diversity, government power, and strategic plan quality on governing majority politicians’ strategic consensus.	Within-governing majority consensus using the reversed average squared euclidean distance based on member dyads.	1075 local politicians from the governing majorities of 256 municipalities.
Ramos-Garza (2009)	Environmental complexity as moderator for the relationship between strategic consensus and firm performance.	Within-team consensus using standard deviation of responses for 48 strategy items within each team, summed and reversed.	118 managers nested within 29 top-management teams.
Walker et al. (2013)	The impact of consensus about performance management between politicians and managers on their public organization’s performance.	Politicians-managers consensus using an index considering the difference in opinion between politicians and managers and their respective absolute scores.	2971 managers and 1266 politicians over three years (121 organizations in 2001, and 77 in 2002 and 2004)
Walter et al. (2013)	The moderating impact of strategic alignment on the relationship between strategic consensus and organizational performance.	Within-department consensus using the average euclidean distance across all responses in a department.	349 university faculty members in 63 academic departments
Willems (2016a)	The impact of shared/individual team-member exchange quality on team level consensus on effectiveness and individual level perceived organizational effectiveness.	Within-team consensus using Gockel and Werth (2010) methodological guidelines. The random-effect part of the analysis provides insights into how consensus relates to the independent variables.	402 managers and/or board members from 44 nonprofit organizations.
Zohar and Luria (2005)	Safety climate and related variables, such as routinization, in organizations and groups within those organizations.	Within-group consensus using reversed standard deviation values based on individual employee perceptions.	3952 production workers in 401 work groups nested in 36 manufacturing plants

Adhering to the true philosophy of a GOMusing exercise (Cruz, 2021; Cruz et al., 2022), we call for a stronger scientific discussion on the theoretical significance of consensus measures. Such discussion should counterbalance the prevailing methodological application of agreement measures. Indeed, upon examining the majority of multilevel group and organization studies, we believe there have been numerous untapped opportunities thus far to study truly interesting aspects of group consensus. However –constructive and agreeable as we are– we aspire to invigorate the much-needed scientific discussion by posing three guiding questions (GQs):

• GQ 1. Does the meaning of agreement about a group-level variable relate to the meaning of the group-level variable itself?

• GQ 2. Does the meaning of agreement about a group-level variable relate to the hypothesized antecedents or effects of the group-level variable?

• GQ 3. Does the meaning of agreement about a group-level variable relate to the practical implications related to the group-level variable?

These GQs should be integral to every multilevel group study, simultaneously serving as sources of inspiration for future research. Even though we use the concept of Work Social Capital (WSC) as an illustrative example to underscore our argument, our GQs-approach is pertinent to a much broader range of management phenomena, concepts, and theories, some of which include: organizational citizenship behavior and extra-role behavior (Becker et al., 2018; Kidwell et al., 1997), organizational culture (Bosak et al., 2017; González-Romá et al., 2009; Pandey & Pandey, 2019), strategic plan quality (Meyfroodt et al., 2019), strategic decisions (Rapert et al., 1996), team member exchange quality (Willems, 2016a), and supplier selection objectives (Meschnig & Kaufmann, 2015).

Consensus Measures: From Methodological Conditions to Theoretical Logic

Agreement within a group about a concept is often seen solely as a methodological condition for aggregating individual opinions into a group-level variable for subsequent analysis. This assumption rests on the premise that common variance in opinions within a group is influenced by a latent, group-level variable that similarly influences individual opinions (LeBreton & Senter, 2008; Moritz & Watson, 1998). Hence, high common variance indicates that the latent variable is perceived similarly by group members, supporting the claim that it is a group-level variable (Burke & Dunlap, 2002; Lebreton et al., 2003). Conversely, low agreement implies that the individuals may not perceive the concept correctly and/or it may not genuinely be a group-level variable. Thus, data from teams with insufficient agreement on a concept may be considered less reliable for constructing a robust group-level variable (LeBreton & Senter, 2008). Therefore, we first provide an intuitive example of some pitfalls that arise from adopting a too strict and heuristic-based approach to applying consensus measures solely for methodological purposes. Next, we pinpoint some advantages of using consensus metrics for theoretical purposes, which brings us at our three GQs.

An Intuitive Example

Consider a scenario in which scholars measure WSC in a team context to assess whether it positively impacts team performance or decision-making quality, or reduces absenteeism among group members (Cole et al., 2002; Hu & Randel, 2014; Pihl-Thingvad et al., 2020; Stevenson & Radin, 2009). As WSC is a group-level attribute, the conventional approach is first gauging the opinions of different team members using validated survey constructs. Next, it is determined whether responses from the various team members can be aggregated by assessing the ‘sufficiency’ of the interrater agreement (LeBreton & Senter, 2008). Finally, an aggregate group-level measure is used to quantify the group-level concept for further analysis.

However, when drawing from the literature on (diversity) faultlines, dominant coalitions, and workplace bullying or exclusion (Henle et al., 2023; Kaczmarek et al., 2012; Li & Hambrick, 2005; Van Knippenberg et al., 2011; Wu et al., 2021), a situation may arise in a group where a substantial subgroup highly agrees on the high WSC. In contrast, others may feel excluded, resulting in lower ratings of group dynamics and reduced overall agreement, as visualized in Figure 1. When the agreement metric still meets the data reliability threshold, such a situation would be treated similarly to a group where high agreement exists about the fact that the group dynamics are more or less good, but that there is still room for improvement. However, from a theoretical perspective, these are quite different situations with distinct causes, effects, and managerial implications (Kessler, 2019). If, on the other hand, agreement in this case falls below the arbitrary data reliability threshold, intriguing situations that deserve scientific attention consistently go unanalyzed, limiting theoretical conclusions to a narrow selection of team dynamics. In sum, Figure 1 can guide scholars in understanding the conceptual implications of low or high aggregated scores in conjunction with high or low agreement on group-level constructs.

Figure 1.

Clarification of (1) inherently distinct cases and (2) interesting but excluded research cases.

Therefore, Consensus should also and relatively more be considered a “meaningful, higher level construct rather than a statistical prerequisite for aggregation” even if the operationalization of both constructs are based on the same survey items (Holt et al., 2017, p. 64). Consensus, as a theoretical concept, refers to the variability within or between groups regarding perceptions on a specific facet (Luria, 2008; Schneider et al., 2002) and originates from two streams of literature in organizational sciences: (1) the literature on the compositional models in psychology, based on Chan (1998); and (2) the literature on organizational culture/climate or consensus, stemming from Martin (1992), and Trice and Beyer (1993).

The theoretical relevance of consensus within a group regarding a group-level variable depends on three elements: (1) the concept’s meaning at the group level, (2) hypothesized antecedents and effects of the group-level concept, and (3) the theoretical and practical implications derived from the findings related to the group-level concept. Our guiding questions relate to these three elements.

GQ 1. Does the Meaning of Agreement About a Group-Level Variable Relate to the Meaning of the Group-Level Variable Itself?

Consider our example of WSC. WSC is a group variable, and its aggregated measure can be tested for its predictive power regarding team performance (a group level variable), or job satisfaction of the members in the team (a nested individual measure). However, within-group agreement on the level of WSC can also shed light on aspects related to WSC itself. Said differently, not only does an aggregated measure provide insight, but also a measure on the within-group consensus reveals information about WSC in a group. For instance, a sub-group or dominant coalition (Janssens & Brett, 2006) in the team might perceive WSC favorably and rate it highly, and thus with strong internal agreement. They might even enjoy exchanging memes and gossip about one or two socially excluded team members, who understandably rate WSC substantially lower. Depending on the specific agreement measure used and the arbitrary cut-off for robust observations (LeBreton & Senter, 2008), such cases can be on the edge of inclusion for further analysis from a traditional methodological perspective (see Figure 1).

When employing a standard methodological approach that excludes teams like these from further analysis due to limited inter-rater reliability, specific yet realistic manifestations of WSC remain unnoticed. Namely, researchers confine themselves to studying teams where there is high agreement regarding WSC, whether it is low or high. This not only oversimplifies the concepts under study but also narrows down their findings and recommendations to a specific category of teams. However, considering the abundance of literature on within-group dominant coalitions and the exclusion of team members (Henle et al., 2023; Lee & Brotheridge, 2013), scenarios like the one described deserve considerably more scientific attention.

In contrast, when cases like these merely meet an arbitrary inclusion threshold for further analysis (e.g., contingent on the relative size of a specific subgroup/dominant coalition), they are conceptually equated with teams where there is high agreement on WSC being moderately good, but not excellent. These scenarios are fundamentally distinct, and scholars would likely oversimplify any differences in types of WSC. Moreover, levels of consensus can also change over time and/or as a result of other factors (e.g. managers doing a good job in improving WSC in their team). New theoretical and methodological developments (Lang et al., 2018, 2021) provide a promising avenue to operationalize the level of consensus as a core theoretical variable while studying it in relation to time (emergence). Such approach allows to determine the turning point at which we observe dominant coalitions or faultlines within groups.

GQ 2. Does the Meaning of Agreement About a Group-Level Variable Relate to (a) the Hypothesized Antecedents or (b) Effects of the Group-Level Variable?

This GQ focuses on whether hypothesized antecedents of a group-level variable can explain both the group level variable and the agreement on it. In Figure 1, this implies identifying variables that can explain not only variation along the horizontal axis, but also along the vertical axis (Loignon et al., 2019). Scholars can thus examine for a wide range of concepts whether different situations in Figure 1 have different causes (Colquitt et al., 2002; Lindell & Brandt, 2000; Willems, 2016b).

Various methods for testing this in a multilevel, multivariate analysis are available, allowing researchers to predict the mean values of a dependent variable and its within-group variance. Referring back to our example, this would entail antecedents like team leadership styles, expected organizational change, perceived workload or job security (Hu & Randel, 2014; Parzefall & Kuppelwieser, 2012). In the context of strategic priorities (Kellermanns et al., 2011), for instance, antecedents like demographic and ideologic diversity (Meyfroodt et al., 2019), middle-level managers involvement (Wooldridge & Floyd, 1990), different types of conflict (Amason, 1996) have proven to explain shared knowledge in a (top management) team, as well as the extent to which individual opinions deviate from that.

GQ 3: Does the Meaning of Agreement About a Group-Level Variable Relate to the Practical Implications Related to the Group-Level Variable?

Recommendations for practice can differ significantly depending on the level of agreement on the focal concepts in a study. Furthermore, incorrect assumptions about agreement levels can lead to recommendations having unintended or even counterproductive effects. Referring again to the WSC example, a manager observing moderate WSC in the team, might contemplate improvement strategies. However, if there is a false assumption of high agreement on moderate WSC, actions might not be perceived as appropriate by anyone in the team: High-scorers might see them as redundant or not ambitious enough, while low-scorers might deem them far-fetched and unrealistic. This situation could escalate to exclusion or next-level bullying during team-building events organized by a dominant coalition. In contrast, management actions related to inclusive leadership or conflict resolution may be more appropriate (Henle et al., 2023; Maltarich et al., 2018).

Therefore, the quality and relevance of scholars’ recommendations from their research may depend on the level of actual group agreement on the focal concepts of their studies. Hence, when formulating practical recommendations related to group-level concepts, managers and researchers should consider whether agreement is a condition, a catalyst, or even a moderator influencing the likelihood of management recommendations being effective (Willems et al., 2012). Consequently, ascribing substantive significance to (the meaning of) agreement can enhance both theoretical understanding of group and organizational dynamics, as well as the practical relevance of group and organizational research.

Implications for Multilevel Group and Organization Studies

Figure 2 summarizes our considerations of the three GQs in a decision tree. While we are aware that many more relevant questions can be asked, and more options to choose from are likely possible, we hope it provides additional guidance and inspiration for developing and conducting concrete studies. For specific research projects, scholars should verify whether excluding data due to low group-level agreement on particular group-level concepts reduces the relevance of findings and/or excludes cases requiring special attention in their study’s context. Alternatively, researchers can include metrics on agreement in their analysis, interpreting them within a two-dimensional logic according to the axes in Figure 1. For example, antecedents can explain variation between cases along both the horizontal and vertical axes. Alternatively, agreement, when combined with aggregate mean values per group, can be incorporated into polynomial regression analyses aimed at explaining other variables’ variance (e.g., team efficiency, performance, and team member job satisfaction).

Figure 2.

The main considerations from our three guiding questions (GQs).

Identifying and Overcoming Barriers for the Research Community

Rather than relegating consensus and agreement metrics to methodological conditions, they could and should move towards testing ‘centerpiece’ research questions. We started this GOMusing from the observation that some studies have successfully attempted this, and numerous relevant metrics exist or could be readily adapted to operationalize consensus for theory testing. For example, seminal work by Gockel and Werth (2010), Lindell and Brandt (2000), Kellermanns et al. (2005), and Lang et al. (2018, 2021) can be further elaborated to provide recommendations on combining aggregate mean measures with agreement measures and test relationships between aggregate and agreement measures of group-level concepts. Moreover, the work of Tarakci et al. (2014) is relevant for further theorizing through case-by-case evaluations and accessible visualizations of consensus.

However, although we believe there are still substantial opportunities for the use of consensus metrics for theory, several barriers may impede researchers from progressing in this direction. There are the usual suspects like the necessity of having large and longitudinal data sets, while ensuring that residuals follow a normal distribution when opting for a consensus emergence model approach (Lang et al., 2018), or the fact that small-group data (i.e., fewer than five individuals per group) is often deemed problematic for hierarchical linear modelling approaches (Maas & Hox, 2005; Moritz & Watson, 1998). However, through this GOMusing, we aim to mitigate any lack of interest, should it be a substantial barrier. We hope to inspire other scholars to explore novel approaches and operationalize consensus in different ways. Also editors and reviewers could exhibit greater openness and willingness to engage with manuscripts using metrics in non-traditional ways, diverging from the standard and traditional heuristics for specific metrics, as discussed in “Goal 2: Cause Readers to Re-think Their Old (and Often Outdated) Assumptions or Opinions” in Cruz et al. (2022, p. 893).

Evidently, this would also necessitate authors to dedicate substantial efforts to clearly elucidate in their contributions: (1) the precise application or derivation of consensus metrics, (2) the value of these metrics for theory testing, and (3) the underlying assumptions of concrete operationalizations and their alignment with the theoretical framework of their study. Additionally, this process would likely benefit from more methodological contributions, coupled with user-friendly software and methodological protocols, to facilitate the straightforward derivation of consensus metrics that can be integrated into other analyses for theory testing.

In Sum

This is a GOMusing after all. Therefore, we hope that some readers disagree to agree, while others agree to disagree. Probably, some might even agree to agree. All this (lack of) consensus can only benefit a good scientific discussion. That is our aim at this point, and … would in itself proof our point: Consensus deserves more theoretical attention (insert a mic drop here).

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Jurgen Willems

Author Biographies

Jurgen Willems is Professor for Public Management and Governance in the Department of Management at the WU Vienna University of Economics and Business (WU Wien). At the WU Executive Academy, he is program director of the MBA program on healthcare management. His teaching and research cover a variety of topics on citizen-state and citizen-society interactions, as well as various challenges in the healthcare sector.

Kenn Meyfroodt is a postdoctoral researcher in organizational behavior in the Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium. His research focuses on how the implementation of management systems, practices, and artifacts influences the perceptual, attribution, and sensemaking processes of individuals and groups within private, public, and nonprofit sector organizations.

References

Amason

A. C.

(1996). Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 39(1), 123–148. https://doi.org/10.2307/256633

Ateş

N. Y.

Tarakci

Porck

J. P.

Van Knippenberg

Groenen

P. J. F.

(2020). The dark side of visionary leadership in strategy implementation: Strategic alignment, strategic consensus, and commitment. Journal of Management, 46(5), 637–665. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206318811567

Becker

W. J.

Cropanzano

Van Wagoner

Keplinger

(2018). Emotional labor within teams: Outcomes of individual and peer emotional labor on perceived team support, extra-role behaviors, and turnover intentions. Group & Organization Management, 43(1), 38–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601117707608

Bliese

P. D.

(2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In Klein

K. J.

Kozlowski

S. W. J.

(Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 349–381). Jossey-Bass/Wiley.

Bliese

P. D.

Maltarich

M. A.

Hendricks

J. L.

(2018). Back to basics with mixed-effects models: Nine take-away points. Journal of Business and Psychology, 33(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-017-9491-z

Bosak

Dawson

Flood

Peccei

(2017). Employee involvement climate and climate strength: A study of employee attitudes and organizational effectiveness in UK hospitals. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, 4(1), 18–38. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOEPP-10-2016-0060

Boyer

K. K.

Verma

(2000). Multiple raters in survey-based operations management research: A review and tutorial. Production and Operations Management, 9(2), 128–140. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-5956.2000.tb00329.x

Brown

R. D.

Hauenstein

N. M. A.

(2005). Interrater agreement reconsidered: An alternative to the rwg indices. Organizational Research Methods, 8(2), 165–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428105275376

Burke

M. J.

Dunlap

W. P.

(2002). Estimating interrater agreement with the average deviation index: A user’s guide. Organizational Research Methods, 5(2), 159–172. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428102005002002

10.

Chan

(1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 234–246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.234

11.

Cole

M. S.

Schaninger

W. S.

Harris

S. G.

(2002). The workplace social exchange network: A multilevel, conceptual examination. Group & Organization Management, 27(1), 142–167. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601102027001008

12.

Colquitt

J. A.

Noe

R. A.

Jackson

C. L.

(2002). Justice in teams: Antecedents and consequences of procedural justive climate. Personnel Psychology, 55(1), 83–109. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2002.tb00104.x

13.

Cruz

K. S.

(2021). Does anyone care about external validity? A call (or plea?) for more OB/HR research from multiple organizations/industries, panels, and publicly available datasets. Group & Organization Management, 46(6), 974–983. https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011211055879

14.

Cruz

K. S.

Zagenczyk

T. J.

Griep

(2022). (Re)introducing a new section generally and a special section in this issue specifically: GOMusings. Group & Organization Management, 47(5), 891–898. https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011221117436

15.

Gockel

Werth

(2010). Measuring and modeling shared leadership: Traditional approaches and new ideas. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 9(4), 172–180. https://doi.org/10.1027/1866-5888/a000023

16.

González-Romá

Fortes-Ferreira

Peiró

J. M.

(2009). Team climate, climate strength and team performance. A longitudinal study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82(3), 511–536. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317908X370025

17.

Henle

C. A.

Shore

L. M.

Morton

J. W.

Conroy

S. A.

(2023). Putting a spotlight on the ostracizer: Intentional workplace ostracism motives. Group & Organization Management, 48(4), 1014–1057. https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011221092863

18.

Henry

K. L.

Muthén

(2010). Multilevel latent class analysis: An application of adolescent smoking typologies with individual and contextual predictors. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 17(2), 193–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511003659342

19.

Hitt

M. A.

Beamish

P. W.

Jackson

S. E.

Mathieu

J. E.

(2007). Building theoretical and empirical bridges across levels: Multilevel research in management. Academy of Management Journal, 50(6), 1385–1399. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.28166219

20.

Holt

D. T.

Madison

Kellermanns

F. W.

(2017). Variance in family members’ assessments: The importance of dispersion modeling in family firm research. Family Business Review, 30(1), 61–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486516673700

21.

Randel

A. E.

(2014). Knowledge sharing in teams: Social capital, extrinsic incentives, and team innovation. Group & Organization Management, 39(2), 213–243. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601114520969

22.

Janssens

Brett

J. M.

(2006). Cultural intelligence in global teams: A fusion model of collaboration. Group & Organization Management, 31(1), 124–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601105275268

23.

Kaczmarek

Kimino

Pye

(2012). Board task-related faultlines and firm performance: A decade of evidence: Board faultlines and firm performance. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 20(4), 337–351. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8683.2011.00895.x

24.

Kellermanns

F. W.

Walter

Floyd

S. W.

Lechner

Shaw

J. C.

(2011). To agree or not to agree? A meta-analytical review of strategic consensus and organizational performance. Journal of Business Research, 64(2), 126–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2010.02.004

25.

Kellermanns

F. W.

Walter

Lechner

Floyd

S. W.

(2005). The lack of consensus about strategic consensus: Advancing theory and research. Journal of Management, 31(5), 719–737. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279114

26.

Kessler

S. R.

(2019). Are the costs worth the benefits? Shared perception and the aggregation of organizational climate ratings. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(9–10), 1046–1054. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2415

27.

Kidwell

R. E.

Mossholder

K. W.

Bennett

(1997). Cohesiveness and organizational citizenship behavior: A multilevel analysis using work groups and individuals. Journal of Management, 23(6), 775–793. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639702300605

28.

Klein

K. J.

Kozlowski

S. W. J.

(2000). From micro to meso: Critical steps in conceptualizing and conducting multilevel research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(3), 211–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810033001

29.

Kozlowski

S. W. J.

Chao

G. T.

Grand

J. A.

Braun

M. T.

Kuljanin

(2013). Advancing multilevel research design: Capturing the dynamics of emergence. Organizational Research Methods, 16(4), 581–615. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428113493119

30.

Lang

J. W. B.

Bliese

P. D.

De Voogt

(2018). Modeling consensus emergence in groups using longitudinal multilevel methods. Personnel Psychology, 71(2), 255–281. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12260

31.

Lang

J. W. B.

Bliese

P. D.

Runge

J. M.

(2021). Detecting consensus emergence in organizational multilevel data: Power simulations. Organizational Research Methods, 24(2), 319–341. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428119873950

32.

Lebreton

J. M.

Burgess

J. R. D.

Kaiser

R. B.

Atchley

E. K.

James

L. R.

(2003). The restriction of variance hypothesis and interrater reliability and agreement: Are ratings from multiple sources really dissimilar? Organizational Research Methods, 6(1), 80–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428102239427

33.

LeBreton

J. M.

Senter

J. L.

(2008). Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11(4), 815–852. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428106296642

34.

Lee

R. T.

Brotheridge

C. M.

(2013). Workplace aggression/bullying at the cross-roads: Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 28(3), 5028. https://doi.org/10.1108/jmp.2013.05028caa.001

35.

Hambrick

D. C.

(2005). Factional groups: A new vantage on demographic faultlines, conflict, and disintegration in work teams. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 794–813. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2005.18803923

36.

Lindell

M. K.

Brandt

C. J.

(1999). Assessing interrater agreement on the job relevance of a test: A comparison of CVI, T, rWG(J)}, and r*WG(J)} indexes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(4), 640–647. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.4.640

37.

Lindell

M. K.

Brandt

C. J.

(2000). Climate quality and climate consensus as mediators of the relationship between organizational antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3), 331–348. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.3.331

38.

Loignon

A. C.

Woehr

D. J.

Loughry

M. L.

Ohland

M. W.

(2019). Elaborating on team-member disagreement: Examining patterned dispersion in team-level constructs. Group & Organization Management, 44(1), 165–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601118776750

39.

Luria

(2008). Climate strength – how leaders form consensus. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(1), 42–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.12.004

40.

Maas

C. J. M.

Hox

J. J.

(2004). Robustness issues in multilevel regression analysis. Statistica Neerlandica, 58(2), 127–137. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0039-0402.2003.00252.x

41.

Maas

C. J. M.

Hox

J. J.

(2005). Sufficient sample sizes for multilevel modeling. Methodology, 1(3), 86–92. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241.1.3.86

42.

Maltarich

M. A.

Kukenberger

Reilly

Mathieu

(2018). Conflict in teams: Modeling early and late conflict states and the interactive effects of conflict processes. Group & Organization Management, 43(1), 6–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601116681127

43.

Martin

(1992). Cultures in organizations: Three perspectives. Oxford Univ. Press.

44.

Matthews

M. J.

Kelemen

T. K.

Matthews

S. H.

Matthews

J. M.

(2022). The machiavellian organization: A multilevel model to understand decision making in organizations. Group & Organization Management, 47(2), 413–439. https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011221081281

45.

Meschnig

Kaufmann

(2015). Consensus on supplier selection objectives in cross-functional sourcing teams: Antecedents and outcomes. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 45(8), 774–793. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-06-2014-0129

46.

Meyfroodt

Desmidt

Goeminne

(2019). Do politicians see eye to eye? The relationship between political group characteristics, perceived strategic plan quality, and strategic consensus in local governing majorities. Public Administration Review, 79(5), 749–759. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13058

47.

Moritz

S. E.

Watson

C. B.

(1998). Levels of analysis issues in group psychology: Using efficacy as an example of a multilevel model. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 2(4), 285–298. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.2.4.285

48.

Pandey

S. K.

(2019). Applying natural language processing capabilities in computerized textual analysis to measure organizational culture. Organizational Research Methods, 22(3), 765–797. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428117745648

49.

Parzefall

M.-R.

Kuppelwieser

V. G.

(2012). Understanding the antecedents, the outcomes and the mediating role of social capital: An employee perspective. Human Relations, 65(4), 447–472. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726711431853

50.

Peccei

Van De Voorde

(2019). The application of the multilevel paradigm in human resource management–outcomes research: Taking stock and going forward. Journal of Management, 45(2), 786–818. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316673720

51.

Pihl-Thingvad

Hansen

S. W.

Winter

Hansen

M. S.

Willems

(2020). Public managers’ role in creating workplace social capital (WSC) and its effect on employees’ well-being and health: A protocol of a longitudinal cohort study (PUMA-WSC). BMJ Open, 10(10), Article e039027. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-039027

52.

Ramos-Garza

(2009). TMT strategic consensus in Mexican companies. Journal of Business Research, 62(9), 854–860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.10.003

53.

Rapert

M. I.

Lynch

Suter

(1996). Enhancing functional and organizational performance via strategic consensus and commitment. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 4(4), 193–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/09652549600000004

54.

Rapp

T. L.

Davis

W. D.

Gilson

L. L.

(2022). The 2022 conceptual issue: Highlighting the individual, team, and organizational building blocks of effective organizations. Group & Organization Management, 47(2), 143–147. https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011221089718

55.

Sarstedt

Henseler

Ringle

C. M.

(2011). Multigroup analysis in partial least squares (PLS) path modeling: Alternative methods and empirical results. In Sarstedt

Schwaiger

Taylor

C. R.

(Eds.), Advances in International Marketing (Vol. 22, pp. 195–218). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1474-7979(2011)0000022012

56.

Schneider

Salvaggio

A. N.

Subirats

(2002). Climate strength: A new direction for climate research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 220–229. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.220

57.

Stevenson

W. B.

Radin

R. F.

(2009). Social capital and social influence on the board of directors. Journal of Management Studies, 46(1), 16–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2008.00800.x

58.

Tarakci

Ates

N. Y.

Porck

J. P.

Van Knippenberg

Groenen

P. J. F.

De Haas

(2014). Strategic consensus mapping: A new method for testing and visualizing strategic consensus within and between teams: Testing and visualizing strategic consensus. Strategic Management Journal, 35(7), 1053–1069. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2151

59.

Trice

H. M.

Beyer

J. M.

(1993). The cultures of work organizations. Prentice Hall.

60.

Van Knippenberg

Dawson

J. F.

West

M. A.

Homan

A. C.

(2011). Diversity faultlines, shared objectives, and top management team performance. Human Relations, 64(3), 307–336. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726710378384

61.

Vermunt

J. K.

(2008). Latent class and finite mixture models for multilevel data sets. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 17(1), 33–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/0962280207081238

62.

Walker

R. M.

Jung

C. S.

Boyne

G. A.

(2013). Marching to different drummers? The performance effects of alignment between political and managerial perceptions of performance management. Public Administration Review, 73(6), 833–844. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12131

63.

Walter

Kellermanns

F. W.

Floyd

S. W.

Veiga

J. F.

Matherne

(2013). Strategic alignment: A missing link in the relationship between strategic consensus and organizational performance. Strategic Organization, 11(3), 304–328. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127013481155

64.

Willems

(2016a). Building shared mental models of organizational effectiveness in leadership teams through team member exchange quality. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45(3), 568–592. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764015601244

65.

Willems

(2016b). Organizational crisis resistance: Examining leadership mental models of necessary practices to resist crises and the role of organizational context. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 27(6), 2807–2832. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266–016-9753-9

66.

Willems

den Bergh

J. V.

Deschoolmeester

(2012). Analyzing employee agreement on maturity assessment tools for organizations: Analyzing employee agreement on MATs. Knowledge and Process Management, 19(3), 142–147. https://doi.org/10.1002/kpm.1389

67.

Wooldridge

Floyd

S. W.

(1990). The strategy process, middle management involvement, and organizational performance. Strategic Management Journal, 11(3), 231–241. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250110305

68.

Triana

M. D. C.

Richard

O. C.

(2021). Gender faultline strength on boards of directors and strategic change: The role of environmental conditions. Group & Organization Management, 46(3), 564–601. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601121992889

69.

Zohar

Luria

(2005). A multilevel model of safety climate: Cross-level relationships between organization and group-level climates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 616–628. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.4.616

70.

Zyphur

M. J.

Zammuto

R. F.

Zhang

(2016). Multilevel latent polynomial regression for modeling (In)Congruence across organizational groups: The case of organizational culture research. Organizational Research Methods, 19(1), 53–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428115588570

Group Research: Why are we Throwing Away the Best of our Observations?

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Consensus Measures: From Methodological Conditions to Theoretical Logic

An Intuitive Example

GQ 1. Does the Meaning of Agreement About a Group-Level Variable Relate to the Meaning of the Group-Level Variable Itself?

GQ 2. Does the Meaning of Agreement About a Group-Level Variable Relate to (a) the Hypothesized Antecedents or (b) Effects of the Group-Level Variable?

GQ 3: Does the Meaning of Agreement About a Group-Level Variable Relate to the Practical Implications Related to the Group-Level Variable?

Implications for Multilevel Group and Organization Studies

Identifying and Overcoming Barriers for the Research Community

In Sum

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

Author Biographies

References