The term "level of analysis" is used in the social sciences to point to the location, size, or scale

of a research target. "Level of analysis" is distinct from the term "unit of observation" in that the
former refers to a more or less integrated set of relationships while the latter refers to the distinct
unit from which data have been or will be gathered. Together, the unit of observation and the
level of analysis help define the population of a research enterprise.
Differences in level of analysis are commonly referred to in terms of the SOGI model. Some
research design draw on samples that combine different level of analysis for example,
organization and department. This begs the question as to whether is it possible to combine data
from different level to produce a meaningful analysis. The complexity of organizational types
can make the issue of level of particularly difficult to determine, suggest it is important to make
explicit the problem of using data derived from one level to represent something at another level
in order to avoid misinterpretation. Process of individual and organizational learning may be
constructed quite differently at different levels. If researchers make inferences about
organizational learning on the basis of data about individuals they are at risk of making a cross
level. Since the phenomena of learning is an essentially human characteristic as organization do
not have but people do this leads to the attribution of human characteristic to a higher level of
system. It can also occur when metaphors are used to interrupt organizational behavior. It is
therefore good practice to identify and make clear in your research design the level of analysis
that is being used and then to switch another level only after having made this clear. Another
illustration of mixed level research cited by Rousseau is found in the area of leadership studies.
The average leadership style approach assumes that leaders display the same behavioral towards
all subordinates. Research therefore relies on eliciting subordinates perceptions of the leader
which are averaged and treated as group level characteristic In contrast the vertical dyadic
linkage model assumes that a leaders style may be different with each subordinate thereby
treating leadership as an individual level phenomena rather than as a group one. Each model thus
conceptualizes leadership at different level.