Historical advances in the study of multilevel theory are often accompanied by methodological developments. Organizational scholars have primarily relied on multilevel modeling. However, mean aggregation makes the problematic assumption of configural equivalence. To avoid this issue, researchers have used social network analysis as an alternative. However, the dominant use of centrality indices makes a different—but equally problematic—assumption of nodal equivalence. To address these issues, we outline a theoretical and methodological framework that avoids the problematic assumptions made by the conventional conceptual and analytical tools of multilevel researchers. This approach centers on two key network processes: Selection and Influence. Selection processes focus on how networks change because of the people, while Influence processes focus on how people change because of the network. We discuss the role of these processes in addressing the microfoundations of multilevel theory as well as develop statistical models that quantitatively represent these processes. Importantly, we do not advocate for a single analytical tool to study every research question but acknowledge that different techniques are more suited to particular theories. However, we make the case that future research would benefit from greater attention to Influence and Selection processes in multilevel theory and methodology.