The purpose of this study is to illustrate the use of a multilevel technique, Within and Between Analysis (WABA), for inductively investigating the impact of how supervisory groups influence the process of awarding merit raises (permanent) and performance bonuses (temporary). From a levels of analysis perspective, is this relationship best modeled at the individual subordinate, the whole supervisory-group, or the within-group level? Archival merit pay data for 2 years were obtained for 71 managers and professionals nested within 21 supervisory groups who encompassed the entire management hierarchy of a 500+ person-manufacturing plant. What appeared to be a countervailing relationship at the individual level (r total = −.64***), in which raises and bonuses were negatively correlated, was found to be a countervailing relationship at the whole supervisory-group level (r between = −.79*** vs. r within = −.36*). Given the statistically significant differences between supervisory groups, an induction toward a whole-group effect was made. These countervailing findings were replicated at the group level in the subsequent year’s data. The whole-group effect indicates that managers were attempting to create some type of within-group equity by (1) minimizing variability within their groups, and (2), at the same time, trading off raises for bonuses at the whole-group level. The application of WABA focuses on testing entities as well as variables, and it can provide a generalizable method for investigating levels of analysis issues in merit pay programs without necessarily advocating that only one level of analysis is universally potent. WABA also allows for the inductive investigation of additional levels of analysis as well as a variety of boundary conditions.