We replicate research from two separate power and resource allocation research streams to test whether job evaluation outcomes at a university are simultaneously susceptible to effects of power held at both the group (i.e., academic department) and individual (i.e., a job's hierarchical position) levels. In doing so, we illustrate limitations of the dominant rational model of research in job evaluation and, more generally, how dual levels of analysis can illuminate the relationship between power and resource allocation. We then investigate whether departmental and positional power interact in the allocation of resources at both levels. Results from six years of job evaluation data indicate that job evaluation outcomes are highly susceptible to both departmental and positional power. Moreover, our results suggest that positional power moderated the effect of departmental power on group level job evaluation successes. Drawing on our dual-level analysis, we propose a new model of power, resource allocation, and the perpetuation of power.