Leadership in Research and Development Organizations: A Literature Review and Conceptual Framework

The Leadership Quarterly 14 (2003) 587 – 606
Leadership in research and development organizations:

A literature review and conceptual framework
Teri Elkins*, Robert T. Keller
Department of Management, University of Houston, 334 Melcher Hall, Houston, TX 77204-6021, USA
Abstract
We present a conceptual framework and review the empirical literature on leadership in research
and development (R&D) organizations. Findings of studies reviewed suggest that transformational
project leaders who communicate an inspirational vision and provide intellectual stimulation and
leaders who develop a high-quality leader – member exchange (LMX) relationship with project
members are associated with project success. Boundary-spanning activity and championing by the
leader are also found to be important factors for project success. The review also suggests that a
number of moderators and contextual variables such as project group membership and rate of
technological change may make leadership in R&D organizations different from that in operating
organizations. Propositions for future research are suggested.
D 2003 Published by Elsevier Inc.
1. Introduction
Literature reviews of leadership research typically cover a vast number of studies and
experiments as evidenced by such compendiums as Bass (1990) and Yukl (2002). As we will
show in this review, however, only a small percentage of this literature has been conducted in
research and development (R&D) organizations or contexts. The question then arises whether
we can use the findings from the general leadership literature and apply them to R&D, or is
the context of R&D different such that this particular literature should be analyzed for
findings separately? If leadership in R&D organizations is different, moreover, what have we
learned from the extant research about effective leadership in this context? These are the
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-713-743-4669.

E-mail address: elkins@uh.edu (T. Elkins).
1048-9843/$ – see front matter D 2003 Published by Elsevier Inc.

doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(03)00053-5
588 T. Elkins, R.T. Keller / The Leadership Quarterly 14 (2003) 587–606
questions we will be considering as we review, synthesize, and try to draw inferences from
the literature on leadership in R&D settings.
2. The nature of R&D and the technological innovation process
We know that technology itself has been advancing and changing at dizzying rates in the past
decades with no letup in sight. In contrast, the process by which technological innovation via
R&D occurs has been fairly stable over the years. For example, earlier work by Allen (1977)
and Pelz and Andrews (1966) as well as more recent efforts by Burgelman, Maidique, and
Wheelwright (2001) and Tornatzky and Fleischer (1990) describe an interpersonal process
involving scientists and engineers who generally work in project groups or teams with a project
leader. Project groups can be categorized as research groups that tend to focus on radical
innovation and development groups that are generally concerned with modifications and
incremental innovations (Keller, 1995). The R&D organization in general, and the project
group in particular, imports scientific and technological information (STI), transforms it into
technological innovations in the form of ideas, products, or processes, and then exports these
innovations to other units of the organization. Much has to happen in the rest of the firm or
organization for these innovations to reach the market, but our focus is on the R&D
organization.
By focusing on the R&D organization, we are most often interested in what happens in
the project group, which is where R&D is actually conducted. The project group is the
vehicle of choice because such groups, often cross functional in membership, can bring the
right mix of scientists, engineers, and other specialists together to bring in and process STI
into technological innovations (Denison, Hart, & Kahn, 1996). Responsibility for managing
the process and the people in R&D groups usually falls on the shoulders of the project
leader, and it is this person whom we usually focus on when we study leadership in R&D
organizations.
There are two other important points to consider in understanding the R&D context. First,
the outputs and performance measures are usually quite different than those used in other
areas of the firm. Instead of timely and market-sensitive measures that the CEO is accustomed
to such as profitability and return on investment, R&D has a time-lagged, sporadic, and
nonmarket nature to its outputs (Narayanan, 2001). For example, new products, patents, or
innovations can take years before they are transformed from STI into outputs. An additional
period of time and other activities from marketing and manufacturing are then needed before
a revenue stream can be derived from these R&D outputs. Hence, performance measurement
and evaluation of R&D is usually done under uncertainty with the use of proxies such as
management evaluation of project progress. Additionally, project leaders are usually selected
as much for their technical expertise as for their leadership skills (Narayanan, 2001).
Generally, skill in handling interpersonal problems among members of a cross-functional
project group is not something for which a leader in R&D has been formally trained. As noted
by Mumford, Scott, Gaddis, and Strange (2002), leading creative and innovative individuals
requires managers to possess certain skills in addition to technical expertise. Studies reviewed
T. Elkins, R.T. Keller / The Leadership Quarterly 14 (2003) 587–606 589
Fig. 1. A conceptual framework of leadership research in the R&D context.
in this paper provide some insight into the leadership skills necessary for innovation to occur
in R&D organizations.
To help the reader to visualize leader behaviors in R&D organizations and the relevant
contextual variables that make R&D a different environment, we have developed a
conceptual framework that is presented in Fig. 1. The framework presents an overview of
the topics that have been researched along with particular variables that have been found to
have direct and indirect effects on R&D leader effectiveness.
3. Leadership research in the R&D context
Farris (1988) identified three categories of research examining leadership in an R&D

context: (1) direct studies of leadership theories/behaviors, (2) characteristics of the organiza-
tional climate that may be attributable to the leader, and (3) informal organization consisting of
roles performed by leaders. Our plan for this paper is to review the empirical literature on
leadership in R&D organizations within these three categories and then discuss potentially
useful directions for future research with some suggested propositions and research strategies.
As a convenience for the reader, we have chronologically tabled the studies we have reviewed.
In Table 1, we have summarized the variables studied, sample, and findings for each study.
Table 1
Studies of leadership in R&D organizations
Study Sample Dependent variables Findings
Andrews 94 scientists from 21 Individual and group When supervisors were perceived
and Farris teams at a NASA innovation as less technically skilled, higher
(1967) research center performance was associated with
providing subordinates with more
freedom to explore, discuss, and
challenge ideas. Critical evaluation
of subordinates’ work was associated
with innovation for technically skilled
supervisors.
Farris (1972) 117 professional Roles associated with Suggestion stage: supervisors in high
employees representing group innovation innovation groups were not viewed as a
154 R&D projects at across problem- source of original ideas by group
13 sites solving stages members. Proposal stage: supervisors
in high innovation groups were viewed
as helpful with technical problems and
critical evaluation. Solution stage:
supervisors in high innovation groups
were viewed as helpful with
administrative assistance.
Thamhain and 88 project managers Degree of employee Influence methods focusing on work
Gemmill and personnel in an support and project challenge and expertise rather than
(1974) electronics company involvement, willingness authority were associated with higher
to disagree, and project project manager performance ratings
managers’ effectiveness as well as a climate of involvement and
ratings willingness to disagree.
Barnowe Questionnaires completed Scientific and applied Leader assistance behaviors were
(1975) by 859 scientists and research outcomes positively related to contributions to
interviews conducted scientific knowledge and applied
with 39 administrators of a practices. This relationship was
large research organization moderated by group isolation
and subordinate experience.
Katz and 345 R&D professionals Technical performance Gatekeeping (boundary-spanning)
Tushman in 61 project groups of of projects as rated by project leaders had a much greater
(1981) a large corporation managers. Five-year incidence of promotion to
later promotions of managerial positions compared
project leaders with non-gatekeeping leaders.
Cooper and 203 new product projects New product success Top management support for new
Kleinschmidt in 125 industrial product product projects was related to
(1987) firms indicators of product success,
including payback period, domestic
market share, relative profits, meeting
sales, and profits objectives.
Allen et al. 181 project team from Project performance Project performance is higher when
(1988) nine R&D organizations as rated by managers functional leaders keep researchers
updated with their relevant science
or technology.
Table 1 (continued)
Barczak and 10 leaders of successful Content analysis of Leaders of both operating and
Wilemon R&D teams in the interviews to identify innovating teams perform the roles
(1989) electrical and electronics roles of communicator, climate-setter,
industries planner, and interfacer. Differences
exists in the implementation of roles
in the two types of teams.
Ancona and 38 new product team Type of boundary- Team performance is a function of
Caldwell managers from seven spanning activity and the fit between amount of boundary-
(1988) high-tech corporations team performance spanning activity and resource
dependence of the project.
Keller 477 professional Job satisfaction and Need for clarity moderated the
(1989) employees from four employee performance relationship between initiating
R&D organizations structure and job satisfaction in
all four organizations and between
initiating structure and performance
in one organization.
Howell and 25 matched pairs of Leader behaviors and Champions used more
Higgins project champions and influence tactics used transformational leader behaviors
(1990a, nonchampions from a by leaders and a wider variety of influence
1990b) variety of Canadian firms tactics than nonchampions.
Markham 213 R&D projects from Emergence of project Championed projects are better
et al. 21 industrial firms across champions supported with resources and
(1991) four industries less likely to be terminated.
Keller Time 1: 462 professional Project group Transformational leadership of
(1992) employees from 66 performance (ratings of project leaders is positively related
project groups from three project quality and to project quality and budget/schedule
industrial R&D budget/schedule performance. The relationship between
organizations. performance by project transformational leadership and project
Time 2: 440 professional members and managers) quality is stronger for research projects
employees from 61 than for development projects. The
project groups from relationship between initiating
three industrial structure and project quality is stronger
R&D organizations for development projects than for
research projects. Project quality at
Time 1 is positively related to higher
transformational leadership at Time 2.
Frischer 38 managers and Innovative climate Managers high in need for power
(1993) subordinates in new focused on growth-related activities,
product development empowering subordinates and
units from four providing a sense of responsibility.
companies Their subordinates perceived an
innovative climate.
Scott and 172 engineers, scientists, Innovative behavior Positive relationship between
Bruce and technicians and (ratings by managers) high-quality LMX and innovative
(1994) 26 managers at an R&D Climate for innovation behavior as well as climate for innovation.
facility of a U.S. (ratings of subordinates) Positive relationship between
industrial corporation supervisors’ expectations and innovative
behavior of technicians.
(continued on next page)
Table 1 (continued)
Waldman and Interviews: 40 project R&D project Transformational leadership and
Atwater members, leaders, and effectiveness (ratings by championing behavior is positively
(1992) higher-level managers higher-level managers) related to project effectiveness.
in R&D units of two
organizations.
Surveys: 147 project
members, leaders,
and higher-level
managers in R&D units
of three organizations
Green (1995) 214 R&D projects in 21 Top management Perceived top management support
large industrial firms support, project was related to expected contribution,
success, and size of investment, innovativeness, and
project termination business advocacy and influenced
whether a project was terminated.
Hitt et al. 250 firms that reported Financial controls, Intense use of acquisitions and
(1996) R&D expenditures each strategic controls, divestitures resulted in the
year between 1985 and internal innovation, implementation of financial controls
1991 and external innovation and less internal innovation.
Judge et al. Interviews with R&D Innovation in Managers can create an innovative
(1997) managers, research R&D units culture by giving employees
scientists, and laboratory operational autonomy, providing
technicians from eight personalized recognition, emphasizing
new biotechnology firms group cohesiveness, and maintaining
a continuity of slack resources.
Scott and Sample 1: 110 engineers Innovative behavior Positive relationship between
Bruce and scientists and 22 (ratings by managers) high-quality LMX and innovative
(1998) managers at and R&D behavior for both associative and
facility of a U.S. industrial bisociative problem-solvers.
corporation.
Sample 2: 149 R&D
engineers and 26
managers at an
electronic equipment
manufacturing company
Kim et al. 503 professional Team performance Roles of technical expert, team builder,
(1999) employees from 87 gatekeeper, and strategic planner were
project teams from three related to team performance. The
government-sponsored relationships between roles of technical
and three private R&D expert, gatekeeper, and strategic planner
organizations in Korea and team performance became stronger
as the leader’s tenure increases. The
team builder role had a positive
relationship when the task uncertainty
was low. When uncertainty was high, the
strategic planner role was the most
important factor in team performance.
Roles of technical expert and gatekeeper
were important regardless of uncertainty.
Table 1 (continued)
Tierney 191 research managers, Creativity (ratings by Positive relationship between
et al. research scientists, managers, invention high-quality LMX and creativity
(1999) section leaders, project disclosure forms, and for adaptors.
leaders, work group research reports)
professionals, and work
group technicians in the
R&D sector of a chemical
corporation
Cardinal 57 pharmaceutical Innovation (new drugs Innovation is related to input, output,
(2001) drug units with R&D and drug enhancements) and behavior control mechanisms.
programs as measured by data
from FDC reports
Shim 83 projects from 22 Project performance as Project performance is related to
and Lee Korean R&D institutes rated by members and the fit between the style of
(2001) leaders leader influence and the
organizational context.
3.1. Leadership roles
Theorists have suggested that a number of leadership roles are essential for innovation
in an R&D context (Farris, 1988), including idea generating, entrepreneuring/champion-
ing, project leading, gatekeeping, and sponsoring/coaching (Roberts & Fusfield, 1981).
The idea-generating role involves developing and testing new ideas and creative problem-
solving. Motivating team members, organizing projects, and coordinating team members
are key activities associated with the project-leading role. Sponsoring/coaching focuses on
providing guidance and developing team members’ abilities. Each of these roles focuses
primarily on leadership behaviors within a project group. Gatekeeping involves activities
both inside and outside of the project team, including information dissemination,
personnel coordination, and obtaining knowledge regarding professional development
outside of the organization. Finally, entrepreneuring/championing focuses on obtaining
resources and selling ideas to those outside of the project group. Research examining
these roles performed by R&D leaders will be reviewed in the next two sections of our
paper.
3.1.1. Roles within the project group

Overall, research indicates that R&D leaders perform important roles within project
groups that contribute significantly to performance. Through interviews with leaders of
successful R&D teams, Barczak and Wilemon (1989) identified four roles performed by
leaders of operating teams focusing on incremental product improvement and innovating
teams focusing on new product development: communicator, climate-setter, planner, and
interfacer. As addressed in the following studies, research has also identified factors that
moderate the role–performance relationship including stages of innovation as well as

characteristics of the project, group, leader, and subordinates.
In one of the earlier studies of R&D leadership, Andrews and Farris (1967) examined
teams of scientists at a NASA research center to determine whether supervisors can influence
the innovation of subordinates. Results indicated that the effectiveness of leadership behavior
was dependent on leaders’ skills. When supervisors were perceived as possessing less
technical skill, higher performance was associated with giving subordinates more freedom
to explore, discuss, and challenge ideas. Critical evaluation of subordinates’ work was
associated with innovation for technically skilled supervisors. Research has also indicated
that the leader’s position can influence the effectiveness of roles. In examining long-term
project teams, Allen, Katz, Grady, and Slavin (1988) found differences in roles associated
with high performance for project and functional managers. Team performance was higher
when functional managers performed roles related to technology, including disseminating
information regarding technical advances and being knowledgeable regarding current
professional activities. In newly formed teams, information dissemination was not associated
with high performance for either project or functional managers; however, being informed
about current professional activities was associated with high performance for project
managers but not for functional managers.
Other research has identified team tenure as well as leader tenure as moderators to the
role–performance relationship. In a study of R&D team leaders in Korea, Kim, Min, and Cha
(1999) found that the roles of technical expert, team builder, gatekeeper, and strategic planner
were related to team performance. With the exception of team builder, the relationships
became stronger as the leader’s tenure increased. The team builder’s role had a negative effect
on performance as team tenure increased and a positive effect when the task uncertainty was
low. When uncertainty was high, the strategic planner role was the most important factor in
team performance. The roles of technical expert and gatekeeper were important regardless of
uncertainty.
Barnowe (1975) examined leadership behaviors similar to those described by Roberts and
Fusfield (1981) and found that leader assistance behaviors including supportiveness, task
emphasis, technological skill, and participation were positively related to contributions to
scientific knowledge and applied practices. This relationship, however, was moderated by
group isolation and subordinate experience. When groups were isolated from the scientific
community, leadership was significantly related to performance; this relationship was not
significant for nonisolated groups. Leadership behaviors were also more important when
scientists had less experience. Thus, leader roles were more important when subordinates
were disadvantaged in some way.
Farris (1972) tested a model of organizational decision making, which proposed that
‘‘colleague roles’’ differed in importance across three stages of a complex problem-solving
process. In examining roles associated with group innovation, results indicated that super-
visors in high innovation groups were not cited by group members as sources of original ideas
in the ‘‘suggestion’’ stage of the model. In later stages, however, group members in high
innovation groups indicated that supervisors were helpful with critical evaluation and
provided technical and administrative assistance.
3.1.2. Boundary-spanning and championing roles of leaders

In addition to their internal leadership activities with project group members, project
leaders have important roles to play in spanning across the boundaries of the group and the
R&D organization to other constituencies both inside and outside the firm. For example,
inside the firm, the support of higher-level management, marketing, manufacturing, and
operating divisions is usually required for technological innovations to be successfully
transformed into new products and processes that reach the market. Outside the firm,
relations with customers, suppliers, governmental agencies, trade associations, and sometimes
even competitors are needed for new product success. To reach these several constituencies,
the project leader must exert upward and outward influences across boundaries and often
must act as a project champion (Howell & Higgins, 1990b; Shim & Lee, 2001). Research has
indicated that project champions are higher in risk-taking and innovativeness and tend to be
more transformational in their leadership behaviors (Howell & Higgins, 1990a, 1990b).
How important is the boundary-spanning activity of the leader for project success?
Markham, Green, and Basu (1991) studied 213 R&D projects from 21 firms and found that
projects with an active championing effort from the leader were better supported across the
organization and less likely to get cancelled than projects without championing. Champions
were also more active for projects related to their home-function interests. A study of 40
R&D projects by Waldman and Atwater (1992) using interviews reported that championing
activity and transformational leadership result in better project success, especially when
leaders exert influence at higher levels of the organization. Ancona and Caldwell (1988),
moreover, studied 38 project leaders and found that team performance was related to the fit
between the level of boundary-spanning activity and how dependent the project was on
resources outside the project. Similarly, Shim and Lee (2001) studied 83 R&D projects in 22
Korean research institutes and found that project leaders who exert upward influence tend to
be more achievement and self-monitoring oriented and that the best influence style should fit
the organizational context at hand. Even functional managers need to boundary span, as a
study of 181 project teams from nine R&D organizations by Allen et al. (1988) found that
functional managers contributed to project performance by keeping researchers updated with
their area of science or technology. While leaders who boundary span can help their projects’
performance, research has indicated that they can also enhance their own career success. For
example, Katz and Tushman (1981) conducted a 5-year follow-up study of boundary-
spanning project leaders and found that they were promoted to higher management positions
at a much greater rate than those who did not boundary span.
3.2. Creating a climate for innovation
Research examining climate issues has focused primarily on two questions: What aspects
of the organizational environment can influence innovation, and what is the role of leaders in
this relationship? In addressing the first question, theorists have identified antecedents of
innovation and creativity including vision, participative safety, climate for excellence, norms
of support for innovation, operational autonomy/freedom, good project management,
encouragement, organizational resources, recognition, time, challenge, and pressure (Ama-
bile, 1988; West, 1990). Research examining the second question indicates that leaders may
influence innovation by creating an innovative climate (Ekvall & Ryhammar, 1999). It has
been suggested that a climate of innovation can be created by the use of both structure and
behaviors, such as providing subordinates with multiple tasks, time pressures, administrative
as well as technical tasks, technical collaboration with colleagues, and clarity of fit between
work and organizational goals (Farris, 1988).
Empirical studies across a number of organizational contexts have examined the direct
relationship between organizational factors and innovation as well as perceptions of an
innovative climate as a mediator of this relationship. Results of a metaanalysis indicated that
significant positive relationships exist between innovation and organizational variables
including specialization, functional differentiation, professionalism, managerial attitudes
toward change, technical knowledge resources, administrative intensity, slack resources,
and internal/external communication. Innovation, moreover, was negatively related to
centralization. The relationship between organizational determinants and innovation was
stronger for organizations that developed a large number of innovations (Damanpour, 1991).
3.2.1. Climate of innovation

Consistent with Damanpour’s (1991) findings, literature examining climate issues in an
R&D context has suggested that R&D leaders can control organizational factors, thus
influencing innovation in project groups (Farris, 1988). One way that this can occur is by
creating a culture or climate conducive to innovation. Judge, Fryxell, and Dooley (1997)
interviewed R&D managers of biotechnology firms to examine the type of organizational
culture necessary for innovation and the managerial practices that can create such cultures.
The managers indicated that an innovative culture was created through building a sense of
community consisting of a family feeling, socializing, trust, caring, information flow,
learning approach, individual recognition/rewards, and teamwork. Managerial practices that
can create this type of culture include giving employees operational autonomy, providing
personalized recognition, emphasizing group cohesiveness, and maintaining a continuity of
slack resources.
Other research has indicated that managerial practices such as those described by Judge et
al. (1997) are associated with both high performance and perceptions of an innovative
climate. In an examination of project groups in an electronics company, Thamhain and
Gemmill (1974) found that influence methods focusing on work challenge and expertise
rather than authority were associated with higher project manager performance ratings as well
as a climate of project personnel involvement and willingness to disagree. Similarly, in a
study of new product development units, Frischer (1993) found that subordinates whose
managers expressed a high need for power perceived a more innovative climate than those
whose managers reported a high need for affiliation. Managers with high need for power
focused on growth-related activities, empowering subordinates and providing a sense of
responsibility. Research has also examined the role of climate in the relationship between
managerial behaviors and innovation. Scott and Bruce (1994) examined this issue and found
that perceived support for innovation was positively related to innovative behavior but found
only limited support for climate as a mediator.
3.2.2. Structures supportive of an innovative climate

In an examination of structure issues in an R&D context, Cardinal (2001) found positive
relationships between organizational controls and innovation in the pharmaceutical industry.
Input controls such as the diversity of specialists in the organization’s R&D programs and the
employees’ contact with professional colleagues outside of the organization were positively
related to both radical (new drug development) and incremental (drug enhancements)
innovations. In terms of behavior controls, radical innovation was positively related to
centralization, formalization, and performance appraisal frequency. Incremental innovation
was positively related to centralization, negatively related to formalization, and not signifi-
cantly related to performance appraisal frequency. Finally, the study examined output controls
including goal specificity, emphasis on output, emphasis on professional output, and rewards/
recognition. The author found a positive relationship between each output control and both
types of innovation, with the exception of a nonsignificant relationship between emphasis on
professional output and radical innovation.
3.3. Leadership theories
Despite calls for research on leadership in technological innovation (Farris, 1988), there is
a relative lack of theory-based leadership studies in an R&D context (Scott & Bruce, 1998).
Farris (1988) observed that most early research in this category focused on traits and
behaviors of first-line supervisors and found that innovation was positively related to leaders’
technical skills, negatively related to administrative skills, and not related to human relations
skills. More recent research has moved beyond simple examinations of leaders’ traits and
behaviors. The following sections will review this research, which includes studies examining
transformational leadership, path-goal theory, leader–member relations (LMX) theory, and
strategic leadership.
3.3.1. Transformational leadership

The concepts of transformational and transactional leadership were first articulated by Burns
(1978) in a political science context and later formulated into a theory of leadership in
organizations by Bass (1985). According to Bass’ theory, transformational leaders encourage
followers to view problems from new perspectives (intellectual stimulation), provide support
and encouragement (individualized consideration), communicate a vision (inspirational moti-
vation), and engender emotion and identification (charisma) (Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1990).
In contrast, transactional leaders motivate subordinates through the use of contingent rewards,
corrective actions (passive management by exception), and rule enforcement (active manage-
ment by exception) (Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1990). Although transformational leadership
theory predicts that transformational leaders will be effective in all situations, the theory also
indicates that contextual variables may increase the effectiveness of transformational behaviors
(Bass, 1985). Consistent with transformational leadership theory, research has found that
transformational behaviors are related to leadership effectiveness in many different types of
organizations (Bass, 1997). Further, metaanalysis results have indicated that this relationship
is stable across different levels of leadership (Lowe, Kroek, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996).
Studies examining transformational leadership in R&D organizations, however, suggest

that leadership level as well as other contextual variables such as project type may moderate
the relationship between transformational leadership and effectiveness. In a longitudinal study
examining leadership behaviors exhibited by project leaders in three R&D organizations,
Keller (1992) found that transformational behaviors were positively related to project quality
and budget/schedule performance. This relationship, moreover, was stronger for research
projects than for development projects. The relationship between transactional behaviors and
project quality was more important in development projects than in research projects.
Research focusing primarily on development activities has indicated that intellectual
stimulation, charisma, and individualized consideration of higher-level R&D managers, but
not project leaders, are related to project success (Waldman & Atwater, 1992).
In combination, the Keller (1992) and Waldman and Atwater (1992) studies suggest a
complex relationship among transformational leadership behaviors, level of leadership, and
R&D project type. Research projects, which typically occur during earlier stages of the
innovation process, generally require project group members to engage in more original idea
generation and to gather more information from outside the group than development projects
that tend to focus on product/process modification (Keller, 1995). According to the Waldman
and Bass (1991) model of leadership and the innovation process, transformational leadership
behaviors are necessary in the early stages to create a vision and provide intellectual
stimulation. Leaders who are most likely to provide intellectual stimulation to project groups
are project leaders. During later stages of the innovation process where development projects
occur, Waldman and Bass suggest that project effectiveness is related to charismatic leader-
ship displayed by champions who are typically powerful organizational members. Thus,
project effectiveness should be most related to transformational leadership behaviors
displayed by project leaders in research projects and higher-level leaders in development
projects.
3.3.2. Path goal

According to path-goal theory (House, 1971, 1996; House & Dessler, 1974), an effective
leader is one who engages in behaviors that facilitate goal attainment and maximize the value
of this achievement, thereby affecting subordinates’ expectancies, valence, performance, and
satisfaction. Additionally, the relationship between leader’s behaviors and outcomes are
theorized to be moderated by situational variables including characteristics of the task,
environment, and subordinates. Studies examining situational moderators have focused more
on job characteristics than other types of moderators and have not consistently supported
path-goal theory predictions. In a metaanalysis, Wofford and Liska (1993) found support for
only 6 of 19 moderator hypotheses. Task structure moderated the relationship between
consideration and three outcomes (expectancies, role clarity, and satisfaction with supervisor)
and between initiating structure and only one outcome (expectancies). Significant results
were found for one other job characteristic, job scope, which moderated the relationship
between consideration and performance. Only one subordinate characteristic, ability, had
been researched sufficiently to perform a metaanalysis; ability moderated the relationship
between initiating structure and performance.
Research examining path-goal theory in R&D organizations suggests that subordinates’

characteristics might explain some of the inconsistent path-goal findings. In a study
examining 477 professional employees from four R&D organizations, Keller (1989) found
that subordinates’ need for clarity moderated the relationship between initiating structure and
job satisfaction in all four organizations and between initiating structure and performance in
one organization. Supporting the notion that all employees may not respond the same way to
role ambiguity (Schriesheim & Schriesheim, 1980; Stinson & Johnson, 1975; Yukl, 1981),
Keller’s results indicated that the relationship between initiating structure and satisfaction was
stronger for employees high in need for clarity. Thus, employee characteristics can influence
the effectiveness of directive leadership behaviors.
3.3.3. Leader–member relations

LMX was originally proposed by Graen and his colleagues (Dansereau, Cashman, &
Graen, 1973; Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975; Graen, 1976; Graen & Cashman, 1975) and
focuses on the social exchange processes embedded in the leader–subordinate relationship.
Recent revisions to the theory have further described these social exchanges in terms of three
stages: (1) initial testing including evaluations of motive, attitudes, resources, role expect-
ations; (2) development of mutual trust, loyalty, and respect; and (3) development of mutual
commitment to organizational/unit goals (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1991). It has been argued that
one of the most important initial aspects of the exchange relationship is subordinates’
performance in a series of supervisors’ requests. Subordinates’ reactions to such requests can
then influence perceptions of trustworthiness and loyalty (House & Aditya, 1997).
According to LMX theory, the quality of exchange relationships between leaders and
subordinates influences a number of important organizational outcomes (Graen & Uhl-Bien,
1995). Although conceptual definitions of LMX have been questioned and measures of LMX
and studies’ data analysis have been criticized (Schriesheim, Castro, & Cogliser, 1999),
research has linked LMX to a number of important outcome variables. In a recent
metaanalysis examining LMX across a variety of contexts, Gerstner and Day (1997) found
that LMX is related to subordinate satisfaction with supervisor and overall satisfaction,
performance (supervisors’ ratings and objective measures), commitment, role conflict, role
clarity, member competence, and turnover intentions.
Overall, studies testing and applying LMX can be placed into three general categories: (1)
research examining variables that predict the quality of exchange relationships, (2) research
examining the relationship between LMX and behaviors of leaders and subordinates, and (3)
relationship between LMX and outcomes (Yukl, 2002). Because LMX research in the R&D
context has focused on the third category, only the relationship between LMX and outcomes
will be discussed in this review.
The relationship between LMX and performance has been of particular interest in R&D
studies that have operationalized performance as creativity and innovation. It has been
suggested that the nature of high-quality exchange relationships that include providing
subordinates with challenging tasks (Liden & Graen, 1980), leader support of risk-taking
(Graen & Cashman, 1975), leaders who secure task-related resources (Graen & Scandura,
1987), provide recognition (Graen & Cashman, 1975), and supervisor advocacy (Duchon,
Green, & Taber, 1986) facilitate employee creativity and innovation (Amabile, 1988;
Mumford & Gustafson, 1988). Consistent with predictions, research has found that high-
quality exchange relationships are associated with innovation and creativity in R&D
organizations. For example, in a study of engineers, scientists, technicians, and managers
in the R&D facility of a large industrial corporation, Scott and Bruce (1994) found that high-
quality exchange relationships were related to innovative behaviors and perceptions of an
organizational climate supportive of innovation.
LMX research has suggested that the definition of what constitutes a high-quality
exchange relationship may vary across employees, thus creating ‘‘boundary conditions’’
for the effects of LMX on outcomes (Graen, Scandura, & Graen, 1986; House & Aditya,
1997). Studies of LMX in an R&D context have examined problem-solving style as a
possible boundary condition and have yielded mixed results (Scott & Bruce, 1998; Tierney,
Farmer, & Graen, 1999). Problem-solving style, a domain of cognitive style, refers to the way
that individuals gather, store, and process information (Jabri, 1991; Kirton, 1976). More
innovative individuals, labeled by Kirton (1976) as innovators and by Jabri (1991) as
bisociative thinkers, gather information from multiple domains and use novel problem-
solving approaches. Less innovative individuals gather information from one domain of
knowledge and process the information according to established methods; these individuals
have been labeled adaptors (Kirton, 1976) and associative thinkers (Jabri, 1991).
In a study examining the interactive effects of LMX and problem-solving style on the
innovative behaviors of engineers and scientists in an R&D setting, Scott and Bruce (1998)
found that high LMX was related to managers’ ratings of innovative behavior for both
associative and bisociative problem-solvers. In contrast, Tierney et al. (1999) found a
significant interaction between LMX and employee cognitive style, such that high LMX
was related to creativity for those with Kirton’s (1976) adaptive style but not for those with an
innovative style. Innovators were creative regardless of LMX. Adaptors in high LMX
relationships were more creative than those in low LMX relationships. The authors conclude
that LMX has an ‘‘enabling’’ effect for those with an adaptive style. Creativity in this study
was assessed with managers’ ratings, invention disclosure forms, and research reports.
Differences in dependent variables and the measurement of problem-solving style could
account for the conflicting findings in these studies.
3.3.4. Strategic leadership

Research examining leadership in R&D contexts has focused primarily on project leaders
rather than those at the top management level. Our review uncovered a small number of
studies that examined leadership from a strategic perspective and found links between top
management actions and R&D project performance. Research examining acquisitions and
divestitures by organizations found that the intense use of such activities was related to the
implementation of financial controls by top managers, which had a negative effect on internal
innovation (Hitt, Hoskisson, Johnson, & Moesel, 1996).
Other studies have indicated that top management support can have a positive impact on
innovation. In an examination of 125 industrial product firms, Cooper and Kleinschmidt
(1987) found that top management support for new product projects was related to various
aspects of product success including payback period, domestic market share, relative profits,
meeting sales, and profits objectives. Similar results were found by Green (1995) in an
investigation of R&D projects based on Hambrick’s (1989) strategic leadership framework. In
this study, perceived top management support was related to expected contribution, size of
investment, innovativeness, and business advocacy and influenced whether a project was
terminated.
4. Conclusions and propositions for future research
Our review of the literature suggests some important conclusions about leadership in the
R&D context and some propositions for future research. The conceptual framework in Fig. 1
can help us to understand the importance of environmental and contextual factors that
differentiate leadership in R&D organizations from that in operating divisions. In R&D, we
are usually interested in the project group leader and in a number of moderators such as type
of R&D, membership factors, and rate of technological change, among others. While the
empirical research we have reviewed is ample, it is not abundant, so many unanswered
questions and areas for future research exist to challenge the researcher interested in R&D
leadership.
The first conclusion we have drawn is that the R&D project leader not only has to lead
internally and inspire the team members but also he or she should engage in multiple roles
including external ones. Namely, the leader should also boundary span with important
constituents outside the project group, such as managers and personnel in marketing,
manufacturing, and operating divisions, as well as with customers from outside the firm.
This kind of activity to champion the project can be critical to the survival and success of the
project. However, others in the project group can be project champions as well, and an open
question with little existing research is who should do the project championing activity—the
leader or someone else? Hence, our first proposition for future research is:
Proposition 1: Leaders who engage in multiple roles including internal team development
and external boundary-spanning and project championing activities will be more effective
than leaders who focus only on internal activities. Also, leaders will be more effective product
champions than nonleaders.
Based on the literature we reviewed, transformational leadership appears to be an

effective style for use in R&D contexts. The inspirational motivation of providing a
common vision for the project enables team members from different disciplines to work
together to bring a technological innovation to fruition. In addition, the leader’s use of
intellectual stimulation encourages team members from disparate disciplines to look at
problems from new vantage points that can enhance innovation. We think that project
effectiveness will be highest when transformational leadership behaviors are displayed by
project leaders in research rather than in development projects. In development projects, we
see the role of the higher-level transformational leader as providing contextual support in the
form of a helpful organizational climate. Hence, our second proposition for future research
suggests the following interaction:
Proposition 2: A three-way interaction will occur among type of project, type of leadership,
and level of leader. Transformational leadership will interact with type of project such that
transformational leadership in research projects will be positively related to project
effectiveness. In development projects, transformational leadership and leadership level will
interact such that transformational leadership of higher-level leaders will be positively
related to project effectiveness.
The literature on LMX also is encouraging and has found that a high-quality exchange
relationship between the project leader and the team members can lead to more creative and
innovative outputs. We wonder, however, if the dyadic nature of LMX carries over to the
project team as a whole or if the LMX relationship is more confined to particular dyads of
leader–follower relationships. Hence, our third proposition:
Proposition 3: Significant variance across the leader–member dyads of a project team will
exist such that some dyads will not have a high-quality relationship. These less-than-high-
quality relationships will not contribute to project effectiveness.
Path-goal theory is severely underresearched with only one direct study in R&D
organizations, which investigated the effectiveness of initiating structure for different types
of subordinates and tasks (Keller, 1989). As indicated in a metaanalysis examining path-goal
theory in a variety of contexts, consideration may also be an effective leadership style for
more structured tasks and jobs with less task variety (Wofford & Liska, 1993). In an R&D
context, projects differ in task structure and job scope; hence, development projects tend to
have less task variety and tend to be more structured than research projects. Thus, the
following proposition is suggested:
Proposition 4: Project type will moderate the relationships between consideration and
subordinate satisfaction and performance such that the relationships will be positive and
stronger for development projects than for research projects.
A research topic in which we did not find any studies conducted in an R&D context but that
has much promise for application in R&D efforts is the use of virtual teams. At present, it is
unclear how virtual teams, those dispersed across time and space, can be effectively used for
the rich information processing needed for R&D work. We are at the early stages, however, of
experience and information technology that can be used to take advantage of virtual teams for
distance or global R&D projects (Montoya-Weiss, Massey, & Song, 2001). As the technology
improves, one would expect a greater and more effective use of virtual teams.
Another void in the literature is a comparison of R&D leaders with other leaders to
determine directly that a uniqueness exists in the R&D context. We have inferred that R&D is
different based on the compelling nature of the moderator and context variables that exist in
R&D settings. We do not yet have, however, a study showing direct differences in effective
leader behaviors between R&D and other contexts.
While our progress in learning about effective leadership is slow, it remains steady. As our
review of R&D leadership suggests, we know more about what project leaders should do than
we did 10 or 15 years ago. It is also likely that as the U.S. workforce becomes more
composed of knowledge workers, effective leadership in R&D settings may become a model
for several other contexts where knowledge creation and transfer are critical for success. The
importance of the literature in the present review therefore may become greater and more
applicable in the near future.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank James S. Phillips, Arthur G. Jago, and Stephanie G. Ward for their
helpful comments and suggestions.
References
Allen, T., Katz, R., Grady, J. J., & Slavin, N. (1988). Project team aging and performance: The roles of project and
functional managers. R&D Management, 18, 295 – 308.
Allen, T. J. (1977). Managing the flow of technology: Technology transfer and the dissemination of technological
information within the R&D organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational
Behavior, 10, 123 – 167.
Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1988). Beyond task and maintenance: Defining external functions in groups.
Group and Organization Studies, 13, 468 – 494.
Andrews, F. M., & Farris, G. F. (1967). Supervisory practices and innovation in scientific teams. Personnel
Psychology, 20, 497 – 515.
Barczak, G., & Wilemon, D. (1989). Leadership differences in new product development teams. Journal of
Product Innovation Management, 6, 259 – 267.
Barnowe, J. T. (1975). Leadership and performance outcomes in research organizations: The supervisor of
scientists as a source of assistance. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 14, 264 – 280.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and management applications.
New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactional-transformational paradigm transcend organizational and national
boundaries? American Psychologist, 22, 130 – 142.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990). Developing transformational leadership: 1992 and beyond. Journal of
European Industrial Training, 14, 21 – 27.
Burgelman, R. A., Maidique, M. A., & Wheelwright, S. C. (2001). Strategic management of technology and
innovation (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Cardinal, L. B. (2001). Technological innovation in the pharmaceutical industry: The use of organizational control
in managing research and development. Organization Science, 12, 19 – 36.
Cooper, R. G., & Kleinschmidt, E. J. (1987). New products: What separates winners from losers? Journal of
Product Innovation Management, 4, 169 – 184.
Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators.

Academy of Management Journal, 34, 555 – 590.
Dansereau, F., Cashman, J., & Graen, G. (1973). Instrumentality theory and equity theory as complementary
approaches in predicting the relationship of leadership and turnover among managers. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 10, 184 – 200.
Dansereau, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal
organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 13, 46 – 78.
Denison, D. R., Hart, S. L., & Kahn, J. A. (1996). From chimneys to cross-functional teams: Developing and
validating a diagnostic model. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1005 – 1023.
Duchon, D., Green, S. G., & Taber, T. D. (1986). Vertical dyad linkage exchange: A longitudinal assessment of
antecedents, measures, and consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 56 – 60.
Ekvall, G., & Ryhammar, L. (1999). The creative climate: Its determinants and effects at a Swedish university.
Creativity Research Journal, 12, 303 – 310.
Farris, G. F. (1972). The effect of individual roles on performance in innovative groups. R&D Management, 3,
23 – 28.
Farris, G. F. (1988). Technical leadership: Much discussed but little understood. Research Technology Manage-
ment, 31, 12 – 16.
Frischer, J. (1993). Empowering management in new product development units. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 10, 393 – 401.
Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader – member exchange theory: Correlates and
construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 827 – 844.
Graen, G. (1976). Role-making processes within complex organizations. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of
industrial and organizational psychology ( pp. 1201 – 1245). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Graen, G., & Cashman, J. (1975). A role-making model of leadership in formal organizations: A development
approach. In J. G. Hunt, & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership frontiers ( pp. 143 – 165). Kent, OH: Kent State
University.
Graen, G., & Scandura, T. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. In B. Staw, L. L. Cummings
(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, vol. 9 (pp. 175 – 208). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Graen, G., Scandura, T., & Graen, M. R. (1986). A field experimental test of the moderating effects of growth
need strength on productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 484 – 491.
Graen, G., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1991). The transformation of work group professionals into self-managing and
partially self-designing contributors: Toward a theory of leadership-making. Journal of Management Systems,
3, 33 – 48.
Graen, G., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader – member –
exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years—Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective.
Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219 – 247.
Green, S. G. (1995). Top management support of R&D projects: A strategic leadership perspective. IEEE Trans-
actions on Engineering Management, 42, 223 – 232.
Hambrick, D. (1989). Guest editor’s introduction: Putting top managers back in the strategy picture. Strategic
Management Journal, 10, 5 – 15.
Hitt, M. A., Hoskisson, R. E., Johnson, R. A., & Moesel, D. D. (1996). The market for corporate control and firm
innovation. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1084 – 1119.
House, R. J. (1971). A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16,
321 – 338.
House, R. J. (1996). Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy and a reformulated theory. Leadership
Quarterly, 7, 323 – 352.
House, R. J., & Aditya, R. N. (1997). The social scientific study of leadership: Quo vadis? Journal of Manage-
ment, 23, 409 – 473.
House, R. J., & Dessler, G. (1974). The path-goal theory of leadership: Some post hoc and a priori tests. In:
J. G. Hunt, & L. L. Larson (Eds), Contingency approaches to leadership ( pp. 29 – 55). Carbondale:
Southern Illinois Press.
Howell, J. M., & Higgins, C. A. (1990a). Champions of technological innovation. Administrative Science Quar-
terly, 35, 317 – 341.
Howell, J. M., & Higgins, C. A. (1990b). Leadership behaviors, influence tactics, and career experiences of
technological innovation. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 249 – 264.
Jabri, M. (1991). The development of conceptually independent subscales in the measurement of modes of
problem solving. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 975 – 983.
Judge, W. Q., Gryxell, G. E., & Dooley, R. S. (1997). The new task of R&D management: Creating goal-directed
communities for innovation. California Management Review, 39, 72 – 85.
Katz, R., & Tushman, M. (1981). An investigation into the managerial roles and career paths of gatekeepers and
project supervisor in a major R&D facility. R&D Management, 11, 103 – 110.
Keller, R. T. (1989). A test of the path-goal theory of leadership with need for clarity as a moderator in research
and development organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 208 – 212.
Keller, R. T. (1992). Transformational leadership and the performance of research and development project
groups. Journal of Management, 18, 489 – 501.
Keller, R. T. (1995). Transformational leaders make a difference. Research Technology Management, 38, 41 – 44.
Kim, Y., Min, B., & Cha, J. (1999). The roles of R&D team leaders in Korea: A contingent approach. R&D
Management, 29, 153 – 165.
Kirton, M. J. (1976). Adaptors and innovators: A description and measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61,
622 – 629.
Liden, R. C., & Graen, G. (1980). Generalizability of the vertical dyad linkage model of leadership. Academy of
Management Journal, 23, 451 – 465.
Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of transformational and trans-
actional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature. Leadership Quarterly, 7, 385 – 425.
Markham, S. K., Green, S. G., & Basu, G. (1991). Champions and antagonists: Relationships with R&D project
characteristics and management. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 8, 217 – 242.
Montoya-Weiss, M. M., Massey, A. P., & Song, M. (2001). Getting it together: Temporal coordination and conflict
management in global virtual teams. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1251 – 1262.
Mumford, M. D., & Gustafson, S. B. (1988). Creativity syndrome: Integration, application, and innovation.
Psychological Bulletin, 103, 27 – 43.
Mumford, M. D., Scott, G. M., Gaddis, B., & Strange, J. M. (2002). Leading creative people: Orchestrating
expertise and relationships. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 705 – 750.
Narayanan, V. K. (2001). Managing technology and innovation for competitive advantage. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Pelz, D. C., & Andrews, F. M. (1966). Scientists in organizations: Productive climates for research and develop-
ment. New York: Wiley.
Roberts, E. B., & Fusfield, A. R. (1981). Staffing the innovative technology-based organization. Sloan Manage-
ment Review, 22, 19 – 34.
Schriesheim, C. A., Castro, S. L., & Cogliser, C. G. (1999). Leader – member exchange (LMX) research: A
comprehensive review of theory, measurement and data-analytic practices. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 63 – 113.
Schriesheim, J. F., & Schriesheim, C. A. (1980). A test of the path-goal theory of leadership and some directions
for future research. Personnel Psychology, 33, 349 – 370.
Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation
in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 580 – 607.
Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1998). Following the leader in R&D: The joint effect of subordinate problem-solving
style and leader – member relations on innovative behavior. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,
45, 3 – 10.
Shim, D., & Lee, M. (2001). Upward influence styles of R&D project leaders. IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management, 48, 394 – 413.
Stinson, J. E., & Johnson, T. W. (1975). The path-goal theory of leadership: A partial test and suggested refine-
ment. Academy of Management Journal, 18, 242 – 252.
Thamhain, H. J., & Gemmill, G. R. (1974). Influence styles of project managers: Some project performance
correlates. Academy of Management Journal, 17, 216 – 224.
Tierney, P., Farmer, S. M., & Graen, G. (1999). An examination of leadership and employee creativity: The
relevance of traits and relationships. Personnel Psychology, 52, 591 – 620.
Tornatzky, L. G., & Fleischer, M. (1990). The processes of technological innovation. Lexington, MA: Lexington
Books.
Waldman, D., & Atwater, L. (1992). The nature of effective leadership and championing processes at different
level in an R&D hierarchy. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 5, 233 – 245.
Waldman, D. A., & Bass, B. M. (1991). Transformational leadership at different phases of the innovation process.
Journal of High Technology Management Research, 2, 169 – 180.
West, M. A. (1990). The social psychology of innovation in groups. In M. A. West, & J. L. Farr (Eds.), Innovation
and creativity at work ( pp. 309 – 333). New York: Wiley.
Wofford, J. C., & Liska, L. Z. (1993). Path-goal theories of leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management,
19, 857 – 876.
Yukl, G. (1981). Leadership in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Leadership in Research and Development Organizations: A Literature Review and Conceptual Framework

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Leadership in Research and Development Organizations: A Literature Review and Conceptual Framework

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Leadership Quarterly 14 (2003) 587 – 606

Leadership in research and development organizations:

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-713-743-4669.

1048-9843/$ – see front matter D 2003 Published by Elsevier Inc.

2. The nature of R&D and the technological innovation process

Fig. 1. A conceptual framework of leadership research in the R&D context.

3. Leadership research in the R&D context

Farris (1988) identified three categories of research examining leadership in an R&D

3.1. Leadership roles

3.1.1. Roles within the project group

moderate the role–performance relationship including stages of innovation as well as

3.1.2. Boundary-spanning and championing roles of leaders

3.2. Creating a climate for innovation

3.2.1. Climate of innovation

3.2.2. Structures supportive of an innovative climate

3.3. Leadership theories

3.3.1. Transformational leadership

Studies examining transformational leadership in R&D organizations, however, suggest

3.3.2. Path goal

Research examining path-goal theory in R&D organizations suggests that subordinates’

3.3.3. Leader–member relations

3.3.4. Strategic leadership

4. Conclusions and propositions for future research

Based on the literature we reviewed, transformational leadership appears to be an

Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators.

You might also like