leadership in research and development organizations: a literature review …afenn/web/ec303_… ·...

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

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

doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(03)00053-5

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

E-mail address: [email protected] (T. Elkins).

T. Elkins, R.T. Keller / The Leadership Quarterly 14 (2003) 587–606588

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

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

T. Elkins, R.T. Keller / The Leadership Quarterly 14 (2003) 587–606 589

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

and Farris

(1967)

94 scientists from 21

teams at a NASA

research center

Individual and group

innovation

When supervisors were perceived

as less technically skilled, higher

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

employees representing

154 R&D projects at

13 sites

Roles associated with

group innovation

across problem-

solving stages

Suggestion stage: supervisors in high

innovation groups were not viewed as a

source of original ideas by group

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

Gemmill

(1974)

88 project managers

and personnel in an

electronics company

Degree of employee

support and project

involvement, willingness

to disagree, and project

managers’ effectiveness

ratings

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 involvement and

willingness to disagree.

Barnowe

(1975)

Questionnaires completed

by 859 scientists and

interviews conducted

with 39 administrators of a

large research organization

Scientific and applied

research outcomes

Leader assistance behaviors were

positively related to contributions to

scientific knowledge and applied

practices. This relationship was

moderated by group isolation

and subordinate experience.

Katz and

Tushman

(1981)

345 R&D professionals

in 61 project groups of

a large corporation

Technical performance

of projects as rated by

managers. Five-year

later promotions of

project leaders

Gatekeeping (boundary-spanning)

project leaders had a much greater

incidence of promotion to

managerial positions compared

with non-gatekeeping leaders.

Cooper and

Kleinschmidt

(1987)

203 new product projects

in 125 industrial product

firms

New product success Top management support for new

product projects was related to

indicators of product success,

including payback period, domestic

market share, relative profits, meeting

sales, and profits objectives.

Allen et al.

(1988)

181 project team from

nine R&D organizations

Project performance

as rated by managers

Project performance is higher when

functional leaders keep researchers

updated with their relevant science

or technology.


(continued on next page)

Table 1 (continued)


Barczak and

Wilemon

(1989)

10 leaders of successful

R&D teams in the

electrical and electronics

industries

Content analysis of

interviews to identify

roles

Leaders of both operating and

innovating teams perform the roles

of communicator, climate-setter,

planner, and interfacer. Differences

exists in the implementation of roles

in the two types of teams.

Ancona and

Caldwell

(1988)

38 new product team

managers from seven

high-tech corporations

Type of boundary-

spanning activity and

team performance

Team performance is a function of

the fit between amount of boundary-

spanning activity and resource

dependence of the project.

Keller

(1989)

477 professional

employees from four

R&D organizations

Job satisfaction and

employee performance

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.

Howell and

Higgins

(1990a,

1990b)

25 matched pairs of

project champions and

nonchampions from a

variety of Canadian firms

Leader behaviors and

influence tactics used

by leaders

Champions used more

transformational leader behaviors

and a wider variety of influence

tactics than nonchampions.

Markham

et al.

(1991)

213 R&D projects from

21 industrial firms across

four industries

Emergence of project

champions

Championed projects are better

supported with resources and

less likely to be terminated.

Keller

(1992)

Time 1: 462 professional

employees from 66

project groups from three

industrial R&D

organizations.

Time 2: 440 professional

employees from 61

project groups from

three industrial

R&D organizations

Project group

performance (ratings of

project quality and

budget/schedule

performance by project

members and managers)

Transformational leadership of

project leaders is positively related

to project quality and budget/schedule

performance. The relationship between

transformational leadership and project

quality is stronger for research projects

than for development projects. The

relationship between initiating

structure and project quality is stronger

for development projects than for

research projects. Project quality at

Time 1 is positively related to higher

transformational leadership at Time 2.

Frischer

(1993)

38 managers and

subordinates in new

product development

units from four

companies

Innovative climate Managers high in need for power

focused on growth-related activities,

empowering subordinates and

providing a sense of responsibility.

Their subordinates perceived an

innovative climate.

Scott and

Bruce

(1994)

172 engineers, scientists,

and technicians and

26 managers at an R&D

facility of a U.S.

industrial corporation

Innovative behavior

(ratings by managers)

Climate for innovation

(ratings of subordinates)

Positive relationship between

high-quality LMX and innovative

behavior as well as climate for innovation.


supervisors’ expectations and innovative

behavior of technicians.


Table 1 (continued)


Waldman and

Atwater

(1992)

Interviews: 40 project

members, leaders, and

higher-level managers

in R&D units of two

organizations.

Surveys: 147 project

members, leaders,

and higher-level

managers in R&D units

of three organizations

R&D project

effectiveness (ratings by

higher-level managers)

Transformational leadership and

championing behavior is positively

related to project effectiveness.

Green (1995) 214 R&D projects in 21

large industrial firms

Top management

support, project

success, and

project termination

Perceived top management support

was related to expected contribution,

size of investment, innovativeness, and

business advocacy and influenced

whether a project was terminated.

Hitt et al.

(1996)

250 firms that reported

R&D expenditures each

year between 1985 and

1991

Financial controls,

strategic controls,

internal innovation,

and external innovation

Intense use of acquisitions and

divestitures resulted in the

implementation of financial controls

and less internal innovation.

Judge et al.

(1997)

Interviews with R&D

managers, research

scientists, and laboratory

technicians from eight

new biotechnology firms

Innovation in

R&D units

Managers can create an innovative

culture by giving employees

operational autonomy, providing

personalized recognition, emphasizing

group cohesiveness, and maintaining

a continuity of slack resources.

Scott and

Bruce

(1998)

Sample 1: 110 engineers

and scientists and 22

managers at and R&D

facility of a U.S. industrial

corporation.

Sample 2: 149 R&D

engineers and 26

managers at an

electronic equipment

manufacturing company

Innovative behavior

(ratings by managers)


high-quality LMX and innovative

behavior for both associative and

bisociative problem-solvers.

Kim et al.

(1999)

503 professional

employees from 87

project teams from three

government-sponsored

and three private R&D

organizations in Korea

Team performance Roles of technical expert, team builder,

gatekeeper, and strategic planner were

related to team performance. The

relationships between roles of technical

expert, gatekeeper, and strategic planner

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

et al.

(1999)

191 research managers,

research scientists,

section leaders, project

leaders, work group

professionals, and work

group technicians in the

R&D sector of a chemical

corporation

Creativity (ratings by

managers, invention

disclosure forms, and

research reports)


high-quality LMX and creativity

for adaptors.

Cardinal

(2001)

57 pharmaceutical

drug units with R&D

programs

Innovation (new drugs

and drug enhancements)

as measured by data

from FDC reports

Innovation is related to input, output,

and behavior control mechanisms.

Shim

and Lee

(2001)

83 projects from 22

Korean R&D institutes

Project performance as

rated by members and

leaders

Project performance is related to

the fit between the style of

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


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



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 …afenn/web/ec303_… ·...

Documents