Psychological theories view leadership as a social influence process in which leaders use interpersonal behaviors to motivate followers to contribute to group goals. On the other hand, business-oriented models emphasize the leadership of organizational functions such as strategy, structure, staffing, and work systems. In this article, this distinction is conceptualized as representing the interpersonal how and the organizational what, respectively, and the two perspectives are viewed as complementary ways that leaders can impact organizational performance. Evidence is provided to show how leadership professionals tend to have a bias in favor of one, and corresponding neglect of the other, perspective. A study is then presented to test relationships between behaviors indicative of the how and the what and leadership effectiveness. Based on ratings of 421 senior managers from 4,670 superiors, peers, and subordinates, the results demonstrate the significant and roughly equivalent contributions for both the interpersonal how and the organizational what in predicting the perceived effectiveness of leaders and the unique routes through which each aspect of leadership affects team performance. Implications for research and practice are discussed in terms of integrative, multidisciplinary approaches to understanding and improving leadership.

In spite of the importance often attached to the role played by leadership in university-based cooperative research centres, we know very little about what ‘leadership’ means in this specific context. The research reported here used a qualitative approach to identify fifteen dimensions of leadership performance for directors of university-based cooperative research centres, which might serve as the basis of a future quantitative leadership performance measure. Nineteen university faculty members working in research centres were interviewed, and their responses were content-analysed to identify both facilitators and inhibitors of centre directors' performance. Facilitative performance dimensions included: technical expertise, ambition/work ethic, broad thinking, embracing ambiguity, balancing competing stakeholders, leveraging social capital, obtaining resources, navigating bureaucracy, granting autonomy, interpersonal skill, team building and task adaptability. Inhibiting performance dimensions included: abrasiveness, disorganization and conflict avoidance. The results are discussed in terms of the commonalities and particularities they reveal about cooperative centre leadership relative to leadership performance in other settings.

This chapter contribution describes a program of research investigating leadership in the context of university-based cooperative research centers (URCs). S. Bartholomew Craig, Clara E. Hess, Jennifer Lindberg McGinnis, and Denis O. Gray report the results of four studies. Study 1 used content analysis of qualitative interview data to identify 15 categories of center director performance. Study 2 used the categories identi fi ed in Study 1 to create a standardized multisource (360°) leadership performance assessment instrument, which was subsequently re fi ned to measure 10 dimensions of directors' leadership performance. Study 3 applied cluster analysis to scores from the new instrument to identify four distinct "types" of center directors, based on their patterns of leadership performance. Study 4 investigated the relations between center directors' leadership performance and their personality scores as assessed with the Five Factor Model of personality. Results are discussed in terms of their implications for knowledge of leadership processes within URCs, selection and development of center directors, and for future research efforts. For complementary examinations, see the chapter contributions by Rivers & Gray and by Davis and colleagues on center leaders' industry member marketing practices and relations with university administrators, respectively.

No abstract

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing this collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number.