Leadership is an important concern for researchers in the technology management field (Edler, Meyer-Krahmer, & Reger, 2002; Gritzo, Fusfeld, & Carpenter, 2017; Rifkin, Fineman, & Ruhnke, 1999; Tschirky, 2004). Evidence indicates that many technology executives are not effectively leading the strategic mobilization of technology in the competitive positioning of their firms (Uttal, Kantrow, Linden, & Stock, 1992). For example, Edler et al. (2002) found that only 45% of the firms in their sample perceived the Chief Technology Officer (CTO) to be playing a significant role in setting business unit strategy and only 55 perceived the CTO as significantly involved in setting corporate strategy. Zehner (1998) found that, among CEOs in Fortune 1000 companies, only 3% had backgrounds in R & D. Rifkin et al. (1999) concluded that the identification and development of technology managers for all levels is “troublesome” for most companies and suggests that a more systematic approach be taken, as do Uttal et al. (1992). Gritzo et al. (2017), in a very large sample across diverse organizations, found that R & D managers at all levels were rated as less effective leaders than non-R & D managers. R & D executives were examined separately and they, too, were rated as less effective than their non-R & D counterparts. Stevens and Swogger (2009a, 2009b) describe a successful systematic approach to selecting, training, and coaching technical leaders, and others, at Dow Chemical. In summary, these papers suggest that technology leadership at all levels needs to be improved and that part of the solution is to take a more systematic approach to the development of technical people for leadership. Ensuring a steady supply of effective leaders for all levels (not just the top) and in all functions of the organization (not just in technology management) is a significant challenge for most organizations (Charan, Drotter, & Noel, 2011; Drotter, 2011; Freedman, 1998; Groves, 2007). Charan et al. observe that a common problem is that leader selection and development is fragmented across levels and functions so that a steady stream of capable leaders is not available for open positions when they occur. There is no integrated, comprehensive system of leadership development, no leadership pipeline, which ensures that people are selected and developed over the period of their careers to move through progressively more challenging levels of leadership, for the benefit of themselves and their organizations. The research by O’Conner and her colleagues (e.g. O’Connor & Euchner, 2017) affirms that levels of management can be meaningfully distinguished in the technology/innovation management context and those distinctions contribute importantly to our understanding of how to innovate radically and effectively. Firms, such as GE, which have developed effective leadership pipelines, can have enduring success in the marketplace (Groves, 2007).