Views on the impact of academic research are divided, with some voices advocating for more impact and others calling attention to pathologies of the "impact agenda". One point of interest to most observers is the degree of alignment between academics, who do the research, and university leaders, who control rules and resources relating to research. Using a survey of academics and interviews with university leaders at a large, representative, research-focused university in Australia, this article contributes to the scholarship on research impact by investigating and analysing perceptions of what impact is and how it can be achieved. The study finds that in this case, there was significant disagreement between academics and university leaders on the meaning of impact and how it should be incentivised. These disagreements present a serious obstacle for universities advancing impact strategies and create vulnerabilities for conflict between university management and academic staff as envisioned by critics of the impact agenda.