In an increasingly fractured world, the most effective leaders aren't those who avoid conflict—they're the ones who cross boundaries to confront it. Two-thirds of corporate directors and CEOs say leading across boundaries is critical to achieving their organization’s strategic goals. We expect that share to grow because, as societal expectations of business increase, so can divisions among stakeholders on key values and priorities. 

As we have explored in a companion article, leading across boundaries means more than managing traditional organizational silos like finance vs. sales, or global vs. local operations. It includes navigating the more nuanced and deeply personal divides that arise from differing beliefs, values, and expectations among employees, customers, and other stakeholders. Leaders who succeed institutionalize constructive conflict, creating cultures where differences are surfaced and resolved productively, rather than ignored or suppressed. Leading across boundaries isn’t just a leadership skill—many CEOs and directors we have surveyed indicate it’s a strategic imperative in today’s polarized and fast-moving world. We have identified four approaches to leading across boundaries, based on whether directors and CEOs focus more on individual leadership, more on organizational leadership, integrate the two, or are uncertain. In this article, we dig deeper into how these approaches vary by market, company ownership, sector, and size.

Each profile reflects a different emphasis, not a level of effectiveness. More leaders are uncertain than anything else, underscoring that leaders don’t necessarily agree on many of these points and are still finding their way. Getting a sense of where you sit among these areas of emphasis can be useful as you think about whether and why leading across boundaries matters to your organization.

• Personal leaders aligned more strongly with statements about individual leadership. They often prioritize self-reflection, transparency, and taking a stand. Their strength lies in bringing humanity and personal conviction to complex systems.
• Enterprise leaders, by contrast, resonated more with the enterprise-focused statements. They tend to emphasize the organization's role in creating alignment, building coalitions, and acting on behalf of a broader mission. Their leadership is shaped by system-level thinking and institutional outcomes.
• Uncertain observers disagreed more frequently across both dimensions. This doesn’t necessarily signal disengagement. It may instead reflect hesitation, ambiguity, or a lack of clarity about when and how to act across conflicting demands.
• Integrated leaders showed higher-than-average agreement across both categories. They tend to hold both personal and institutional responsibilities with equal weight—balancing individual conviction with broader organizational alignment. But even for these leaders, the work is far from finished. Holding multiple perspectives in tension is difficult, ongoing work.

What motivates leaders to cross boundaries?

We also wanted to understand why leaders choose to lead across boundaries or, in some cases, why they hesitate. What we found was that motivation varies just as much as orientation, offering further insight into the challenges and opportunities leaders face.

• Personal leaders tend to view leading across boundaries through a pragmatic lens. For them, the motivation is clear: it drives results. This group was more likely than others to say that boundary-spanning leadership leads to better outcomes and stronger financial performance. They also see it as a way to increase brand value, suggesting a belief that authentic, values-driven leadership resonates not only with internal teams but also with customers, partners, and the public.
• Enterprise leaders approach the work from a different direction. Their motivations are often external, grounded in the expectations placed on their organization. This group was most likely to say that shareholders expect them to engage on societal issues, and that navigating cultural differences and geographic borders remains a persistent challenge. Interestingly, they were least likely to associate boundary-spanning leadership with improved financial performance, suggesting that they may see it more as a license to operate than a direct driver of business outcomes.
• Uncertain observers express a different mix of motivations—and hesitations. This group was most likely to say that leading across boundaries helps attract and retain talent, but least likely to see it as a driver of brand value. Their responses suggest that while they may be unclear about the full strategic value of boundary-spanning leadership, they do recognize its importance in building a workplace culture that appeals to today’s workforce.
• Integrated leaders didn’t rally around a single reason for leading across boundaries. Instead, their motivations appear diverse, reflecting a broader set of beliefs about what matters. This variety points to an important insight: for some leaders, the motivation to lead across boundaries may not come from one dominant driver, but from a combination of personal experience, organizational needs, and the evolving expectations of stakeholders. Their work is rooted in complexity, and so are their reasons for doing it.

Leadership emphasis also varied markedly by organizational size—particularly among uncertain observers. Medium-sized public companies were the most common home for these leaders, accounting for 30% of the uncertain group, compared to 23% from large public companies and just 13% from small public companies. This could reflect the unique pressures faced by midsize firms: large enough to face public scrutiny, but not always equipped with the resources or alignment needed to confidently navigate complex social expectations. In terms of ownership, the ratio of integrated leaders to uncertain observers was much higher at PE-backed companies than in any other category.

Where to go from here

Ultimately, while context clearly contributes to leadership orientation, it doesn’t determine it. Each group contains leaders across markets and company sizes, as well as sectors and ownership type. This reminds us that leading across boundaries is not about following a particular model—it’s about recognizing the tensions, understanding the landscape, and choosing how to show up. Whether you lean more toward personal conviction, enterprise alignment, or are still clarifying your stance, the key is to begin with intent.

As you consider whether and how to strengthen this capability in yourself and your organization, a few questions can help guide the way:

• Where do I stand? How important is leading across boundaries to my organization's success? Where do I currently balance personal conviction with enterprise responsibility? Where might I need to grow?
• Where can I build “arenas”? What spaces exist (or need to be created) where tough conversations can happen constructively across boundaries?
• What does acting with intent mean for me and my organization? Which topics are most material to my organization’s strategy and values, and how can I lead on them transparently and collaboratively?
• How do I embed this into the organization? What systems, behaviors, and leadership pipelines are needed to sustain boundary-spanning leadership over time?

The work of leading across boundaries is ongoing. But for leaders willing to engage it, the payoff is not just reduced conflict—it’s deeper trust, stronger cultures, and organizations more capable of meeting today’s most complex challenges. For a deeper dive into how to build arenas, act with intent, and embed this capability into your organization’s DNA, see our main article on leading across boundaries.

About the authors

Jeremy Hanson (jhanson@heidrick.com) is a partner in the global CEO & Board of Directors Practice and chair of the Heidrick & Struggles Center for Leadership Assurance. He is based in the Chicago office.

Jonathan McBride (jmcbride@heidrick.com) is the global managing partner of the Inclusive Leadership Practice. He is based in the Los Angeles office.