Leading across boundaries and divides
We are all different: CEOs, board chairs, and other leaders can ignore it, or dive into it. Leaders have to choose.
Citizens in the United States just cast their votes in a presidential and legislative election that captured the attention of the world, laying bare differences that go well beyond policy disagreement and are founded in deeply felt personal values, identity, and perspectives about democracy itself.
These differences walk in the doors of businesses every day, in the US and in other countries.
But opinions vary on how divisive these issues are, and on the role of leaders in helping their organizations navigate them effectively. To better understand how US business leaders are thinking about these topics right now, we reached out to more than 250 CEOs and directors at US based companies just before the election. Some respondents’ companies operate only domestically, some overseas, and some have operations in parts of the world experiencing conflict or international friction with the United States. The companies included in our survey cross industries and reflect a range of sizes and ownership structures. Initial detailed results can be found here. We will issue a full report in the coming weeks.
What did we find?
Context matters
How you lead and govern is dependent on the things you know best. Your industry. The customers you serve. Your employees. The regions in which you operate. The role you play. Your own values.
For example:
Industry. Financial services leaders—far more often than their peers in other sectors—said the ability to lead across boundaries in this divisive environment is “foundational to being able to achieve our goals.” Technology industry executives, on the other hand, more often than peers said the ability to lead across boundaries was less important than “strategic and operational capabilities.” We see marked differences across sectors, reflecting the nature and degree of issues each face.
Role. CEOs far more often than directors said that leading effectively in a divisive environment is “foundational to meeting our goals.” Whereas directors far more often than CEOs asserted that leading effectively is “not as important as strategic or operational capabilities.”
Geography. Not surprisingly, leaders with operations in global conflict zones and countries experiencing notable trade friction with the United States emphasized more often than their peers that leading effectively across division is foundational. Those governing US domestic businesses were not far behind in their rating of this capability, underscoring the divisiveness of the current political climate in the United States.
The results show that the ways in which we approach divisiveness varies greatly based on size of company, strategic goals, and much more. It is hard to contemplate everything—and that would miss the point. Context matters. The degree to which you believe leading across boundaries is important is a function of circumstances that are unique to you, your company, and the people who surround it.
Still, there are many areas where leaders agree
That said, we saw areas of broad agreement. Notably, just one respondent said the ability to lead across such boundaries had no influence on their organization’s ability to achieve its goals.
“Leaders must be self-aware to lead effectively in divisive settings.” As our colleague Les Csorba put it in his recent article “Too aware to fail,” “A heightened self-awareness of blind spots combined with the courage to combat those flaws will make a leader and their organization. A lack will break them.” Directors and CEOs agree almost unanimously that self-awareness is critical to leading in divisive environments.
“Leaders must engage formally and informally across the organization to ensure opposing viewpoints are considered.” When divisive issues arise, almost all directors and CEOs agree that engagement cannot be avoided. Some leaders may conclude it’s best not to engage, or that they should wade in cautiously. Most, however, have made engagement a habit, building buy in and trust from employees and others who feel they have been seen and heard—which has never more important.
“The policy decisions we make surrounding issues on which our employees, customers, or other stakeholders disagree must be anchored in their strategic relevance for our company.” Respondents agree with this statement. CEOs are paid to break ties, and effective CEOs do so strategically. When faced with divisiveness, they use debate and engagement to reinforce the company’s chosen path and culture.
“The CEO and board must work together on their organization’s approach to divisive issues.” CEOs and directors’ responses suggest a heathy tension and points of disagreement between them on this subject. They also report a commitment to working together—a good thing and a source of strength to be explored and not avoided.
“It is primarily the CEO’s responsibility to create the culture and establish the norms for engaging and decision-making on divisive societal issues.” While there is some disagreement here, a majority agree regarding the CEO’s role. This responsibility is for each CEO and director to explore, of course. A vacuum, however, will not help: If the CEO doesn’t take charge, then leaders must agree on who will.
And, most respondents—across all cuts in our survey—consider “maintaining a healthy culture” as the primary goal that effective leadership across divisive boundaries helps them reach. Notably, those respondents who cite leading across boundaries as foundational to their success far more often than others also cited financial performance as a goal such leadership helps them achieve.
And there are fundamental areas of disagreement
There are also significant areas of disagreement among leaders, marked by strongly held opinions on either side and where little common ground exists.
“It is sometimes appropriate to take a stand on a divisive societal issue that may benefit our broader stakeholders or the larger community in which we operate, even when that stand may hurt our financial performance in the short term.” While a slight majority agree with this statement, nearly a quarter disagree.
“Leaders must be transparent about their own personal values to succeed in leading others across boundaries.” Again, 54% of directors and CEOs agree with this statement, but 28% disagree. The decision about whether to be transparent is ultimately a personal one, of course, but we were struck by the uniform agreement that leaders must be self-aware and by the significant difference of opinion on whether or not those values should be openly shared.
“Business is more effective in leading across boundaries than other societal institutions (such as government, media, or NGOs).” Other research has found that trust in government to address society’s needs is at historic lows, while trust in business to do so appears to be growing,1 and that a new concept of the corporation is emerging. Our data suggests that directors and CEOs are divided, some deeply so on this question.
“It is important for society that business takes a stand on divisive societal issues.” A third of respondents disagree and a quarter agree that businesses should take a stand on societal issues. It’s the statement on which the highest share of respondents, almost half, had no opinion.
“It is not appropriate for our company, or other companies, to take a stand on divisive social issues.” Context matters, but, beyond that, effective CEOs and well-governed boards are split. And we know that some still struggle to effectively consider the deeply held personal beliefs of the CEO, founders, the chair, controlling shareholders, and fellow directors.
Our most resonant conclusion, though, lies behind the questions, behind the topics of our agreement and disagreement. It is a reminder of a truth so simple that it is too often missed:
We are different.
Your employees are looking to each other and to you for assurance that together, you’ve got this; that you can be comfortable in this place rich with friction and opportunity; that your organization was built to go forward together from this moment and others like it sure to come in the not-so-distant future in a country that remains deeply divided. This truth is one some will understandably treat as an irrelevant distraction. And it is a truth others will embrace as a source of strength and as a sign of resilient culture and good governance. What this looks like in your company must be your call. We hope the breadth of observations from your fellow directors and CEOs are helpful.
About the authors
Jeremy Hanson (jhanson@heidrick.com) co-leads of Heidrick & Struggles' global Sustainability Practice and a member of the CEO & Board of Directors Practice; he is based in the Chicago office.
Jonathan McBride (jmcbride@heidrick.com) is the global managing partner of the Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion Practice and a member of the Heidrick Consulting Global Leadership Team; he is based in the Los Angeles office.