Keywords

Introduction

It is common to conceptualise civil society as a societal space analytically distinct from the public sector (the state) and the private sector (business). Boundaries between sectors are both conceptual and tangible, and such boundaries may demarcate opposing approaches to societal challenges and different rules and regulations governing the sectors. Nevertheless, it is not uncommon that people cross sector boundaries. David Lewis (2008a, b, 2012) has termed this kind of movement between civil society and other sectors “boundary crossing” (see also Haryanto, 2020; Norén-Nilsson & Eng, 2020). In this chapter, we use this term to refer to the case of elite actors in one sector moving to take up leading positions in another sector. Such boundary crossing may involve political and economic elite actors being recruited to leading positions within civil society organisations (CSOs) as well as civil society leaders taking up leading positions in politics or business.

Elite integration makes up an important research tradition within elite studies. For example, the question of how and to what extent political elites are integrated with business elites has generated a wealth of research over time and in different national contexts (Hoffman-Lange, 2018). Elite integration may imply both similarity between elite groups and interdependence between elites (Engelstad, 2018: 441). Elites are considered integrated when they have similar characteristics, for instance in terms of shared class and educational background, and when they interact in the same networks. Elite integration can also be understood as shared values. Through similar upbringings people come to share cultural capital, and through professional experiences based on leadership in high positions people come to develop a common frame of reference around leadership and organisation. Within elite integration studies, the exclusivity of the elite is also assumed to form the basis for value congruence, which can be understood as a common interest in preserving the status and power enjoyed by the elite group. What can the study of elite boundary crossing between civil society and other societal sectors—such as the state, party politics, and business—tell us about the possible integration of civil society elites with elites of other societal sectors? How do civil society elite individuals, whose careers include boundary crossing, contribute to elite integration? Researching elite integration is, we argue, particularly pressing for civil society because it concerns the formation and maintenance of structures of power and inequality. Elite integration both contributes to and can be seen as an indicator of the consolidation of horizontal, exclusive networks, which creates social distance and exclusion.

In this study we explore the topic of elite integration in a novel way, namely through work-histories of civil society elite actors with careers that include the crossing of sectoral boundaries. Complementing extant, mainly quantitative, research on elite integration, we suggest that in-depth qualitative interviews with prominent boundary crossers can help us shed new light on what processes might contribute to elite integration. More specifically, we understand inter-elite integration—that is, the integration of different distinct elite groups—to be related to social networks and value congruence based on power, privilege, and sovereignty linked to an elite status. Concerning elite integration as networking, we discuss how elite-level boundary crossing can be interpreted as either constituting or leading to elite integration. We argue, however, that networking in the form of boundary crossing in itself is not sufficient for elite integration, and instead we have to examine whether or not such elite-level contacts across sector boundaries lead to value congruence.

It is important to point out that a claim that sectors differ in terms of values regarding leadership and organisation is not only based on a theoretical model that identifies politics, business, and civil society as three distinct sectors. In all interviews, it is clear that civil society is experienced as a sector characterised by different ideals and practices compared to whatever sector from which the interviewees have moved. Exploring experiences of boundary crossing is therefore a highly relevant and valid approach to gain insight into different perspectives of value congruence.

We inductively identify three types of boundary crossers based on their motives for cross-sectoral movement and assess to what extent they are likely to contribute to value congruence, and thus elite integration, between sectors: (1) boundary crossers driven by professional motivations who move to another sector to impose values from their sector of origin; (2) boundary crossers driven by personal motivations who leave a sector where they no longer feel at home and seek out new and more attractive values in another sector; (3) boundary crossers driven by political motivations who move back and forth across sector boundaries to gain as much influence as possible on “their” issues. We assess the likelihood that these types of boundary crossers contribute to value congruence and elite integration.

The chapter is organised in the following way. After this introduction follows a theoretical and conceptual section situating our study in relation to research on elite integration and, more specifically, on civil society elite boundary crossing. Then follows a section on methods and data in which we discuss our methodological approach centred on biographical work-history interviews. The analysis explores how the practice of boundary crossing may contribute to elite integration through social networks and value-congruence, distinguishing between three types of boundary crossers. Finally, we offer some conclusions and suggestions for future research.

Theoretical Points of Departure

In his seminal study of the American power elite, Mills (1956) argued that economic, political, and military elites constituted one cohesive power elite. Mills was not alone in arguing for this among classic elite theorists, but this perspective has been questioned. Taking a pluralist perspective, we assume that in today’s societies we can find several different elite groups. These elite groups are formed by their respective institutional residency resulting in quite distinct bases for power, status, and values (e.g. Dahl, 1963). However, while they are different, and may represent conflicting interests, they are not separate from each other. Researchers have long debated how and to what extent elite groups are interconnected, resulting in a wealth of research looking into different dimensions of elite interaction and integration (Hoffmann-Lange, 2018). The degree of elite unity however varies between different countries and therefore should be a question for empirical research.

Elite individuals can be identified based on their superior abilities, extraordinary wealth, privileged positions, or social status. Moreover, elites refer to those with disproportionate power to influence politics (Engelstad, 2018: 440). However, already at the stage of defining elites the concept of integration is central because it constitutes a prerequisite for a group to be regarded as an elite: an elite is not simply a collection of individuals but a group of people who “act together” as a “unified body” (Ruostetsaari, 2015: 19), with the view to protect “the privileges associated with their positions of power and influence” (Hoffmann-Lange, 2018: 55). Hence, integration is central both to the definition of an elite and to our understanding of how elite interrelations are structured.

Elite research has explored different forms of elite integration (Engelstad, 2018: 439–440), including between elites and society at large, within elite groups, and between elite groups. In focus for this chapter is integration between elite groups, that is, inter-elite integration. This may imply both similarities between elite groups and interdependence between elites (Engelstad, 2018: 441). The experiences that come with a professional career, including movement across societal sectors, contribute to value congruence and consensus among elite actors from different sectors (Gulbrandsen & Engelstad, 2005; Miller-Stevens et al., 2015). However, elite integration also implies that elite actors complement each other and depend on each other for maintaining elite status. While a level of competition over power may be recognised, integration with other elite groups is also sought “by elite persons and groups to contain or offset power dispersion” (Hoffmann-Lange, 2018: 57). Cooperation across sectors serves the purpose of building trust among “heterogeneous elites” and thereby preventing “conflicts of interest from turning into violent power struggles” (Hoffmann-Lange, 2018: 56) that may jeopardise existing power structures. Although some types of elite integration are seen as normatively problematic because they may involve conspiracy and lead to corruption, elite integration is also seen by elite theorists as something normatively good and even necessary for a functioning democracy. In the words of Engelstad (2018: 454), “[e]lite integration is a sine qua non for stable, reasonably peaceful political governance”.

Engelstad (2018: 447) identifies a network model of elite integration that relies on elite interaction in committees, commissions, and boards. This is often referred to as “interlocking directorates”, a concept that captures interaction between individuals occupying multiple organisational memberships (Ma & DeDeo, 2017; Messamore, 2021; Mizruchi, 1996; Moore et al., 2002). Dogan (2003: 2) defines elite interlock as “movements from one power summit to another, not movements within the same sphere”, and hence emphasises that it assumes a society that contains several different elite groups and refers to interactions that go beyond a close circuit of organisations. Such interlock is also defined as different from elite interchangeability, which suggests “a common stock of undifferentiated elites” (ibid.). Interlocking directorates is mainly a business practice wherein a member of one company’s board of directors also serves on another company’s board. However, there are also interlocking directorates related to CSOs. Messamore (2021: 147) shows that interlocking directorates among community-based organisations is indicative of integration among civil society leaders, which may lead to the emergence of a “civic elite”.

Networks in themselves do not necessarily imply elite integration. In the literature on elite interaction and integration, the concept of value congruence is often used. The concept refers to both objectively and subjectively defined values that form the basis for group unity. One assumption is that value congruence follows early socialisation in similar environments, typically a privileged upbringing and private, elite schooling. This kind of value congruence is amply captured by Bourdieu’s concept of “cultural capital”, that is, capital that is fostered through the inclusion in privileged groups, by inheritance (family background), or by schooling (elite schools). Value congruence from this perspective is not measured directly, but is simply assumed based on objectively observed indicators such as socio-economic background (based on parents’ income, for example) and school careers (private schools and elite universities). The socialisation that follows from growing up under privileged circumstances and exclusive schooling has a profound effect on the cultural capital of the individual, both in terms of taste and cultural preferences and as a basis for expectations that guide career choices and how ambitions are pursued. Value congruence forms the basis for a sense of belonging based on distinctiveness and exclusivity. This may translate into a common interest to preserve the status quo regarding exclusivity, which in turn forms the basis for the maintenance of social structures characterised by principles of inclusion/exclusion.

Values can also be shaped through elite interaction later in life (professional career and leisure activities and networks associated with these). Shared values are formed by similar career experiences and through individuals moving in the same circles. Individuals are fostered by institutional logics that determine what gives status and power in different sectors such as politics, business, public administration, and the media. Hence, we use the term “values” in a broad sense alluding to the idea of overarching sector values; for example, justice and charity are assumed to be strong values in civil society, while efficiency, effectiveness, and market values are associated with the private sector (cf. Brandsen & Karré, 2011; Lipsky & Smith, 1989). More specifically, we refer to sector values that are translated into norms of leadership such as top-down management in commercial competitive business organisations versus collegial and participatory approaches in voluntary-based CSOs (cf. Miller-Stevens et al., 2015).

Our approach to studying civil society elite integration is to explore boundary crossing between civil society and other sectors. The concept of boundary crossing assumes that civil society is different from other sectors in society because boundaries are believed to distinguish civil society from other spheres of human activity (cf. Khalil, 2013). The literature on non-profit organisations conventionally distinguishes between the public, private, and third sector (Anheier & Seibel, 1990). Civil society theorists commonly construct boundaries between civil society on the one hand and the state and political and economic society on the other (Cohen & Arato, 1992). The boundaries of civil society are “conceptual boundaries”, but people may still experience boundaries as very real, with distinct rules of the game in different sectors (Lewis, 2008b: 139).

This chapter addresses core issues in the elite integration literature, namely how integration is indicative of networks and the nature of boundaries between different sectors and elite groups and how integration is implicated with the forging of value congruence across elite groups. From the perspective of civil society studies, these issues are of particular interest because institutional closeness and interaction across sectoral boundaries are linked to organisational isomorphism, implying that civil society values may be at risk of becoming diluted. This kind of reasoning resonates with theoretical assumptions in elite integration studies, where elite movement between different spheres of power is seen as indicative of institutional closeness and where such elite integration is expected to lead to value congruence across elite groups.

Methods and Data

Elite integration has typically been studied based on large datasets, often gathered through surveys (e.g. Edling et al., 2014; Gulbrandsen, 2012; Higley et al., 1991). Quantitative methods for analysing elite integration include multiple correspondence analysis (Bühlmann et al., 2012) and various forms of social network analysis (Edling et al., 2014; Larsen & Ellersgaard, 2017). While such studies offer valuable comparative overviews, they cannot provide more in-depth and nuanced accounts of the diversity of boundary crossing experiences. As a complement to established quantitative approaches, we rely on qualitative interviews.

In order to identify individual interviewees, we used a mix of positional and reputational methods. Our starting point was the identification of major CSOs in three countries (Italy, Sweden, and the UK) (see Appendix, this volume). We examined the career trajectory of presidents and directors of organisations with the highest “elite score” (ibid.) to find people with a background in leading positions in the public or private sector or in politics. In order to also capture civil society leaders who had moved into leading positions in the state, business, or politics, we compiled a list of key figures with these characteristics frequently occurring in the media. In selecting interviewees, we aimed at diversity in gender, age, and civil society sector. For this chapter, we draw on eight interviews (two in Italy, four in Sweden, and two in the UK). Our sample is obviously not representative of any larger population, and this explorative study does not aim at empirical generalisations. The interviewees were selected because we believed that they could provide important and unique insights into the experiences of boundary crossing to and from civil society.

We conducted life-work history interviews (Lewis, 2008b: 127), which are defined as a retrospective account of (part of) one’s life with a particular focus on a person’s professional career. Life histories have the advantage of providing historical depth and ethnographic detail (Lewis, 2008b: 561). Care had to be taken, however, to strike a balance between the need to focus on the boundary crossing experiences and the aim to create a narrative that is the interviewee’s own with minimal researcher influence. The way to do this was to design semi-structured interviews that explored personal and professional perspectives on motivations, values, and experiences from engaging with different sectors. The interviews began by introducing the research problem to the interviewee and asking about childhood experiences that motivated engagement in CSOs and then moved on to the interviewee’s first job (in civil society or other sectors) and continued to cover the interviewee’s professional career. Our life-work history interviews lasted around 60 minutes.

While members of elites are typically not seen as being vulnerable in the same way as non-elite individuals, this kind of interview still requires important ethical considerations. The disclosure of information and reflections provided in the interviews could potentially be damaging for the interviewee. This could cause embarrassment, compromise professional relationships, and even lead to the loss of a job (Lancaster, 2017: 99), and hence it might make sense to speak about “vulnerable elites” (Smith, 2006: 650). In the case of civil society elites, some accounts linked to a specific person could have damaging effects not only for the individual but also for the organisation they represent and possibly for the whole civil society sector. This kind of sensitivity or vulnerability is particularly acute in a time of strong populist anti-elite sentiments. We carefully considered such potential risks concerning each interview, and all interviewees were informed about the research and how we planned to use the interviews. While all of them gave their oral or written consent to be quoted in research publications, we still decided to not refer to them by name.

The narratives created through the life-work history interviews were transcribed. We coded the data in order to map different aspects of boundary crossing, including motives behind the movement, views on networking and cross-sector contacts, and perceived differences and similarities between sectors, especially in terms of dominant values. The interview data were contextualised against a review of primary and secondary literature, including CVs and bios found on the internet when available (cf. Lewis, 2012: 161).

Our interviewees had different career trajectories, including movement both to and from civil society. Two persons had successful careers in business before taking up leading positions in civil society (Interviewee 1 and 2). One of our interviewees started a legal career, then switched to jobs in local and national government and took up leadership positions in several major CSOs (Interviewee 3). Another person started as a journalist, then joined the local and national government before moving on to become a leader of a major CSO (Interviewee 4). One civil society leader started her career as a student activist, then joined different CSOs before joining a political party and being elected to the national parliament. After serving as a parliamentarian, she returned to civil society as the president of a local branch of a major CSO while also being elected to a local parliament, and finally became president of a major national CSO (Interviewee 5). Following a similar trajectory, another person served on leading positions in several development-oriented and international solidarity-oriented CSOs on the national and EU levels while also being active in a political party and being elected to the national parliament (Interviewee 6). One of our interviewees started his career as a leader of the student branch of a political party, then was elected to the national parliament. Temporarily stopping his political career, he became president of a major CSO, moving on to leading another major CSO before returning to party politics as a member of the European Parliament, while also serving in leading positions within national and international public authorities as well as an international think tank (Interviewee 7). Yet another person had a similarly varied career path, beginning in civil society, then moving to the public sector as a politically recruited government official, then moving into the business sector when joining a PR company, to then be recruited to work at the EU Commission, and then back to civil society before being appointed as director of a new public authority (Interviewee 8).

Analysis

Networks and Elite Integration

Social networks across sector boundaries appear to be important in all of our interviews. First, the act of crossing sector boundaries in itself is an example of cross-border networking. Second, the most important enabling factor for boundary crossing appears to be personal contacts. All interviewees mentioned this when explaining why they were recruited to a leading position in a societal sector different from where they previously resided. What is stressed is informal personal networks. Third, cross-sector networks are important not only for facilitating boundary crossing but also for the ability of the boundary crosser to lead in a new sector. For example, when entering formal politics, one boundary crosser believed that his networks and experiences from civil society were very important and gave him “disproportionate influence” in the European Parliament (Interviewee 7). CSOs “saw me as a very important person in European politics. […] There you can really see the usefulness of networks and experiences [from civil society]” (Interviewee 7). Another interviewee stressed the advantages of bringing one’s civil society networks to the state sector. When taking up the position as director of a public authority, the former civil society activist engaged civil society actors in various forms of cooperation with the public authority, including joint conferences and publications. She described this civil society participation as very valuable (Interviewee 8).

The centrality of social networks and contacts across sector boundaries in the narratives derived from life-work history interviews with civil society elite boundary crossers is, however, not enough for us to conclude that networking in itself is indicative of elite integration. Networks between elite groups are a necessary condition for elite integration, but they are not sufficient. In order to draw (tentative) conclusions about elite integration, we also have to explore to what extent key values of the different elite groups converge. Does boundary crossing lead to elite-level value congruence? And if so, what kind of boundary crossers are likely to contribute to elite integration through value congruence? These are the questions addressed in the remaining part of this chapter. In the analysis of our interview transcripts, we identified three types of boundary crossers with different motives for their cross-sector movement. First is the leader driven by professional motivations trying to impose values associated with her sector of origin in a new setting. Second is the leader driven by personal motivations whose boundary crossing is triggered by a wish to escape old values and embrace new ones. Third is the leader driven by political motivations who moves back and forth between sectors navigating value differences as he seeks to maximise influence in a specific issue area. We consider these types in turn.

Imposing Values in a New Setting

Coming from the business sector to take up a leading position in a major CSO, a new leader applied business practices to the civil society sector.

We had to lay off and get rid of that administration. We were sitting with a financial management with far too low risk so we needed to increase the risk and think strategically. We had to get an external financial council that was qualified and not only a bunch of [activists in the CSO in question] who had been in [the organisation] for four decades. (Interviewee 1)

This civil society leader noted many differences between business and civil society, mostly, in her view, to the advantage of business. The slowness and anchoring processes in civil society is a difference compared to the business sector. “Companies are quicker and more efficient” (Interviewee 1).

There is probably more tolerance of hierarchies and power in the business sector. You look up to and respect the bosses more. […] I think that [in civil society] there is actually alarmingly low respect for the bosses. (Interviewee 1)

According to this boundary crosser, many principles and practices from the business sector are applicable in civil society. “Debit and credit are the same in the [name of the CSO] as anywhere else. Having sound finances is as important there, if not even more important” (Interviewee 1). However, there are also sector differences that make it difficult to simply transfer practices from one sector to another. How to handle all the volunteers was described as very frustrating by this leader coming from the business sector. “In organisations where volunteering is big you have another type of leadership. There you have to add something to your leadership” (Interviewee 1).

While acknowledging that leadership values and practices cannot easily be transferred from one sector to another, this interviewee is a clear example of the type of boundary crosser who is primarily driven by professional motivations and who tries to impose values from their sector of origin to the new sector. Acting as a “value entrepreneur”, this type of boundary crosser might contribute to value congruence between elite groups in different sectors, but only to the extent that efforts to impose values from another sector are successful. In this specific case, there are indications that the former business leader managed to lead the large CSO at least partly based on leadership values from the business sector. Hence, this is a case of possible inter-elite integration that deserves more attention in future research.

Escaping Old Values and Embracing New Ones

Sometimes elite-level boundary crossing is mainly driven by personal motivations, for instance a move away from a sector where the leader no longer feels at home. One civil society leader with a career background in politics and government reflected on the “formalised and bureaucratised” ways of operating within state departments. He explained that “I didn’t think I could express myself in that language” and made the decision to move away from politics and public administration (Interviewee 4).

For some of our interviewees, the move into civil society was prompted by a wish to move away from the values dominating the profit-seeking business world. They perceived civil society as a sector where one can make a meaningful and valuable social contribution. One interviewee expressed dissatisfaction with his business career: “I got to a point with private equity, where I felt I’d sort of done enough, you know, I wanted to do something that had greater social value” (Interviewee 2). This combination of dissatisfaction with the current career and a will to “do good” was also expressed by another boundary crosser:

About five years into my legal career I just thought I’m not enjoying this and so just gave up and sort of at the age of twenty-six started thinking, you know, what do I really want to do. And at the time I was earning quite a lot of money with the prospect of earning a huge amount of money, but I just wasn’t particularly interested in it and I was a bit bored. (Interviewee 3)

However, moving to civil society is not always easy for a business leader. “It was difficult to take a charity salary, with having four kids and quite a lot of dependants… I didn’t feel I could take what would have been such a dramatic cut in salary” (Interviewee 2). Also, in spite of an outstanding career as a business developer, he felt rejected by charities on the ground that he was not a “good fit” (Interviewee 2). “There are certain charities that I reached out to, that I basically got a flat no from” (Interviewee 2). Hence, this type of boundary crosser has to overcome considerable hurdles in order to get into a leading position in civil society. This means that they have a strong motivation to embrace or at least adjust to key values in the civil society sector. One interviewee said that while the CSO that took him on as its new director was keen to invite new perspectives, including commercial skills, he himself had to adapt his leadership style:

Some of the things that have worked very well in the commercial sector, I’ve had to modify, adjust, be more patient about. […] The language of ‘servant leadership’ is used quite a lot here, and I see myself more like that. It’s not my role to stand at the top as the big person who tells everyone this is what we are doing as an organisation, and everyone just jumps. (Interviewee 2)

Sympathising with the general values of the CSO made it easier to adapt to its leadership values. “One of the reasons I came to [name of the CSO] is because I really like our values. I didn’t create them, so they’re open, fair, connected, pioneering, and courageous” (Interviewee 2).

This type of boundary crosser, to the extent that old values are left behind and new values are embraced, does not contribute to value congruence between sectors and thus does not lead to the integration of different elite groups. However, in real life one is not likely to leave all previous values behind, even if the main driver behind boundary crossing is a personal dissatisfaction with the values dominating one’s sector. As one interviewee put it, “As a leader you never stop learning, so each new environment you come into brings new perspectives” (Interviewee 2). This suggests that boundary crossing always entails some merging of values, even when the boundary crosser intends to escape old values and embrace new values.

Navigating Value Differences when Seeking Issue-Specific Influence

A frequently mentioned driver behind boundary crossing both to and from civil society is to gain political influence, “to make a difference” concerning issues that one finds very important. This might be a particularly strong incentive to move from civil society to politics, but some also find that they can actually make more of a difference when moving to civil society. Several of our interviewees also moved back and forth between civil society and other sectors in order to maximise their influence on their key issues.

One civil society leader who was also at times a leading politician valued the “greater freedom in civil society” (Interviewee 7). He viewed the benefits and challenges of party politics differently depending on if he was in or out of politics:

When I have been outside of politics, then I have often felt that now I have to enter politics and fight and do something about this. And when I have been in politics I have just felt, oh God how narrow this system is. […] It is very difficult to get things done. (Interviewee 7)

Another boundary crosser expressed that a major difference between party politics and civil society activism is that the latter is more direct and practical:

I want to protect the environment and so I do “recycling”, I don’t use mineral water. […] I say that I defend Kurdistan, so we organised dinner in which we send money to Kurdistan. I say that I struggle against poverty, so I offer dinner to poor people. This is the difference I think. (Interviewee 5).\

When moving across sector boundaries, one has to navigate value differences. In civil society, one must adhere to the values of the organisation and of civil society at large. In the public sector, there is a form of “public authority integrity where you show that you do not allow yourself to be guided by your own feelings” (Interviewee 8). An advantage of moving to the public sector is that one typically has access to more resources than in civil society. “There are very different opportunities to develop leadership issues, employee issues, there are other resources” (Interviewee 8). Moving to the public sector is also a way of gaining more political influence. “You don’t have to stand on the barricades, you know, now there are other ways to gain influence” (Interviewee 8).

Boundary crossers, especially those moving back and forth across sector boundaries or simultaneously holding leading positions in more than one sector, are manifestations of cross-border linkages. One boundary crosser who was both a civil society leader and a member of parliament expressed that she could act as an “intermediary” between civil society and party politics (Interviewee 6). For this type of boundary crosser, sector boundaries appear permeable. When moving across sector boundaries, the leader has to navigate value differences. However, being active in more than one sector, the boundary crosser is also likely to contribute to the weakening of such value differences, which might lead to value congruence between elite groups and, hence, inter-elite integration.

Conclusion

Drawing on life-work history interviews with boundary crossers who move between civil society and other sectors, we sought to complement existing, mainly quantitative, research on elite integration. We considered that boundary crossing in itself could be seen as an expression of elite integration. If elites frequently and easily move between sectors, this could be seen as an indication that elite groups are relatively integrated. Moreover, boundary crossers bring values related to the principles of leadership and organisational operation from one sector to another, thus contributing to increasing cross-sector integration. However, we argue that while the networking indeed appears to be open for cross-sector integration of organisational or sectoral principles, this is not sufficient for elite integration. We have to examine whether or not such elite-level contacts across sector boundaries actually contribute to the convergence of elite values. By this, we mean not (only) the integration of sector values but also the development and consolidation of values that only concern elite groups and that, as Hoffman-Lange (2018) suggests, relate to the exclusivity of their “positions of power and influence” (p. 55).

The interviewed boundary crossers share some important features, and they have for some time moved in the higher echelons of their respective societies, and although their motives for moving across sectoral boundaries vary, they experience how sectors represent different values, or institutional logics, that guide core attitudes regarding organisational management, power, status, and hierarchical orders. In their stories, we see how they reflect on these differences and make individual decisions regarding how to deal with institutional value conflicts and the fact that their elite attributes do not easily fit into a new context. Based on their motives for cross-sectoral movement, we identified three types of boundary crossers: (1) boundary crossers who move to another sector to impose values from their sector of origin; (2) boundary crossers who leave a sector where they no longer feel at home and seek out new and more attractive values in another sector; (3) boundary crossers who move back and forth across sector boundaries to gain as much influence as possible on “their” issues.

The first type of boundary crosser is driven mainly by professional motivations. This leader (often from the business sector) believes that the management values of the sector of origin are superior and can be fruitfully applied in another sector (typically civil society). This boundary crosser has a mission to transform the CSO she is now leading into a more professional and efficient organisation. We argue that this type may contribute to value congruence if the boundary crosser succeeds in imposing values from their sector of origin on another sector. Moreover, beyond the integration of business sector values into the context of civil society, the boundary crosser creates an exclusive position for herself by forwarding leadership principles that she masters particularly well. This potentially gives the leader a role where bonds of loyalty and interest with other elite leaders are forged, rather than relations of affinity within the organisation.

The second type of boundary crosser has personal motivations for moving across sector boundaries. Experiencing a discrepancy between personal ethical and political values and those prevailing in the sector where he is active (typically business or politics), this person moves to civil society, a sector believed to be shaped by values more in line with the individual’s preferences. The second type does not immediately contribute to value congruence, as old values are set aside, although over time we may expect a merging of principles that guide leadership and organisational operation. Because these boundary crossers seek to subsume to the values of civil society, they also appear to renounce their membership in an elite whose community of interests aims at preserving elite exclusivity.

The third type of boundary crosser is driven by political motivations when seeking to maximise influence through mobility across sector boundaries. From an elite integration perspective, this type is difficult to interpret. On the one hand, frequent mobility generates multifaceted and exclusive experiences and provides good insight into the essence of elite community values. On the other hand, this boundary crosser is also at risk of being a constant outsider.

Our analysis both confirms and problematises the idea of clear boundaries between civil society and the state, political parties, and the market economy. Boundaries are at once permeable and distinct. All interviewees perceive obvious differences between sectors, suggesting that the boundaries of civil society are not just academic constructions. Although one of our interviewees noted that some boundaries can only be crossed once (from media to politics), the boundaries appeared relatively permeable, at least for this group of elites. Although frequent boundary crossing of elites suggests that boundaries between civil society and other sectors are permeable, this does not necessarily mean that the nature of boundaries are similar for all groups in civil society. Rather, this may be an expression of elite and not sector integration. Civil society elite actors may experience integration with other elite groups and therefore see sectoral boundaries as permeable, while for other, non-elite individuals, the boundaries remain distinct and difficult to cross and therefore the integration of values appears to be quite different

The importance of making a distinction between levels of integration lies in the possible implications for civil society. Integration at organisational and sectoral levels is captured in the research theme of isomorphism, that is, the mainstreaming of civil society as a result of institutional closeness. Such integration affects more or less all those involved in civil society. However, elite integration refers to a process of differentiation within the sector, where a group of highly influential people in positions of power can be considered part of a social elite rather than part of civil society. This prompts questions regarding loyalties and solidarity within the sector because such horizontal integration risks increasing social distance between the majority of members, volunteers, clients, and employees of civil society and organisational leaders. While the integration of society’s different elite groups may lay the foundation for a stable democracy (cf. Engelstad, 2018), elite integration that also incorporates civil society’s elite leaders becomes problematic for a sector whose independence from dominant power structures is central. Furthermore, the permeability, or lack thereof, of civil society boundaries might lead to different patterns of civil society elite integration in different countries. We suggest that these are important topics for future research because characteristics of boundaries and integration are indicative of how power and influence are dispersed in civil society.