Leaders in Local Governance

Issues paper about Leadership

Sue Goss

“Leadership is activity which mobilises adaptation” Heifetz

Leadership theories began in the early years of the 20th century with theory about ‘leadership
traits’ and then ‘leadership behaviours’, and while these theories continue, much of the literature
has moved on to exploring the role of leaders in supporting and encouraging ‘followers’ and onto
‘’situational’ and ‘contingent’ ideas about leadership.

Leadership is assumed to be of growing importance in effectively mobilising the resources

available to an organisation – and while entrepreneurial, financial and planning skills are required
to mobilise fixed resources; the importance of values, vision, and human interaction are stressed
when leaders are trying to mobilise the human resources within an organisation. Leaders at the
top of organisations are assumed to be the holders of vision and direction for an organisation –
they are clear about what they are trying to achieve, and capable of aligning organisational
design, capability and effort to achieve it. There is an emphasis on ‘telling the story’ and a
reserve capacity to mobilise and command. However leadership is not simply exercised at the
top of organisations, and increasing stress is placed on team leadership, and the leadership
capability required to build consensus and to motivate others, throughout an organisation.
Leadership is seen as requiring different skills in different situations. Current thinking, for
example, stresses the difference between ‘transactional’ leadership; maintaining organisational
performance in times of relative stability and ‘transformational leadership’, securing fundamental
change in response to radical change in the environment. (Beverley Alimo Metcalf, Kotter etc)
Within this literature a range of leadership approaches or styles emerge – ranging from
‘command and control’ to a more inclusive and supportive style. Textbooks generally agree that
an effective leader does not only possess one leadership approach; but a range of approaches,
and the skills of a leader are involved in the ability to choose the right approach at the right time.
The more recent emotional intelligence literature (e.g. Goleman) suggests that effective
leadership behaviours require both self-awareness, and an ability to control the way one impacts
on a situation and on other people. New contributors to the literature are beginning to stress the
situational context of leadership. Heifetz suggests that leadership is fundamentally relational

“people in power change their ways when the sources of their power change their
expectations. Their behaviour (as leaders) is an expression of the community that
authorises them” (Heifetz 1994)

Heifetz defines leadership as an activity, rather than as a personal quality. These more recent
theories suggest that simple personal skill is not enough; leadership depends both on judgement
and on a decision to act – and both of these things are conditioned by an assessment of the

OPM Learning Programmes

circumstances within which the leader or leaders find themselves. Perhaps the most crucial
leadership skills in a situational model, are the ability to read a situation accurately, and then to
deploy oneself successfully into that situation. What is crucial is therefore not one’s own
preferred leadership style or approach – but a wide leadership repertoire – an ability to change
styles or approaches depending on audience and situation.

Leadership in Local Governance

If leadership is primarily situational, if we lead differently depending on the demands of the
situation, then what is happening to the local governance context which might impact on the sorts
of leadership approaches that will work?

The stress for the past few decades has been on management – on creating an efficient and
effective organisation, capable of delivering successful services. CCT, Best Value, CPA have all
driven towards that end. However, at the same time, there has been a sustained movement at
the political level, away from simply ‘leading the organisation’ to ‘leading the place’. For directly
elected mayors, in particular, but also for strong leader and cabinets; the preoccupations are no
longer simply with council services but with all the issues affecting a locality. Government policy
has pushed in this direction – the community leadership role is now seen as the key role for local
authorities, LSPs, LPSAs LAAs (how many other acronyms are there!) all move us in that
direction. Community leadership is both about speaking for a locality (and therefore successfully
listening to and understanding the diverse communities that make up that locality) and about
orchestrating the resources and organisations within a locality to address its problems.
Underlying local area agreements is the possibility of contracting locally between agencies to
jointly address key social outcomes in ways that make sense within a locality. It might not get this
far, because of bureaucracy at both ends of the process – but it might. If local authorities are to
become orchestrators and enablers for a place – the roles of leadership change.
Such changes also make governance more important than management – and I want to argue
that understanding and leading governance systems is going to be an increasingly important part
of the role of leaders at local level. Issues about how decisions are made, to whom decisions are
accountable, how they are legitimated, will become far more important over the next few years.
As different local authorities and partnerships have designed different ways of working they have
without thinking about it, created different governance models, and as managers change jobs
between authorities they find themselves within different governance contexts. Understanding
those contexts, and making sense of them for both politicians and managers will become a
crucial future role.

Within a governance context, leadership roles, of both officers and members, are different from
those, for example in the private sector. Public sector ‘leaders’ whether politicians or managers
are working on the public’s behalf, and are accountable both upwards to government and
downwards to local communities; and these accountabilities have to be balanced and managed.
Mark Moore’s suggestion that leaders in a public sector context require ‘legitimacy’ to act, and
that it is a key leadership role to build and maintain that legitimacy, (Moore, 1995) reinforces the
argument of Heifetz that leaders have to act within a context of ‘permission’ and ‘restraint’ from
powerful stakeholders and from the public.

Leading in a Place – Organisation, Partnerships, Community

page 2
There are now three different sorts of leadership roles undertaken within a local authority – and
probably within any local agency to greater or lesser extents – leadership in the organisation,
leadership in partnerships, and leadership in the community. Leadership inside the organisation
might reflect conventional leadership approaches – setting vision and strategy, communicating it,
building the capacity and systems to deliver, ensuring resources are available to achieve
strategy, skilling up and enabling staff to deliver – the transactional leadership approach –
except, as I will suggest below, the other leadership areas will have their own impact. I used to
assume that it was politicians that primarily were responsible for community leadership and
partnership leadership, but it seems that this is no longer the case.

Leadership in partnerships
Partnerships have weaker power of agency than single agencies, by their very nature, so that a
key leadership role is often that of constructing both the authority and power to act; and of
connecting partnership decisions to the delivery capability of partner agencies. A partnership
remains ‘inert’ – unable to command or deploy resources, unless these linkages are made. At the
same time, partnerships offer the possibilities of breaking out of the assumptions and constraints
that ‘lock’ member agencies into traditional solutions – they offer the potential of ‘unoccupied’ or
‘experimental’ space – where organisational obstacles and ‘group think’ are less strong. (Goss
2001).

Since partnerships operate between existing organisational structures –leaders have to be

capable not simply of leading effectively both in their own organisation and in the partnership, but
of making sense of the linkages between them, and the limitations this sets up. It is not easy,
therefore, to transfer thinking about leadership from an organisational to a partnership context. A
partnership is not the same as an organisation – and the local governance context adds a
political dimension that does not apply to most organisations. (see Argyris and Schon (1978) for
a discussion of agency, organisations and partnerships). Leadership in partnerships therefore
requires different sorts of abilities and ways of working.

Chesterton suggests that in partnerships, leadership is not ‘defined by followership but by

collective endeavour. ” Developing the capacity for local leadership involves establishing the
conditions in which ‘solutions are negotiated, not imposed’. He argues that in partnerships the
stress should be, not on individual leaders, but on ‘collective leadership processes’. Leadership
in partnerships is, at heart, the process of deliberation, “leadership is enacted through discourse
which results in adaptation.” He expresses concern that emphasis on individual leadership
competencies draws attention away from developing “the capacity of networked relationships.”
(op cit) Leadership in partnerships is relational, not positional, negotiated rather than imposed,
and is about moving away from individual qualities to the process of creating leadership space for
others – spaces which encourage different sorts of leadership to co-exist.

Some of the leadership skills that our research has identified are needed in partnerships are:
• Helping to negotiate the rules of engagement for all the partners
• Creating an environment where relationships can succeed
• Enabling partners to understand each others goals and constraints
• Encouraging learning, developing space for experiment, room for creativity
• Brokering relationships between different belief systems
• Using creative tension – drawing strength from difference – negotiating solutions, conflict
resolution

page 3
• Creating trust – mutual accountability, enough to risk committing resources

Community leadership
Local authorities have been given a formal community leadership role – with the objective of
securing ‘economic, social and environmental well-being’, the associated power of Community
Strategy to achieve this objective, and the responsibility to set up local strategic partnerships to
achieve these aims. Local authorities therefore have a formal role within LSPs and are held
accountable from the centre for the performance of this role.

“There is now no way a local authority can perform its functions effectively without
having an effective partnership in place in the locality” (interview)

Community leadership has another meaning, however; which is about allowing communities to
grow their own ‘leadership’ and to give voice to the different needs and views at community
level.” The IdeA describes a community leader as someone who “engages enthusiastically and
empathetically with the community in order to learn understand and act upon issues of local
concern…mediates fairly and constructively, encouraging trust by representing all sections of the
community.” The recent ODPM report “Vibrant Local Leadership” argues that ‘neighbourhood
leadership must be a central element of every local councillors role” and goes some way to
explore ways that individual councillors should navigate these roles “there is a unique legitimacy
conferred by democratic elections, but it has to be realised by the way that leadership is shared
and provided” The report recognises the role of other community advocates; “councillors have a
role to play in encouraging these advocates to speak up and make their contributions” (ODPM
2005, p 18).

However, as many academics and researchers make clear, ‘community’ is “vague and contested
term” with “competing and often contradictory” meanings. (Jane Foot 2000 p2) This third element
involves different and more contested roles.

Working with politicians in the Leadership Academy to define the community leadership role, they
describe it in different terms to conventional leadership – with perhaps four key elements;
listening, truth telling; building alliances and crafting solutions. It indicates a radical change in
leadership approaches by politicians, but the reality is that not all politicians have the capabilities
or the willingness to change their style or approach. Politicians often reach power using old styles
and find it impossible, or too uncomfortable to change. Nevertheless there are some brilliant
examples of politicians who can and do lead in new ways, and we have not yet spent enough
time understanding what they do and how they do it.

Moving away from certainty

In modern local governance, all three approaches to leadership are probably all needed, but we
are not yet adept at determining which role is being played in which situation, and which
leadership skills and styles are needed.

As we move away from conventional organisational leadership, however, we move away from a
highly predictable and controllable world, and away from leadership through direction, into worlds
that are less certain, less predictable and less easy to control. The worst mistake, however, (one
that central government keeps making) is to try and take with us the relatively directive,

page 4
bureaucratic approaches that have worked in the past into these wider and less directable
spaces. As complexity increases, the ability of linear, top down systems to control or even
understand situations reduces. If we find that we have to keep increasing the bureaucracy, the
systems, the paperwork, the diagrams – and yet progress never gets any nearer – it’s a sure sign
that we are moving into new territory, where different approaches are necessary – approaches
based far more on accepting the flow of situations, looking for opportunities, intervening by
adding value rather than controlling, helping to tell a story, unlocking the potential of others,
supporting the leadership of others – enabling many things to happen at once.

In a city, or a large rural area, very many things are happening at once, and events have multiple
and complex causes – and many different sorts of participants all of whom have different needs
and intentions. Learning to accept, and help others to work within, that complexity is probably a
key part of leadership in the future. Crucially, we need to be able to reflect on the sort of
‘leadership space’ we are in, and to adapt accordingly.

Simple Complex
Order Chaos
Command and control Enabling and empowering
Top down Shared, participative
Technical Adaptive
Direction Jazz
Machine Organism
Bureaucracy Complex adaptive systems
Push energy Pull energy
Leader Leadership systems

Leadership systems
Leadership systems don’t have a single ‘brain’ directing action from the centre; but they have a
number of sources of leadership, individuals and organisations, working collaboratively to make
things happen. An organisation could be seen as a leadership system, as could a partnership.
Chesterman has argued that partnership working is more like ‘jazz’ – many people doing their
own thing to a shared tune. Leadership systems are more able to work in uncertainty, since
thinking, learning, responding is scatter red and more diverse – leadership systems open the
possibility of engaging communities and the public in determining solutions to the problems they
confront.

Leadership systems are not simply random, however, they need to be nurtured and encouraged,
they need different sorts of leadership, which needs to be actively engaged and committed.

The sorts of things that leaders do to maintain leadership systems might include understanding
the relationships and forces in play and helping to explain them to others; holding the complex
environment and enabling risks to be taken and innovations made; enabling and unlocking the
leadership of others.

In a governance context, this may also be about creating legitimacy, protecting space for
innovation by securing consent; ensuring accountability, helping to engage all those who have a
stake in key decisions, orchestrating the involvement of communities, helping different

page 5
stakeholders to understand each other, and helping to build alliances based on common good
and common goals, rather than sectional interests.

Below, I set out some of the thinking we have been doing about LSPs as a leadership system,
just as an example.

LSPs – an example of leadership systems

Within any one LSP there are many very senior people with proven leadership capability in their
own fields. And yet, attending LSP meetings, one is sometimes forcibly struck by the contrast
between the number of ‘leaders’ around the table, (including chief executives, senior managers,
vice-chancellors, police superintendents etc) and the absence of leadership in the room.
Sometimes a relatively junior local government officer is struggling to exercise leadership while
the rest of the LSP members are being restless, fractious and negative! Almost all LSPs, by
nature of their membership, include people who in other contexts are ‘leaders’. Leadership within
an LSP is in part a decision by individuals or organisations about whether or not to invest their
leadership in an LSP; which in turn is based on a judgement about external factors, or conditions
for success. Since the leadership resources of an organisation are scarce, and cannot be
deployed everywhere at once, organisations are choosing how to deploy their leaders and their
leadership. These choices are heavily influenced by external drivers, but also by political and
organisational priorities.

A decision to exercise leadership commits an individual leader to commit time and energy, and
they often are uncertain about the added value of the partnership – so they attend with a
‘watching brief’ trying to gauge the importance of this work for their own agendas, but for the time
being, withholding leadership effort. Of course this can create a vicious circle, since without
leadership investment the meetings decay into talking shops, fewer leaders attend, the value
drops further etc.

This suggests therefore, that the effectiveness of leadership in an LSP is not simply about skills
and capabilities, but includes also an accurate reading of the situation, and being able to create a
‘leadership system’ that draws on and produces leadership from many players.
LSPs have to move from being an ‘empty structure’ to a capability for action. However, a
partnership offers no automatic connection between ‘leadership’ and ‘followership’ – in other
words when an LSP commands ‘jump’ – it is not clear that anyone necessarily jumps. Leadership
is therefore necessary to create the linkages between the outcomes agreed by the partners, the
strategy adopted to achieve those outcomes, and the delivery systems available through partner
organisations. Once those linkages have been created, leadership will be necessary to ‘turn on
the current’ so that energy and resources flow sufficiently robustly to make things happen.

There are perhaps three identifiable stages in any partnership – dialogue to agree outcomes;
strategy to identify how they might be achieved; delivery; taking action.
Leadership is needed to ensure the partnership work continues to develop momentum through all
three stages: i.e. does not simply stop at the agreement of outcomes, nor at the agreement of
strategy, but is able to ensure that action follows.

It may be more helpful to see three different ‘fields’ within which leadership needs to take place:

page 6
• Political leadership – supplying democratic legitimacy and the resources and power of the
local authority- having the right mind-set and skills throughout the local authority to work
effectively in partnership
• Leadership from partner organisations – ensuring that partners are able and willing to deliver
to partnership aims (This sort of leadership could be strengthened by a public service board
model – offering a structural basis for contractual agreements between key public agencies
and shared delivery targets, performance management etc.)
• Community leadership – securing the consent and active engagement of the wider
community

The success of each LSP in creating or supporting leadership in each of these areas will vary
widely – some will be very successful at political leadership and very poor at community
leadership. Few will succeed equally in all three areas all the time. But partnership problems can
often be identified with failure in one of these three areas. Clearly, if leadership is coming from a
number of different sources, some can, to an extent, substitute for others. Thus if political
leadership is strong, the partnership can, to an extent ‘carry’ passive partners. We suggested
earlier that changes in political leadership had been less disruptive than might have been
imagined. Where there is strong community and partner leadership, other ‘leaders’ go into
overdrive when there is a change of political administration, to listen, adapt and redesign the
process to ensure that the new politicians will be willing to ‘invest’ their leadership.

All three areas of leadership are unlikely to be carried by the same individual, and that perhaps
the most successfully led LSPs have a number of key ‘leaders’ working closely together. This
reinforces the suggestion from the current leadership literature, that the most important capability
leaders need is the ability to ‘read’ a situation, and use judgement to respond accordingly. In the
most ‘advanced’ partnerships, attention is actively being paid to the linkages between these
three fields of leadership and active ‘system leadership’ is in place to ensure these linkages are
effective.

When leadership in one or more ‘fields’ is missing, LSPs are unlikely to succeed:
• If political leadership is missing – the partnership tends not to be able to deliver – loses
momentum – becomes a loose network
• If community leadership is missing – local people feel excluded – lacks legitimacy and buy-in
• If public agency leadership is missing – partner agencies don’t align strategy or resources,
council leads – but can only deliver in areas of its own control.

Leadership from these fields has to connect successfully through three stages – from outcomes
to strategy to delivery. What is perhaps surprising is not that so many LSPs experience
difficulties, but that so many of them are continuing to move forward. The leadership
requirements are complex, but luckily so is real life – there is plenty of leadership out there. Many
LSPs now say they are ‘on the cusp’ of the move to delivery – a leadership challenge in itself.
Time will tell if LSPs remain at the ‘talk’ stage, or are able to make a transition to create
authorisation for action.

References
Alimo Metcalf, B, (2000), Transformational Leadership, Leadership and Organizational
Development Journal 21/6

page 7
Argyris and Schon (1978) Organisational Learning; a theory of Action Perspective, Reading,
Mass, Addison Wesley
Collins, J, (2001) Good to Great, Random House
Idea (2004) Skill and Capacity Framework for Councillors
Chesterman, D (2005), D Local Authority, Demos
Foot, J (2000) Community Leadership, Open University
Goss, (2001) Making Local Governance Work, Palgrave. London
Heifetz (1994) Leadership Without Easy Answers, Harvard University Press
Moore, M (1995) Creating Public Value, 1995 Harvard, Cambridge, Mass
ODPM (2005) Vibrant Community Leadership

page 8