25
RETHINKING LOCAL POLITICAL LEADERSHIP STEVE LEACH AND DAVID WILSON The changing nature of local political leadership in Britain over the past 25 years has received scant attention from political scientists. This article argues that changes in the roles and functions of local authorities have had a marked impact on the nature of local political leadership. Three phases (operational, transitional and collaborative) are identified and leadership roles are related to changes in the polit- ical context of local government. The fundamental tasks of leadership have not changed but what has changed is the balance or relative emphasis between them and the way they have been interpreted. While elected local authorities cannot ignore the implications of the changed external agenda – notably the advent of new forms of executive leadership – the way they respond still bears the mark of the local political culture. INTRODUCTION This paper argues that the nature of local political leadership in Britain has undergone a series of major changes over the past 25 years. They have reflected changes in the political context of local government, and in parti- cular the key roles and functions which have been earmarked for it by successive governments. There has not, however, been a deterministic relationship between context and the leadership role. As might be expected, considerable resistance has been displayed to new central government pre- scriptions of local government’s role and there has invariably been a time lag between the introduction of new role expectations and the development of the implied changes. This point is nicely illustrated in Peter Housden’s recent study of political leadership in Nottinghamshire County Council. Noting Sir Dennis Pettitt’s singular achievement in sustaining power over the significant transformational process undergone by local authorities dur- ing successive Thatcher governments, he argues: Local government in this period was not a passive animal led in this direction and that by a domineering national government % it had its own momentum and powers of resistance % it became a different creature not in any simple and linear fashion but rather through an inter-twined and multi-layered process of absorption, adaptation and redefinition. (Housden 2000, p. 199) That perspective is echoed in this paper, with the proviso that over time, Steve Leach and David Wilson are in the Department of Public Policy, De Montfort University, Leicester. Public Administration Vol. 80 No. 4, 2002 (665–689) Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

Rethinking local political leadership

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Rethinking local political leadership

RETHINKING LOCAL POLITICAL LEADERSHIP

STEVE LEACH AND DAVID WILSON

The changing nature of local political leadership in Britain over the past 25 yearshas received scant attention from political scientists. This article argues that changesin the roles and functions of local authorities have had a marked impact on thenature of local political leadership. Three phases (operational, transitional andcollaborative) are identified and leadership roles are related to changes in the polit-ical context of local government. The fundamental tasks of leadership have notchanged but what has changed is the balance or relative emphasis between themand the way they have been interpreted. While elected local authorities cannotignore the implications of the changed external agenda – notably the advent of newforms of executive leadership – the way they respond still bears the mark of thelocal political culture.

INTRODUCTION

This paper argues that the nature of local political leadership in Britain hasundergone a series of major changes over the past 25 years. They havereflected changes in the political context of local government, and in parti-cular the key roles and functions which have been earmarked for it bysuccessive governments. There has not, however, been a deterministicrelationship between context and the leadership role. As might be expected,considerable resistance has been displayed to new central government pre-scriptions of local government’s role and there has invariably been a timelag between the introduction of new role expectations and the developmentof the implied changes. This point is nicely illustrated in Peter Housden’srecent study of political leadership in Nottinghamshire County Council.Noting Sir Dennis Pettitt’s singular achievement in sustaining power overthe significant transformational process undergone by local authorities dur-ing successive Thatcher governments, he argues:

Local government in this period was not a passive animal led in thisdirection and that by a domineering national government % it had itsown momentum and powers of resistance % it became a differentcreature not in any simple and linear fashion but rather through aninter-twined and multi-layered process of absorption, adaptation andredefinition. (Housden 2000, p. 199)

That perspective is echoed in this paper, with the proviso that over time,

Steve Leach and David Wilson are in the Department of Public Policy, De Montfort University,Leicester.

Public Administration Vol. 80 No. 4, 2002 (665–689) Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main Street,Malden, MA 02148, USA.

Page 2: Rethinking local political leadership

666 STEVE LEACH AND DAVID WILSON

largely because of the power of the centre to impose new role definitions,the gap between expectation and reality will invariably narrow.

The article initially develops a conceptual framework for understandinglocal political leadership and then identifies three phases in changing lead-ership roles: operational, transitional and collaborative. Such schematiclabelling inevitably underplays the messiness of reality, but it helps to moveanalytical debate forward. The first stage which lasted from 1965 untilaround 1981 (although it had in fact been the dominant paradigm since theend of World War 2), was based on the assumption that local authorities’primary role was operational, focusing on service provision in a politicalculture dominated by the representative democracy principle and by oppo-sitional party politics.

The second stage, which lasted from 1981 until 1997, can best be seen astransitional, in which the dominant service delivery paradigm was chal-lenged from a number of different perspectives – markets, partnerships,localism, governance – without any one of these perspectives gaining thestatus of a dominant paradigm. Other role models for leadership becameapparent in a local political culture which was itself changing, with a thirdparty (the Liberals/Social Democrats/Liberal Democrats) successfully erod-ing two-party domination in many authorities. As a result, there has beenan increase, in numbers and significance, of hung authorities, where thereis no clear majority. During this period, the first signs of a challenge tothe dominant representative democracy paradigm from a new interest inparticipatory democracy also emerged.

The third stage, which began to develop in the run-up to the 1997 GeneralElection, and has become increasingly clearly defined since, can best becharacterized as collaborative. This stage involves a further move away fromdirect service provision and a new emphasis on inter-agency working orpartnerships (see Goss 2001; Perri 6 et al. 2002). It has been underpinnedby a switch to new forms of political management structures which areintended to facilitate a developing community leadership role. It alsoembodies a significant shift in emphasis from representative democracy toparticipatory democracy and challenges the relationship between leaderand party group.

These major changes in local government, in terms of both role and func-tion, largely orchestrated from the centre, have had profound consequencesfor the nature of local political leadership. As well as drawing on a wealthof primary and secondary sources, this research has incorporated materialfrom interviews between 1990–2001 with over 140 political leaders and chiefexecutives in a diverse range of local authorities. The paper argues that thefundamental tasks of leadership have not changed. What has changed isthe balance or relative emphasis between them and the way these tasks havebeen interpreted.

Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002

Page 3: Rethinking local political leadership

RETHINKING POLITICAL LEADERSHIP 667

ESTABLISHING A RESEARCH FRAMEWORKAny analysis of leadership behaviour must incorporate some conception ofleadership tasks. The emphasis on the centrality of purpose in the analysisof leadership behaviour is echoed by Clarence Stone:

Leadership revolves around purpose, and purpose is at the heart of theleader-follower relationship. Indeed, in some cases a compelling state-ment of mission not only gives direction to a group, but is its formativeexperience, shaping the identity of group members by highlighting ashared aim. (Stone 1995, pp. 96–7)

Task-orientated leadership analysis is a well developed field of study inorganizational behaviour. Selznick’s conceptualization of four functions ofinstitutional leadership provides a useful starting point. His functions are:the definition of institutional mission and role; the institutional embodi-ment of purpose; the defence of institutional integrity; and the ordering ofinternal conflict (Selznick 1957). However, these headings are essentially ageneral perspective for the study of leadership in any administrative organi-zation and require modification in the context of a ‘political’ organizationsuch as a local authority.

In Britain, the most influential contributions to an understanding of localpolitical leadership have come from Jones and Norton (1977), Game (1979),John and Cole (1999), Elcock (2001) and the influential research programmecommissioned by the Widdicombe Committee (Widdicombe 1986a and b).One of the most influential studies of political leadership in America – theKotter and Lawrence (1974) study of elected mayors – identifies six behav-ioural models of political leadership, of which the authors argue two areconcerned primarily with the setting of policy, two with its execution andtwo with organization and service management. They thus identify threekey mayoral processes: agenda setting, task accomplishment and network-building and maintenance. If the last process – network-building and main-tenance – is subdivided into internal (maintaining cohesion) and external(representing the authority in the outside world) elements, then a fourfoldcategorization of leadership tasks can be developed that is particularly help-ful in the British context, namely: maintaining the cohesion of the adminis-tration; developing strategic policy direction; representing the authority inthe external world; ensuring task accomplishment. These provide a usefulframework for analysing the development of political leadership in each ofthe three phases identified.

Maintaining the cohesion of the administrationWhen a majority party is in control, its leadership needs to maintain thecohesion of the party group. That is its key task, because if the party groupfragments, the viability of the administration becomes threatened. If themajority group is Conservative or Liberal Democrat then this task rarelyextends into the local party network, since in these two parties the local

Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002

Page 4: Rethinking local political leadership

668 STEVE LEACH AND DAVID WILSON

party organization has no formal powers or sanctions over party groupdecision making. In the Labour Party, however, the local party has powersof this nature, and hence party group/local party cohesion becomes anissue. In a hung authority, the cohesiveness of the administration necessar-ily includes an inter-party dimension, which is either absent or much morelow key if there is a majority party. The dominant party cannot rely solelyon group solidarity to achieve its ends. It has to gain the support of at leastone other group. Finally, there is an important member-officer dimensionto administrative cohesiveness. The majority (or dominant) party leadershipneeds to develop and maintain a close relationship with the senior groupof officers in the authority which will thereby help to facilitate the achieve-ment of its programme.

Developing strategic policy directionThere are two key elements to this leadership task, one largely reactive andthe other more active. A long-standing strategic agenda facing UK localauthorities stems from the priorities and legislative programme of centralgovernment. In the mid-1980s, councils had to respond to the threat of rate-capping; in 1981 and 1987, to CCT (Compulsory Competitive Tendering)legislation; from 1991 to 1996, to the threats and opportunities associatedwith the Local Government Review; and from 1997, to the demands forenhanced public participation in decision-making. Majority or dominantparty groups invariably look to the leadership to initiate a response to theexternal agenda. The party manifesto may offer some guidance but in manycases it does not.

Second, there is the conscious attempt to set out a long-term vision ordirection for local authorities, which was manifested in the publication of‘corporate strategies’ and ‘strategic visions’ that mushroomed from theearly 1990s onwards (Leach and Collinge 1998). Although many of thesedocuments owed their genesis to chief executives rather than political lead-ers, they have increasingly been recognized as vehicles for expressing polit-ical priorities (usually a reflection of, but not a replication of, manifestocommitments). The case for this active approach to strategic direction hasbeen accentuated by the requirement placed by the Local Government Act2000 on all authorities to produce community strategies.

Representing the authority in the external worldThis key task also has two important components. First, there is a familiarbut increasingly important public relations element. Political leaders havelong been expected to try to ensure that the activities of their administrationare portrayed in a positive light by the local media (press, radio and TV)and more sporadically by the national media if a big local story emerges.The relationship of this role to the re-election prospects of the majoritygroup was widely perceived to be significant. Richard Farnell, leader ofRochdale MBC, attributed the resounding defeat of the Labour Party in the

Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002

Page 5: Rethinking local political leadership

RETHINKING POLITICAL LEADERSHIP 669

1992 Rochdale local elections to the ‘unfavourable press coverage’ gener-ated by the radical decentralization scheme which the Labour adminis-tration had introduced (Leach and Wilson 2000, p. 157). In the 1998 localelections in Lancaster, the antipathetic stance of two of the local newspapers(Morecambe Visitor and Lancaster Courier) to the incumbent Labour adminis-tration, and, in particular its disastrous involvement in the Mr Blobbytheme park venture in Morecambe, was something acknowledged by allparties as having been a major influence on the above-average swingagainst Labour (interview evidence).

Second, there is the task of fighting for the authority’s interests in anincreasing range of local, regional, national and international arenas. Wherelocal authorities have a decreasing number of direct powers and are urgedto an ever greater extent to co-operate with ‘partners’ to bid for externalresources, so the leadership task of representing the authority in the moresignificant and high profile of these networks increases in importance.

Ensuring task accomplishmentThere are a number of different ways in which this role can be expressed.It may be expressed through a re-negotiation of member-officer responsi-bilities (for example, delegation agreements) or through the agreement ofa new member-officer protocol. It may be expressed in the process ofappointing new officers and finding ways of dispensing with existing offi-cers felt to be an impediment to effective implementation. In extremis, itmay involve a leader informally taking on the role of chief executive: forexample, Len Turner, the London Borough of Ealing’s leader from 1982–86 had to operate as ‘de facto’ chief executive for over a year given theinability of the then current chief executive to turn Labour priorities intoaction. In Leeds during the 1980s, George Mudie, council leader up until1989, dispensed with the post of chief executive since he largely carried outthis role himself (see Cole and John 2001).

In reviewing the changes in local political leadership tasks over the threeidentified phases (1965–81; 1981–97; 1997 onwards), it will become apparentthat not only has the relative importance of the four key leadership taskschanged, but also that there were important changes of emphasis withineach category.

THE OPERATIONAL PHASE: 1965–81

By the early 1970s the national post-war political consensus had begun toerode. Political differences between the parties were sharper and these dif-ferences were reflected locally with an agenda of issues which divided thetwo major parties (for example, levels of local expenditure; grammarschools versus comprehensives; council housing versus private housing; thedesirability of in-house direct labour organizations – DLOs). These differ-ences were almost entirely about services, and in those which the authorityhad a statutory duty to provide. Parties had different views about appropri-

Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002

Page 6: Rethinking local political leadership

670 STEVE LEACH AND DAVID WILSON

ate levels of expenditure, the dominance of in-house provision, and onpolicy choices within services. But there was little disagreement about thedominant role of local authorities as being the direct provision of services.In this period there was little talk of community leadership – indeed, manypredominantly rural district councils did not have formally designatedleaders (Widdicombe 1986a and b). The dominant principles (see Stewart1986) were self-sufficiency, professionalism and departmentalism. Self-sufficiency – the assumption that if a local authority had a service responsi-bility it should provide it directly (that is, with its own staff) was challengedby a few Conservative-controlled-authorities, but only at the margins.Despite the apparent emergence of corporate planning (see Stewart 1971,1974), the dominance of profession-based departments in defining theagenda and ‘getting on with the job’ continued.

The dominant position of party politics, particularly in the cities and largetowns, was based firmly on the familiar models of representative democ-racy and public accountability through the electoral process. Local partiesproduced local manifestos and competed in local elections on the basis ofthose manifestos, and for the party currently holding power on their pastrecord in office. Once elected, the victorious party assumed it had the auth-ority to carry out the policies set out in the manifesto. That was the waythe national level worked. In most politicized authorities, the electoral com-petition was in effect a two-party affair.

The manifesto of local Conservative groups came from the group itself(and in particular its leadership elite), perhaps involving a modicum ofdiscussion with the local constituency party or parties. For Labour, how-ever, the 1970s was a period of increased activism in local parties whichco-existed in a complex and sometimes conflictual relationship with theparty group in the local council (see Livingstone 1987; Wainwright 1987).In principle it was the job of the local party to draw up the manifesto. Insome cases it did dominate this process but in others it was often consider-ably aided by the party group on the council. However, the local party,unless largely moribund, had to be taken seriously, and was an importantreference point for the local political leadership, at least amongst Labourgroups.

Public participation was not a significant feature of the local politicalculture except over town and country planning (Skeffington 1969). The pro-fession-led departments and their committee chairs rarely felt the need forpublic involvement. The professions identified and responded to publicneeds. Nor was ‘partnership’ a concept of much significance to most localauthorities in this period, apart from those which were designated inner-city partnerships (or programme) authorities in Peter Shore’s Inner Citiesinitiative of 1977 when he was environment secretary.

In this first phase of local political leadership (1965–81), the localpolitical/organizational context was characterized by the following fea-tures: the self-sufficient local authority; the dominance of professionalism

Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002

Page 7: Rethinking local political leadership

RETHINKING POLITICAL LEADERSHIP 671

and departmentalism; representative democracy (party competition at elec-tions on the basis of manifestos) and, increasingly (for the Labour Party),delegate democracy; the dominance of service provision (which is typicallyin hierarchical mode).

Implications for political leadershipAs the Widdicombe Committee research revealed (Widdicombe 1986b), inthe 1971–83 period, the formal recognition of political leaders was muchless widespread than it is today. Party groups of all complexions wouldinvariably elect a ‘leader’ but it was by no means universal for the leader ofthe majority group (or the group forming the administration) to be formallydesignated the leader of the authority. In sharp contrast to today, after theLocal Government Act 2000, local authorities were not required to designateleaders, although all the large cities and most of the metropolitan districtsand London Boroughs did.

One of the reasons for this patchy formal recognition of the leadershiprole is that in many authorities it was not necessarily clear what the job ofauthority leader (as opposed to the leader of the majority group) involved.The first key leadership task of ensuring party-group cohesion wasimportant, particularly for Labour leaders facing increasingly ideologically-divided Labour groups. But this problem was for the group leadership notthe authority leadership. Assuming the group leader could achieve it, andassuming its achievement involved generating agreement within the groupover what the leadership elite wished to do, then the major leadership taskunder this heading had been achieved. The opposition could be ignored.Labour leaders, however, had increasingly to pay attention to the linksbetween party group and local party, a task made more difficult by theweakening of the role of ‘leader’ in Labour’s standing orders for localgroups. For the Labour Party alone, this relationship was an importantdimension of cohesion.

The other leadership tasks were more limited in scope in the 1965–81period than they have become since. Ensuring strategic direction wouldhave meant little to many local authority leaders in the 1970s. Given thedomination of services and service departments, and the lack of a wideragenda of cross-cutting governance issues, the main strategic task was tooversee the allocation of resources to the different services at budget time,a task which was often carried out in a far-from-strategic manner (seeElcock and Jordan 1987). An increasing number of local authorities pro-duced corporate plans in the mid-1970s, but the extent to which they weremore than symbolic paper documents is questionable. Their impact onbudgets was invariably limited or non-existent. Thus the leadership task ofensuring strategic direction typically involved at most a few key judge-ments at budget time (a process not always led by the formal leader) andan attempt to ensure that manifesto priorities were being followed.

The external relations role in this phase was limited by the lack of interest

Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002

Page 8: Rethinking local political leadership

672 STEVE LEACH AND DAVID WILSON

in partnership and inter-agency working and also by the distinct lack ofauthorities which set out to cultivate a good relationship with the press.The occasional ‘reactive’ press appearance, the occasional deputation to theDepartment of the Environment in London, and (in some cases) an activeinvolvement in the work of the relevant local authority association, was theextent of most leaders’ external relations role.

Although there was at this time still a tradition in some parts of Britainof councillors being heavily involved in the detailed implementation of pol-icy (for example, the allocation of council houses), ensuring implementationwas not a leadership function, but was rather part of a political traditionwhich embraced all councillors on committees (for example, housing, plan-ning, licensing). For implementation to qualify as a genuine leadership task,it would have to involve a determination to ensure that the aims of a policywere carried through. There was little evidence of this determination in the1970s. Leaders would normally be involved in the selection of key officers(chief executive, director of education, and so on) but there were fewexamples of the overtly party political appointments which developed inlater years.

Of the four key leadership roles, ‘ensuring organizational cohesion’ domi-nated. The other three: ‘strategic direction’, ‘external networking’ and ‘taskaccomplishment’ were relatively underdeveloped. The emphasis on theinternal political cohesion of the dominant party group reflected several ofthe features of local government already identified: the assumption of self-sufficiency, the concomitant lack of interest in external networks and thedomination of service planning and delivery concerns.

The lack of a formal leadership requirement, and the reliance of partyleaders on annual re-election by their group, did not preclude the emerg-ence of strong leaders (see Jones and Norton, 1978). Where it was present,‘strong’ leadership invariably reflected the charisma of the leader or theexpectations of local political culture, rather than any powers vested in theposition itself. During this period, T. Dan Smith in Newcastle was probablythe best example of a strong – even ruthless – leader. Herbert Morrison inLondon in the 1930s and 1940s (Donoughue and Jones 1973) and John Brad-dock in Liverpool in the 1940s and 1950s (Baxter 1972) were similarexamples from earlier periods. Nevertheless, despite such examples, ourinterviews showed that the leadership task during this operational phasewas dominated by the principles discussed above – the self-sufficient localauthority and the primacy of service provision – the major external pressurebeing the need to secure electoral victory. The inward-looking focus of lead-ership was apparent. Leadership was invariably what organizational theor-ists call transactional in style: power may be conceded to make certain kindsof decisions, and may operate in an environment that expects and willrespond to a ‘strong lead’, but such concessions and expectations are cir-cumscribed by the prevailing assumptions about ideology, policy and stylewhich leaders step outside at their peril. The transactional rather than the

Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002

Page 9: Rethinking local political leadership

RETHINKING POLITICAL LEADERSHIP 673

transformational style (where leaders through their own powers of influenceand persuasion change the way in which a group deals with the challengesfacing it) predominated because at this stage the circumstances had rarelydeveloped whereby transformational leadership was needed.

THE TRANSITIONAL PHASE: 1981–97

By 1981, the Conservative government had begun to develop an overallstrategy towards local government, although at this stage it was more a setof critical reactions to current practice than a more active vision. The firstlegislation – incorporating the principle of compulsory competitive ten-dering (CCT) – was introduced in 1981. The requirement for local auth-orities to offer council houses for sale was introduced in 1982. Expenditurecapping was introduced in 1983 and made universal by 1987. During thefinal phase of Thatcherism (1987–90), these changes were developed into amore integrated ideologically-driven package. The scope of CCT was suc-cessively extended. The principle of consumer or user choice or influencewas developed particularly in education (for example, strengthened powersfor governing bodies) and housing (for example, referenda to determineexternalization of control of council estates). There was a new emphasis onpartnership: extra resources were made available by central governmentonly if multi-agency partnerships, with the private sector strongly rep-resented, were established (as in the ‘City Challenge’, and ‘Single Regener-ation Budget’ initiatives).

Under successive Conservative governments, the dominant local auth-ority role remained one of service provision. Apart from a degree of facili-tation of economic regeneration through partnership mechanisms there waslittle encouragement of a wider governance role. However, ‘service pro-vision’ and what it involved was fundamentally re-interpreted. It was nolonger direct service provision. Externalization of service provision by CCTand other means became the new central orthodoxy. The idea of the‘self-sufficient’ local authority was anathema to successive Thatchergovernments (though not to many traditional Labour authorities), as wasthe principle of hierarchical (or bureaucratic) organization of service pro-vision. Professionalism was no longer seen as the legitimate basis for serviceprovision; the Conservative government in effect challenged the dominanceof professionalism with a weighty input of consumerism, though, in prac-tice, many Labour-controlled councils had themselves by 1983 become moresceptical of the impact of professionally-driven solutions such as high-riseflats and inner city ring roads. The logical end point of these ideologicalprinciples was to be found in Nicholas Ridley’s vision of a local authorityconsisting of a dozen or so members which met once a year to let the servicecontracts to external contractors (see Ridley 1988).

This agenda and the principles behind it, though impossible to ignore,was responded to in different ways. Some Conservative-controlled localauthorities (for example, Brent and Bradford) were enthusiastic adherents

Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002

Page 10: Rethinking local political leadership

674 STEVE LEACH AND DAVID WILSON

and labelled themselves (or were labelled) Brent p.l.c. or Bradford p.l.c toreflect the change of orientation. Other authorities did everything theycould to resist the new orthodoxy and continued to win the maximum num-ber of CCT contracts ‘in house’ and thereby retain as high a degree of self-sufficiency as possible (for example, Lambeth and Liverpool). Yet otherauthorities pursued their own different strategic directions. From the mid-1980s onwards, the idea of a wider governance role, with the local authorityleading the search for solutions to a range of economic, social and environ-mental problems which went way beyond their statutory service responsi-bilities, generated a small but growing group of supporters (for example,Kirklees and Birmingham). There was also a significant development of‘localism’; several authorities introduced decentralized service deliveryand/or political decision-making arrangements (Islington, Tower Hamlets,South Somerset – see Local Government Management Board 1993).

The impact of this new central government-inspired conception of therole and purpose of local government, and the different reactions to it, con-stituted a major concern for political leaders in this transitional period. Butso did an increasing instability of party group-local party relationships,particularly in the Labour Party which had, by 1987, emerged as the partycontrolling the largest number of councils in Britain. The 1980s was thedecade in which local Labour parties developed their highest profile sincetheir formation, dominating the operations of the Labour administration inLiverpool (see Parkinson 1985), and providing a potent pressure group forresistance to centrally-imposed expenditure cuts in a variety of locations(Southwark, Sheffield, Manchester). Delegate democracy (see Gyford et al.1989, p. 342) increased in importance, challenging the familiar assumptionsof representative democracy in a range of Labour-controlled authorities.Conservative groups experienced a rather different type of internal tension,involving a clash of values between traditionalists (or wets) and the emerg-ent force of ‘dry’ Thatcherite councillors who pushed hard for the centralgovernment externalization and minimalism line to be followed.

Implications for political leadershipThe other change in political circumstances facing an increasing number ofpolitical leaders in this transitional period was the requirement to negotiatewith the leader of another party to remain in, or share, power. The 1983–97 period saw a steady increase in the number of Liberal Democrat council-lors and a related increase in the number of hung councils, where therewas no clear majority, or balanced councils. From 1980 onwards, aroundone-third of all councils in Britain were hung. As several high-profile lead-ers discovered, the leadership skills associated with majority control weresignificantly different from those required when dealing with a situationwhere there was no such majority.

This agenda, led by a hostile central government, was different and morechallenging from that which prevailed in the relatively consensual first per-

Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002

Page 11: Rethinking local political leadership

RETHINKING POLITICAL LEADERSHIP 675

iod (1965–81) when there was much less central-local disagreement aboutthe role and function of local government than there is now. It presenteda more difficult set of choices and required a different (and moredemanding) form of local authority leadership. In this second period, theposition of local authority leader became more formal in all but the mostrural and unpolitical of authorities. The main issue is to examine how thisnew agenda affected the four key leadership roles identified earlier.

The leadership task of maintaining cohesion remained high profilethroughout this transitional period, but changed in emphasis. Whereas in1965–81 the dominant leadership focus for cohesion was the group,between 1981 and 1987 this focus was challenged in many Labour-controlled authorities by a developing concern with party group and localparty cohesion. There was also a new concern in the increasing number ofhung authorities with inter-party cohesion, which became an importantpre-condition for the effective operation of such authorities. Group cohesiondid not cease to be a major concern – indeed, the ideological disparities inboth Labour and Conservative Parties nationally were typically reflected inparty groups, demanding a major time commitment for many leaders. Itwas rather that group cohesion was augmented by developing concern withparty group and local party relations and the need for inter-party negoti-ation and compromise. In the first case, as well as maintaining cohesion inthe party group, there was a need to manage the party group-local partyrelationship. In the second case, there was an often difficult balancing actbetween holding the group together and brokering compromises with a‘partner’ group in some form of joint administration. Little wonder thatleaders who had proved adept at operating in a majority-control authorityfound the demands of leading a hung authority unprecedented and oftenunpalatable (for example, Emily (now Lady) Blatch in Cambridgeshire in1983).

The challenge posed, particularly to unsympathetic authorities, by theConservative government’s agenda for local government, led to a greaterconcern with ‘strategic direction’. The key strategic choices identified inFitness for Purpose (LGMB 1993) – traditionalism, commercialism, com-munity governance and the neighbourhood approach – were not alwaysexplicitly recognized by the authorities embracing them. In many cases,however, they were, particularly those moving away from a traditional ser-vice-delivery perspective. Examples of strategic awareness amongst leadersemerged. Steve Bullock, Leader of Lewisham (1988–93), had a clear strategicvision, linking Labour Party fortunes in local and national elections. By theearly 1990s, strategic visions and corporate strategies were commonplaceamongst local authorities (Leach and Collinge 1998). The impetus for theirgeneration did not always come from the political leadership, but dominantlocal political values and priorities were an important reference point fora chief executive leading the process. In addition, whatever part they hadplayed in its inception, political leaders increasingly found such strategies

Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002

Page 12: Rethinking local political leadership

676 STEVE LEACH AND DAVID WILSON

an important source of leverage in the increasingly fraught budgetarydecision-making faced by many authorities in the early 1990s.

The ‘external networking’ leadership role, fiercely resisted by some Lab-our authorities in the early years of the transitional phase, was acceptedby the early 1990s as a necessity. Successive Conservative governments hadnot just imposed the client-contractor split on local authorities, they hadalso diminished the statutory responsibilities of local authorities, especiallyfor education and housing, and imposed partnership arrangements as acondition for the allocation of regeneration resources. Thus, whatever thestrategic orientation of the authority, greater participation in external net-works became something of a ‘fait accompli’. Such participation did notnecessarily involve the political leadership, but usually it did – particularlyfor the higher profile partnerships and joint arrangements, a new featureof the local authority scene in Greater London and the metropolitan countyareas, whose councils had been abolished in 1986. The fraught central-localpolitics of the 1980s and early 1990s also led to a greater level of concernamongst local authorities as to how they were portrayed in the local media,leading to a bigger time commitment by council leaders to this externalactivity.

A further factor strengthening this leadership role was apparent in thoseauthorities which actively embraced ‘community governance’. For an auth-ority such as Birmingham, trying to establish itself as an international asopposed to a provincial city, or for Manchester, seeking to house the 2000Olympic Games, external networking became as paramount for politicalleaders as ensuring cohesion.

The final leadership role – task accomplishment – also developed a higherprofile in the 1980s. Although in many of the less politicized authoritiesthe tradition of leaving the implementation of policy to officers continued,in the more politicized authorities of the right or of the left, such officerinfluence was not necessarily the case. Ideologically committed incomingadministrations of whatever political persuasion increasingly came to real-ize that they would be judged not by the content of their manifestos butby how these commitments impacted upon local populations. Such con-siderations led to a growing concern to get the implementation details right.Westminster LBCs chief executive in Dame Shirley Porter’s term of office,Rodney Brooke, commented that ‘each day I was presented with a list of30 or so items which the leader wanted sorting . . .’ (interview).

As noted earlier, Len Turner, the London Borough of Ealing’s leaderbetween 1982 and 1986, argued he had to operate as ‘de facto’ chief execu-tive for a year or so, given the failure of the incumbent chief executive totranslate Labour priorities into action. Increasingly, political leaders disco-vered that if things did not happen in line with the manifesto, they wouldbe held accountable both by the group and by the ‘party’ outside (Leachand Wilson 2000, p. 112). However, a greater concern by local politiciansdeveloped to ensure (a) that new appointments were sympathetic to party

Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002

Page 13: Rethinking local political leadership

RETHINKING POLITICAL LEADERSHIP 677

programmes (Widdicombe 1986a) in those authorities which wereideologically-driven; and (b) there was a related level of job instability forchief officers who were perceived as ‘failing to deliver’. All these circum-stances implied a higher profile for the ‘ensuring task accomplishment’leadership role than had previously existed.

Thus the potential impact, over the 1983–97 period, of both centrally-inspired changes and local responses to them, was considerable, in somecases transformatory. At one extreme, where traditional Labour authoritiesresponded defensively to the government’s agenda and attempted to pre-serve as far as possible the self-sufficient direct service provision role, thechanges were least remarkable. However, the ‘fight against the govern-ment’s agenda’ itself provided a new challenge for political leaders accus-tomed to a more benign climate of central-local relations. This defensivestrategy was doomed to failure in the longer term (given what happenedafter 1997 when Labour regained power) but that was not always apparentat the time. Certainly up to the 1992 general election, which for a timeLabour looked likely to win, there was an expectation that a Labour govern-ment would restore pre-1979 arrangements. From 1995 onwards, this out-come was widely recognized as much more unlikely.

For leaders taking an active response to the logic of the government’sagenda, there was a more significant impact on leadership role and style.The strategic choices of ‘community leadership’ and the ‘neighbourhoodapproach’ (LGMB 1993) implied a stronger focus on the external net-working role, in the first case through an enhanced commitment to partner-ship working with key ‘stakeholders’, and in the second by a strengthenedemphasis on local public involvement. For those authorities whichdeveloped a commitment to either the commercialist, community govern-ance or neighbourhood approach, there was an enhanced emphasis on stra-tegic direction. The impact of CCT made leadership involvement in taskaccomplishment more difficult for the services that were affected.

The 1980s were turbulent and saw the emergence of a number of leaderswho were both colourful and powerful. As John and Cole note (1999, p.104), ‘On the left, there was Ken Livingstone in London, David Blunkett inSheffield and Ted Knight in Lambeth; on the right Lady Shirley Porter inWestminster and Paul Beresford in Wandsworth were also powerful andcharismatic’. Traditional leaders often struggled with the demands of newcircumstances and were not infrequently replaced by those more attunedto the changing roles required. John Harman of Kirklees provides anexample of a leader whose personal beliefs and style transformed the stra-tegic response of Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council after his electionin 1986. His leadership style, and that of like-minded colleagues elsewhere,moved closer to the transformatory model – persuading often reluctant col-leagues that fundamental change was a necessity (Eric Pickles, in Bradford,can be seen as a Conservative example here). But John Harman, togetherwith all local leaders, could not neglect the continued importance of ‘main-

Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002

Page 14: Rethinking local political leadership

678 STEVE LEACH AND DAVID WILSON

taining group cohesion’. There was often a tension between the leader’sstrategic vision and the value system of the majority of their group, parti-cularly when long-held assumptions were challenged by leadership initiat-ives, involving, for example, enhanced public consultation or a new open-mindedness about the contribution of the private sector to local service pro-vision.

THE COLLABORATIVE PHASE: 1997 ONWARDS

Local political leadership in this phase needs to be set in the context ofNew Labour’s approach to leadership, notably the Blair presidential stylewhich he aimed to replicate at local level. Nevertheless, the 1997 Labourgovernment’s vision for local government, expressed in its manifesto andthen developed in the Green Paper Modernising Local Government: LocalDemocracy and Community Leadership (DETR 1998a), was by no means a‘clean break’ with the pattern of changes introduced by Conservative pre-decessors. The themes of markets (and market testing), partnerships andpublic participation, all of which had come to the fore in the transitionalperiod, were not discarded but were re-interpreted and re-packaged inwhat came to be known as the ‘democratic renewal’ agenda.

The concept of community leadership – the local authority taking thelead in the search for solutions to local problems whatever their nature andwhatever agencies are statutorily responsible – became the new orthodoxy.New responsibilities placed on local authorities to ensure the economic,environmental and social well-being of the area were written into the LocalGovernment Act 2000, and some, albeit limited, new powers allocated.Local government minister, Hilary Armstrong, referred to community lead-ership as the ‘new core business’ of local government.

This new role was generally welcomed by local authorities but there wasless overall satisfaction with the Labour government’s attitude to serviceprovision. While the government quickly announced its intention to scrapCCT, it equally promptly signalled support in principle for the previousgovernment’s mixed-economy approach to the provision of services. The‘Best Value’ regime, incorporated into the Local Government Act 1999, sub-jects all local authority services to a set of demanding (and externally-inspected) requirements which include an obligation to explore the poten-tial benefits of competition in the provision of services. True, the conceptof competition is less narrowly-defined than under CCT: partnershipsbetween the local authority itself and other agencies (private, public orvoluntary) are viewed as legitimate arrangements if they can be demon-strated to secure ‘best value’. But a return to the ‘self-sufficient’ authority,with all statutory services provided ‘in house’, is not favoured by the Lab-our government and will be more difficult to retain under best value (whichcovers all services) than it was under CCT (which was more selective).Much to the disappointment of many ‘old’ Labour authorities, the prospects

Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002

Page 15: Rethinking local political leadership

RETHINKING POLITICAL LEADERSHIP 679

of a return to the traditional service-provision option have been reducedrather than increased.

An enhanced belief in the value of partnerships, extending well beyondthe previous Conservative government’s emphasis on economic regener-ation, is enshrined in the democratic renewal agenda (see Pratchett 1999).‘Strategic partnerships’ are required to be set up to supervise the develop-ment of community strategies. Similar arrangements are in place for thenumerous central government initiatives such as New Deal For Communi-ties and Local Public Service Agreements (LPSAs). As noted above, partner-ships are also seen as viable mechanisms to deliver best value. Any vestigeof a commitment to the self-sufficient authority has disappeared.

The previous Conservative government’s interest in public consultationwas limited to a concern that local authorities should consult service usersover standards (and mode of provision) of public services, and an enhance-ment of the powers of a number of representative local bodies (for example,school governors). The Labour government’s view has been much morewide-ranging. Public consultation is required by statute for best value ser-vice reviews and the development of community strategies. It is requiredfor the adoption of new political management structures (see below), andis strongly encouraged for a range of other local government activities.Whereas under the previous government the familiar principle ofrepresentative democracy was not challenged by central pressure to moveto ‘participatory democracy’ (although it was challenged by pressure tomove to market democracy), under the present government a tension hasdeveloped between these two democratic concepts.

These changes have had an important impact on local political leadershiproles but arguably a different element in the democratic renewal agendawill have the most profound effect. The Local Government Act 2000requires all authorities in England (apart from non-unitary district councilswith populations of under 85000) to introduce one of three forms ofexecutive government and to replace the traditional system of council andcommittees. The three options are as follows:

1. Directly elected mayor with a cabinetThe mayor will be directly elected by the whole electorate and willappoint the cabinet from among the councillors. This is similar to (butnot identical with) the American mayor-council form because USmayors do not usually have cabinets chosen from the council mem-bers. Rather, their cabinets consist largely of appointed officers. Of the22 referendums held in English local authorities by March 2002, onlyeight voted in favour of a directly elected mayor, namely: Watford,Doncaster, Lewisham, North Tyneside, Hartlepool, Middlesborough,Newham and Bedford.

2. Cabinet with a leaderThe leader will be elected by the council, and the cabinet will be made

Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002

Page 16: Rethinking local political leadership

680 STEVE LEACH AND DAVID WILSON

up of councillors either appointed by the leader or selected by thecouncil. The vast majority of local authorities have opted for thismodel which implies less radical change than the other two alterna-tives (see Leach et al. 1999).

3. Directly elected mayor with a council managerThe mayor will be directly elected by local people, with a full-timemanager appointed by the council to whom both strategic policy andday-to-day decision making will be delegated. This proposal is similarto the American council-manager with mayor form (Svara 1990) buthas attracted virtually no interest in England.

The options put forward in the 2000 Local Government Act were surpris-ingly limited. There was no explanation offered as to why the option of amayor selected by the council, as in France and Spain, was not offered (seeJohn 2001). In the two elected mayor options permitted by the legislation,the traditional relationship between leader and group will be threatenedby the different and more direct line of accountability the mayor has withthe electorate compared with those elected to the council. The impact thischange is likely to have on leader-group relations is explored in more detailin the next section. However, even in the ‘cabinet and leader’ option, wherethe leader will no doubt continue to be elected by the majority group(assuming there is one), there is likely to be a different relationship betweenthe cabinet (and the leader in particular) and the party group, since in thenew system the executive will be empowered to take a wider range ofdecisions without reference to the full council. In each of the three executiveoptions the position of leader is now a formal requirement. As noted earlier,shire district councils with a population of under 85000 will be permittedto operate ‘alternative arrangements’, provided they incorporate mech-anisms for the overview and scrutiny of executive decisions.

Other important contextual factors in this third phase of local politicalleadership have included the continuing impact of hung authorities (144 in2001) and the declining influence of local Labour parties on Labour groups(Hall and Leach 2000), representing a further weakening of delegate democ-racy (see Gyford et al. 1989, p. 342). Thus in the third phase of local politicalleadership – the collaborative phase – a different and more coherent con-figuration has developed in local political and organizational structures,largely driven by the ‘democratic renewal’ agenda of central government.

Implications for political leadershipThe implications for political leadership roles depend on which of the threeexecutive options is adopted at local level. Table 1 sets out the likely impactof each option on the four key leadership roles identified earlier. Someimportant distinctions need to be emphasized. In formal terms, the leaderin the elected mayor with council manager option is relatively powerlessalthough in practice he or she is likely to be a key influential player in thecouncil, perhaps in charge of the majority group (Elcock 2001, pp. 182–4).

Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002

Page 17: Rethinking local political leadership

RETHINKING POLITICAL LEADERSHIP 681

TABLE 1 Leadership roles and new political management models

Administration Strategic Partnership/ Taskcohesion direction external accomplishment

networking

Directly elected Of limited A matter of A – possibly Possibly onlymayor with a relevance to negotiation the – dominant indirectly viacouncil elected mayor; between council role for the council managermanager role passes to manager and elected mayor

party leaders in elected mayorassembly

Directly elected Of limited Elected mayor Certain to be a Greatlymayor with a relevance to has dominant role key role for enhancedcabinet elected mayor; elected mayor leadership

role passes to involvementchair of council and capacitywith cabinetmembersexperiencing roleconflict

Cabinet with a Likely to remain More of a Likely to be a Greatlyleader a major concern collective key role for the enhanced

of cabinet responsibility leader but with leadershipcollectively and with scope for more collective capacity butleader key leadership involvement role likely to beindividually role shared within

cabinet

The agreement of corporate strategy, key policies and the budget all fall tothe council. The broad range of executive decisions fall to the council man-ager. The elected mayor’s key leadership role becomes one of external net-working – representing the authority in negotiations with external interestsand (depending on the quality of his or her relationship with the councilmanager) seeking to influence council members to support or reject meas-ures put forward by the council manager. Task accomplishment by themayor becomes well-nigh impossible. There is a certain legitimacy in amayor attempting to influence the corporate strategy in line with the mani-festo on which he or she was elected, but the ability to do so depends inlarge part on the response of the council manager and on the leader of themajority group.

For the elected mayor with a cabinet, external relations is certain to bea high priority, since visibility and legitimacy when operating in externalnetworks provide two of the key justifications for the introduction ofelected mayors. Strategic direction is also likely to require a high-profilepersonal role. The mayor will have been elected on the basis of a personalmanifesto (though heavily influenced by that of the party in many cases)and will be expected to put those commitments into operation as well asleading the search for appropriate responses to unanticipated strategicissues which develop during his or her period of office. With task

Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002

Page 18: Rethinking local political leadership

682 STEVE LEACH AND DAVID WILSON

accomplishment, the directly elected mayor (in the directly elected mayorplus cabinet model) is in a much stronger position than existing majoritygroup leaders because of the formal authority he or she has for executiveaction. (The mayor can influence the scope of executive action to be exer-cised by the executive and decide the way such action is distributedamongst cabinet members.)

The greatest unknown quantity is how much attention an elected mayorwould have to pay to ‘maintaining cohesion’. It could be argued that anelected mayor would have little interest in maintaining group cohesion –typically one of the most important leadership roles in current circum-stances. He or she would need to work behind the scenes to ensure thatmajor proposals, such as the community plan and the budget, securedapproval in the council. However, it is likely that one of the criteria forselecting cabinet colleagues would be their ability to generate supportwithin the group network. In any case, it by no means certain that thecustomary adversarial culture of inter-group politics will operate at thesame level in the new political management structures. Elected mayorsmight have so much to occupy them, with the three other leadership roles,that there would be at the very least a strong incentive to delegate to cabinetcolleagues whatever needed to be done to forge cohesion.

The other reason why an elected mayor could not wholly disregard partycolleagues in the assembly is that their support would be needed to gainparty endorsement of their mayoral candidacy at the next election,assuming there was a wish to stand for re-election. Thus, the likelihood isthat the local party network (including the party leader and the group) willbe used to test controversial proposals, build up or sustain constituenciesof support, justify departures from the party manifesto and explain difficultexecutive decisions. This tendency is likely to be strongest in the LiberalDemocrat Party, which sets the greatest store by a negotiated consensus inreaching decisions, both within the party group and between party groupand local party (see Game and Leach 1995, p. 26). This predisposition hasalso been beneficial in the party’s attempts to operate two-party or all-party‘partnership’ administrations in hung authorities (Leach and Stewart, 1992;Leach and Pratchett 1996). The pressure to emphasize a negotiated consen-sus in the Labour Party has been most pronounced in areas where therehas been a strong local party in existence and, increasingly since 1992, inhung authorities (Hall and Leach 2000; Leach and Game 2000). The pressureto operate in this way in the Labour Party would be most pronounced inauthorities where there was a strong local party in existence.

For political leaders in authorities operating the cabinet and leader model(which looks in 2002 as though it will be the option adopted by over 95per cent of the authorities who are obliged to introduce one of the threeexecutive options), party group cohesion retains its importance, not leastbecause of the vulnerability of the leader to re-election by the group. How-ever, the areas in which group cohesion will need to be maintained under

Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002

Page 19: Rethinking local political leadership

RETHINKING POLITICAL LEADERSHIP 683

the new system will be affected in three ways. First, the executive will havethe power to take all decisions that were previously taken by the counciland its committees, apart from a range of policy decisions (including thebudget) which are reserved for the full council. The extent to which theleader and his or her colleagues will be expected to consult with the partygroup over the range of decisions which are the executive’s formal responsi-bility, is a matter for negotiation within the party group. Inasmuch as theexecutive is ‘trusted’ to make decisions in line with party policy, partygroup cohesion will have to be maintained for policy decisions but willotherwise be replaced by the need to maintain cabinet cohesion (the sameprinciples would apply in a two-party cabinet in which one group playedthe dominant role).

Second, the legislation and accompanying regulations require that groupdiscipline should not be imposed in overview and scrutiny committeeswhich are given the task of holding the executive to account. Assumingthis requirement is followed (and it is a big ‘if’, because there is nothingto stop a party group imposing discipline on itself voluntarily in overviewand scrutiny committees), then the leader need no longer be concerned with‘maintaining cohesion’ over this aspect of the council’s processes.

Third, the emphasis placed by successive Labour governments on com-munity leadership as the ‘core business’ of local authorities complicatesgroup cohesion. Manifestos can operate as a point of reference in a majoritygroup over decisions about service provision that can be made under thepowers vested in the council. However, for cross-cutting issues, such ascommunity safety, social inclusion and environmental sustainability, it ismuch more difficult to sustain a direct accountability link. In respondingto such issues, councils (and in particular council leaders) are negotiatorsrather than implementers. They have to persuade other agencies to supportpriorities and actions, and to make concessions where necessary. Such col-laboration complicates the process of group accountability and groupcohesion and arguably frees the leaders from an obligation to carry thegroup with them, except where group priorities are compromised.

Thus the significance of group cohesion is directly affected by the moveto local cabinet and mayoral government, and by the new emphasis oncommunity leadership. It remains an important leadership task (but less sofor the elected mayor), yet depending on local circumstances is probablyless dominant on the agenda of leadership tasks than it was in either ofthe first two periods discussed above.

For leaders operating in a hung authority, the challenge of inter-partycohesion remains central. An elected mayor has to persuade other partyleaders in the council to co-operate, either by helping him or her form acabinet, or facilitating the passage of mayoral initiatives through council,or both. The challenges facing a leader in the cabinet and leader model aresimilar, although he or she will be more constrained by party group viewsas to what are acceptable arrangements and compromises.

Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002

Page 20: Rethinking local political leadership

684 STEVE LEACH AND DAVID WILSON

‘Strategic direction’ has increased in importance since 1997. Whendeveloping a coherent response to the range of government initiatives, thereis probably little effective difference between the challenges experienced inthe 1983–97 and the post-1997 period. However, the implications of thestrengthened community leadership role and the requirement to develop acommunity strategy provide additional pressures for the leader to deliver.

Of the two key elements of the leadership task focused on externalrelations, the first – relationships with media – retains its significance. Thesecond – representing the authority’s interests in external networks – isheightened by the government’s increasing emphasis on ‘partnership work-ing’ in service provision (through the best value agenda), community lead-ership and community strategies, and the exhortation to intensify publicparticipation in decision-making.

In terms of the government’s guidance on new political managementstructures, the interpretation of the final leadership task – ensuring policyimplementation – is subject to mixed messages. On the one hand (DETR2000), the government has made it clear that it expects the move to cabinetgovernment to be accompanied by an increase in delegation to officers, thusrestricting the scope of political leaders to ensure policy implementation.On the other hand, the Local Government Act 2000 made it possible forexecutive decisions to become the responsibility of individual cabinet mem-bers, thus increasing the possibility of ensuring policy implementation. Thechoice made is likely to be influenced by the traditions of the authority(member-dominated or officer-dominated), the quality of member-officerrelations (do the leading members trust the leading officers to ‘implementpolicy’ in a way sympathetic to their aims?), and the nature of the remuner-ation system adopted by the authority (does it let executive members oper-ate on a full-time basis?).

As Perri 6 et al. (2002, p. 104) note, changes of control within a localauthority, such as the arrival of a new senior officer or a new leader, canbe important catalysts for change:

In Midcaster, much of the drive for change was attributed to a changein council leader. In Redbrickham a dynamic and charismatic deputychief executive was the trigger for the council to develop a programmeof partnership building and integration.

Yet as Hartley and Allison (2000 p. 38) note, leadership is ‘no longer (if itever was) solely about command and control from the “top” of the organis-ation’. Increasingly, the role of politicians and officers is the active engage-ment of others at all levels and locations inside local authorities. Theydescribe this model as ‘distributed leadership’ because it is spread acrossan organization rather than simply located at its apex. The new arrange-ments for executive leadership tend towards more elitist decision-making.

The context in which local political leaders have operated post-1997 hasput pressure on their interpretation of their roles. It has generated the need

Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002

Page 21: Rethinking local political leadership

RETHINKING POLITICAL LEADERSHIP 685

for a re-assessment of the meaning and significance of the key task of main-taining the cohesion of the administration. The nature of that re-assessmentwill vary depending on which of the three executive models has beenadopted, and whether the authority is majority-controlled or hung. In gen-eral, there is an implied diminution in the relative significance of this role.The profile of strategic direction is raised by the government’s emphasison community leadership and the requirement to produce community stra-tegies. The profile of external networking is raised through the samegovernmental influence and through its greatly increased emphasis onpartnership-working and public participation. For task accomplishment,there are opportunities for both restriction and enhancement, dependingon the dominant political values of the authority.

CONCLUSION

As John (2001, p. 152) observes, ‘Leadership is crucial to local governance.The politics of decentralization, networks, participation, partnerships,bureaucratic reform, rapid policy change and central intervention needpowerful, but creative figures to give a direction to local policy-making’.The changing relationship between political context and the role of localpolitical leadership in the three identified phases over the 1965–2001 periodis summarized in Table 2. However, there is no deterministic relationshipbetween contextual pressure and current practice. The research points to are-interpretation of leadership roles which embodies a response to contex-tual pressures. It is also clear that there remains considerable resistance insome localities to the external agenda: traditional leader-group relation-ships have proved resilient in many authorities. The enthusiasm ofresponses to the new emphasis on ‘community leadership’ has varied. Theexplicit commitment to a strategic approach is well developed in someauthorities and more limited in others. Authorities cannot ignore the impli-cations of the changed external agenda, but the way they respond to itstill bears the mark of the local political culture, itself partly the productof history.

In the second and third phases of local political leadership, and in parti-cular in the third, the leadership role has become much more complex anddemanding. It has increasingly involved balancing the implications of thewider political and legislative context (which leaders invariably see moreclearly than their colleagues), with the pressures for the administration tocontinue to operate in more traditional mode. If the leader makes too manyconcessions to the forces of tradition, then he or she risks the authoritylosing credibility in the eyes of the modernizers. If on the other hand lead-ers push too strongly in the modernizing direction, their own positionlocally becomes more vulnerable. The new leadership task is a transform-ational one, but considerable skills of political judgement are required inits exercise.

Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002

Page 22: Rethinking local political leadership

686ST

EV

EL

EA

CH

AN

DD

AV

IDW

ILSO

N

TABLE 2 The relationship between political context and local political leadership, 1965–2001

Leadership role (1): Leadership role (2): Leadership role (3): Leadership role (4): taskmaintaining cohesion developing strategic policy external representation accomplishment

direction

Phase one:the operational phase 1965–81Key characteristics:• Self-sufficiency The dominant leadership A relatively limited role in A relatively limited role, Little interest in this role• Professionalism and role. In most authorities the most authorities. Strategic except in reacting to local (although traditions of

departmentalism key leadership challenge direction required for external media controversies. Little involvement in implemen-• Representative (and was to maintain the opportunities and crises (e.g. concern with partnership (or tation in some authorities).

delegate) democracy cohesion of the dominant financial crisis of 1976) and for inter-agency) working, Policy implementation typi-• ‘Hierarchical’ service group, although for Labour local authority budgeting, but except over ‘Inner City’ cally left to officers,

provision groups, party group-local otherwise the dominance of initiatives of late 1970s. although with a degree of• Two-party politics party cohesion increased in the service-provision role Little concern either with ‘chasing up’ by leadership

significance. fragmented strategic- public participation. on sensitive issues.direction initiatives.

Phase two:the transitional phase(1981–97)Key characteristics:• Pressures for The dominance of this role Reactive strategic direction External relations more high Move towards a greater

externalization sustained, but some import- role became heightened in profile (in many cases leadership concern with this• Decline in ‘self- ant differences of emphasis. importance, as authorities’ reluctantly) in response to role (especially in more

sufficiency’ Party groups-local party need to respond to (usually pressure from Conservative extreme ‘right’ and ‘left’• New emphasis on market cohesion becomes an unwelcome) central govern- government (e.g. CCT, SRB, authorities) where officers

democracy increasingly important con- ment initiatives intensified. City Challenge, etc). New were not always trusted to• Growth of three-party sideration for Labour lead- Proactive strategic direction emphasis on partnerships implement political priorities

politics ers (especially in 1980s); role developed particularly but public participation sympathetically. More tend-• Range of strategic inter-party cohesion an after 1990 as local authorities mainly ‘consultation’ ency for political involve-

responses to central important consideration in face and respond to choices in dominated. Some authorities ment in key appointmentsgovernment pressure hung authorities; officer- ‘role and purpose’ agenda. voluntarily move beyond (e.g. in 1981–87 period).

member cohesion a problem consultation.in the more politically ‘extre-me’ authorities.

B

lackwell

PublishersL

td.

2002

Page 23: Rethinking local political leadership

RE

TH

INK

ING

POL

ITIC

AL

LE

AD

ER

SHIP

687

Phase three:the collaborative phase (1997–onwards)Key characteristics:• Strengthened emphasis Major changes in the nature Reactive strategic direction External representation role Retreat from detailed involve-

on partnerships of this role, especially for retains its significance given heightened, because of Lab- ment with implementation,• New emphasis on public mayoral options, where the weight of the Labour our government’s emphasis but a more selective concern

participation impact of party groups (and government’s modernization on the community leader- about ensuring political pri-• New executive forms of hence need for a continuous programme. Active strategic ship role, partnerships and orities are operationalized.

local government concern with party group direction is strengthened by ‘Best Value’ (which require Local Government Act 2000• Greater level of central cohesion) is lessened. In the move to community stra- consultation). Participation provides opportunities for

regulation over services cabinet and leader models tegies, and the new emphasis has a higher profile in many both an intensification and a• Community governance there is more scope for on community leadership. authorities. Impact of grow- dilution of this role.

and community strategies continuing the traditional ing scale of external fundingemphasis on party group (e.g. lottery grants).cohesion. New challenge formember-officer cohesion.

B

lackwell

PublishersL

td.

2002

Page 24: Rethinking local political leadership

688 STEVE LEACH AND DAVID WILSON

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their veryhelpful and constructive comments on an earlier draft of this article.

REFERENCES

Baxter, R. 1972. ‘The working class and Labour politics’, Political Studies, 20, 1, 97–107.Burns, J. 1978. Leadership. New York: Harper and Row.Cole, C. and P. John. 2001. Local governance in England and France. London: Routledge.DETR. 1998a. Local democracy and community leadership. London: DETR.DETR. 1998b. Modern local government: in touch with the people. London: HMSO.DETR. 2000. The local government bill: consultative drafts of proposed guidance and regulations on new

constitutions for councils (Part II and Changes 66, 67). London: DETR.Donoughue, B. and G. Jones. 1973. Herbert Morrison, portrait of a politician. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.Elcock, H. 2001. Political leadership. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Elcock, H. and G. Jordan (eds). 1987. Learning from local authority budgeting. Aldershot: Avebury.Game, C. 1979. ‘Review essay: on local political leadership’, Policy and Politics, Vol. 7, 4, 395–408.Game, C. and S. Leach. 1995. The role of political parties in local democracy, CLD Research Report No. 11.

London: CLD.Goss, S. 2001. Making local governance work. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Gyford, J., S. Leach and C. Game. 1989. The changing politics of local government. London: Allen and Unwin.Hall, D. and S. Leach. 2000. ‘The changing nature of local Labour politics’ in G. Stoker (ed.), The new politics

of British local governance. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 150–65.Hartley, J. and M. Allison. 2000. ‘The role of leadership in modernisation and improvement of public

services’, Public Money and Management, Vol. 20, No. 2, April–June, 35–40.Housden, P. 2000. Local statesmen. Coventry: Warwick Business School.John, P. 2001. Local governance in Western Europe. London: Sage.John, P. and A. Cole 1999. ‘Political leadership in the new urban governance: Britain and France compared’,

Local Government Studies, 25, 4, 98–115.Jones, G.W. and A. Norton (eds). 1978. Political leadership in local authorities. Birmingham: INLOGOV.Kotter, J.P. and P.R. Lawrence. 1974. Mayors in action: five approaches to urban governance. New York: John

Wiley.Leach, S. and C. Collinge. 1998. Strategic planning and management in local government. London: Pitman.Leach, S. and J. Stewart. 1990. Political leadership in local government. Luton: LGMB.Leach, S., L., Pratchett, G. Stoker, and M. Wingfield. 1999. Political management arrangements in local govern-

ment: the position at the beginning of 1999. London: LGMB.Leach, S. and D. Wilson. 2000. Local political leadership. Bristol: Policy Press.Leach, S. and C. Game. 2000. Hung authorities, elected mayors and cabinet government. York: Joseph

Rowntree Foundation.Leach, S. and L. Pratchett. 1996. The management of balanced authorities. Luton: LGMB.Leach, S. and J. Stewart. 1992. The politics of hung authorities. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Leach, S. and S. Charteris. 2000. Managing the budgetary process in a hung authority, Public Administration,

Vol. 78, No. 4, 793–814.Livingstone, K. 1987. If voting changed anything, they’d abolish it. London: Collins.Local Government Management Board. 1993. Fitness for purpose: shaping new patterns of organisation and

management. Luton: LGMB.Parkinson, M. 1985. Liverpool on the brink. Bristol: Policy Journals.Pratchett, L. 1999. ‘Introduction: defining democratic renewal’, Local Government Studies, Vol. 25, 4, 1–18.Ridley, N. 1988. The local right. London: Centre for Policy Studies.Selznick, P. 1957. Leadership in administration. New York: Harper and Row.Skeffington, A. (Chairman). 1969. People and planning. London: HMSO.Stewart, J. 1971. Management in local government: a viewpoint. London: Charles Knight.

Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002

Page 25: Rethinking local political leadership

RETHINKING POLITICAL LEADERSHIP 689

Stewart, J. 1974. The responsive local authority. London: Charles Knight.Stewart, J. 1986. The new management of local government. London: Allen and Unwin.Stone, C. 1995. ‘Political leadership in urban politics’, in D. Judge, G. Stoker and H. Wolman (eds). Theories

of Urban Politics. London: Sage.Svara, J. 1990. Official leadership in the city. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Wainwright, H. 1987. Labour: a tale of two parties. London: The Hogarth Press.Widdicombe, D. (Chairman). 1986a. Committee on conduct of local authority business: report. London: HMSO.Widdicombe, D. (Chairman). 1986b. Committee on the conduct of local authority business, research, Vol. 1, Political

organisation of local authorities, by S. Leach, C. Game, J. Gyford and A. Midwinter. London: HMSO.6. P, Leat, D. Seltzer, K. and G. Stoker, 2002. Towards holistic governance. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Date received 24 January 2002. Date accepted 1 May 2002.

Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002