Government vision of strong elected mayors and council leaders 'only partially achieved'

Looking at the impact of new governance structures introduced by the Local Government Act 2000, it finds that while community leadership has been a priority for some elected mayors, others have placed a higher premium on negotiating political support – especially those facing adversarial politics.

Similarly, while some local political leaders have been able to pursue long-term strategic objectives, others have operated with a handful of disconnected priorities. In addition, unforeseen priorities that have emerged since the Local Government Act have sometimes diverted the attention of mayors and other leaders from an outward to an inward focus – especially the need to prepare for, or respond to, the Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA).

The report by researchers at De Montfort and Warwick universities concludes that the emphasis in debates about local governance on structures and 'strong leadership' has been too narrow. It argues that differences in local political contexts and the skills of political leaders are crucial to understanding why the new structures have produced such diverse approaches.

For example, giving wider, formal powers to mayors has not always led individuals to exploit them proactively. And while leaders with a strong power base have not necessarily behaved like 'strong leaders', a more collective approach to leadership has not necessarily hindered councils' performance.

The study examined the impact of the Local Government Act, which introduced options for executive government in England and Wales that included 'elected mayor and cabinet', 'elected mayor and council manager' and 'cabinet and leader'.

Using case studies, a leadership skills survey and in-depth interviews with a wide range of politicians, managers and external partners, the research team analysed the impact of changes on four key leadership tasks:

• Maintaining a critical mass of political support: This remained a high priority for most leaders, despite the Government's emphasis on other leadership tasks. Politically affiliated mayors were able to operate a more relaxed and arm's length relationship with their party group on the council. Leaders, needing to be re-elected annually, prioritised maintaining good relations within their party group and, in a hung council, relations between party groups.
• Strategic policy direction: The priorities of non-mayoral leaders typically reflected the content of the most recent local party manifesto, though often with scope for personal interpretation. Mayors, especially independent mayors, were less constrained in how they identified strategic priorities. Strategy-based leadership tended to be more feasible in mayoral authorities and in authorities holding elections every four years.
• External networking: The degree of priority given to working with Local Strategic Partnerships and other partnership working varied. Some leaders delegated this role to a leadership colleague or to the chief executive. Elected mayors paid more attention to sustaining or enhancing public support than did other council leaders and saw public recognition as a particularly important opportunity for developing a stronger base of public support.
• Task accomplishment: Political leaders used a range of mechanisms to chase progress on issues of concern to them. Some delegated this to a cabinet colleague or political adviser; others chased progress personally. In the most effective relationships, leaders and chief executives worked together to manage this potentially difficult area well.

Prof. Steve Leach of the Department of Public Policy, De Montfort University and co-author of the report, said: "The Government continues to emphasise the merits of 'strong' leadership in local government. Our research shows that this vision is too narrow and inappropriate to the overall aim of improving leadership. The debate needs to look at what constitutes 'effective local government leadership' and recognise the legitimate diversity of political leadership."

Co-author, Prof. Jean Hartley of the Institute of Governance and Public Management at Warwick Business School said: "This study shows how constitutions, context and capabilities interact, giving a more complex picture of what constitutes effective political leadership than was previously thought to exist. It demonstrates that skills are important as well as structures."