performance

A Very Local Authority

/ jlowther2015 / Leave a comment

Garath Symonds

When I was asked by the Chief Executive to take over a failing project to create a
contact centre for vulnerable residents, I said yes without hesitation. It felt like an
opportunity to be of service to residents, but beneath the surface I may have acted in
service of something closer to home, my own need to succeed in the eyes of
authority figures.


In local government, authority often hides anxiety. When fear rises, the system looks
for a heroic leader, someone who can carry its tension. The more I looked confident,
the more authority I was lent, and the more anxiety I absorbed. It was an
unconscious exchange. The organisation offloaded its unease, and I absorbed it. It
was as if I had been unconsciously elected by the group to hold the system’s
anxiety.


Over time, the project began to take on a life of its own. Meetings were charged with
feeling but framed as technical debate. The numbers, the charts, the plans, all
attempts to manage the anxiety that no one wanted to name or think about. We were
defending ourselves against the fear of not knowing with Gantt charts and risk
registers. Bureaucracy had become a collective defence against thought. And so had
action, the more stuff we got done the better we felt, whether we were doing the right
stuff didn’t matter. Anxiety was running the show, but it wasn’t possible to say so.


When the contact centre finally launched, the context shifted again. It was delivered
on time and within budget, yet there was no sense of relief. We had achieved the
task but not addressed the underlying social problem, and therefore the anxiety in
the system persisted. When a new CE and corporate team arrived, the story
changed again. What had been previously praised became problematic. The project
was now the cause of the organisation’s distress, a helpful target for blame, blocking
any real strategic thinking about what might be needed.


That experience taught me that authority is never just structural it is emotional and
symbolic. It moves between people and roles, attaching itself to those who can carry
what others cannot. When we lead, we enter this unconscious network of
projections, hopes and expectations. The question is not whether this happens, but
whether we notice it.


Local government lives with a chronic tension between its wish for certainty and the
reality of uncertainty, much of its life is shaped by unspoken feeling. Inspections,
budget cuts, audits, change and political pressures all produce emotional
reverberations that are felt long before they are understood. Without reflection
systems repeat their defensive strategies without understanding them.


Developing this very local authority starts with self-leadership, the inner work of
noticing what is being projected into us, what emotions we are carrying on behalf of
the wider system. It asks for a disciplined curiosity about anxiety: what it signals,
where it belongs, and how it can be thought about rather than acted out. It is less
about providing answers and more about creating a space in which meaning can
emerge.


This kind of authority is quietly radical. It might involve naming the unspoken mood in
a meeting, holding silence when others rush to fill it, or acknowledging a tension
rather than smoothing it away. Containment is not about comfort; it is about
thoughtfulness under pressure. It is the ability to stay connected when people and
systems fragment.


The lesson I took from this experience was that leadership is always personal. The
system’s anxiety finds its way into us, connecting with our personal relationship to
authority formed in childhood. How we hold it determines whether it becomes
creative or corrosive force on our leadership. We are not separate from the
organisations we lead; we are expressions of them. Authority, in this sense, is not
only delegated but matured, a relationship between our inner world and outer role.
In this sense authority, is the internal capacity to remain reflective in the face of
collective anxiety. It is the ability to recognise projection without retaliating, to
distinguish what belongs to the self and what belongs to the system, and crucially for
leaders to help others recover their capacity to think.


As local government faces what Sarah Longlands, Chief Executive of the Centre for
Local Economic Strategies, recently described in The MJ as “change rippling through
local government … from structural reform and new combined authorities to health
integration and the push for financial sustainability,” this capacity has never been
more needed. These transitions demand not only new governance models but
leaders who can bear the anxiety of change without collapsing into a desperate need
for certainty. The future may depend less on structural reform and more on this
reflective discipline, the capacity for thought that keeps authority truly local.

Garath Symonds was a senior leader in local government for 20 years and is now
a practice tutor at INLOGOV, an executive coach, organisational consultant and author
of ‘The Anxious Leader: How to Lead in an Uncertain World’. His work helps leaders
make sense of anxiety as data for reflection, containment, and transformation.
http://www.spacetoreconnect.com

Intervention 3.0: Designing a Responsive Model for Local Government Support in England

/ jlowther2015 / Leave a comment

Jason Lowther / Paul Joyce / Philip Whiteman

The arrival of the new UK government looks set to result in a new policy on central government’s intervention powers in local authorities, the third generation of such policies this century.  This article suggests some key lessons from earlier models. 

Intervention 1.0 was facilitated by Best Value legislation that an “authority must make arrangements to secure continuous improvement in the way in which its functions are exercised, having regard to a combination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness” (Local Government Act 1999).  This remains the basis of statutory interventions today.  But the context could not be more different. 

The Blair government commissioned an extensive set of national performance indicators, developed independently by the Audit Commission with a common definition and quality assured through local audits.  The “District Auditor” role maintained in depth contextualised knowledge of each local council, and could identify and flag significant governance or performance issues at an early stage.  As well as diagnosing problems, the Audit Commission’s national studies provided evidence-based recommendations to help improve local services’ economy, efficiency and effectiveness.

The strengths of this model were the comprehensive nature of the evaluation, its collective and mutually supportive use of expert agencies to provide an evidence base, and the sanctions that went with it including transparent public reporting.  Inlogov produced a series of reports diagnosing and explaining the causes of poor performance, analysing recovery planning and strategies for organisational recovery, evaluating various policy instruments for recovery (such as lead officials) and identifying the key developmental mechanisms for recovery. 

Our reports clearly demonstrated that the context for poor performance determines effective mechanisms for recovery: one size definitely does not fit all.  The causes of failure are varied, such as ineffective leadership arrangements and inadequacies in the operating culture. 

Improvement mechanisms need to address issues of cognition, capability and capacity.  Cognition is the council’s awareness and understanding of their performance trajectory, which is often resilient to changes in political control.  Capability concerns the construction and institutionalisation of a change-oriented vision by council leaders.  Finally, capacity is the ability to deliver the required vision and change. The required change mechanisms are both internal (such as leadership change) and external (for example, peer mentors, expert advisors, and funding). 

Intervention 2.0

The arrival of the Coalition government in 2010 brought rapid changes to intervention.  The Audit Commission was summarily discarded, publicly justified by claimed savings of £50m.  In reality, recent research by the Audit Reform Lab at the University of Sheffield suggests that English audits have higher costs and greater delays than in Wales or Scotland (where centralised oversight arrangements were maintained). 

From 2010 to 2020, central government intervention was relatively rare with formal interventions in only four councils.  However, from 2021 this situation changed substantially with interventions in eight councils in three years (none of these councils were controlled by the ruling national party).  In the same three years, there were statutory best value notices in a further nine councils.

It’s fair to describe this phase of intervention as less structured and evidence-based, without robust national data or independent routine inspection of councils.    

There has been limited evaluation of Intervention 2.0 to date.  Our early research findings based on three case studies suggest a five-stage model of intervention: (i) crisis revelation, (ii) delegitimisation, (iii) imposed reforms, (iv) capacity building, (v) restoration or reorganisation.  We conclude that under localism interventions were not merely administrative responses to failure but were deeply political acts that reshaped the legitimacy and capacity of local governance. The Commissioners, acting as technocratic agents of central government, connected central and local government, and had the effect of buffering the political tensions of intervention, while leading a process in which managerial competence rather than local democracy steered intervention.

Where next for intervention?

The raft of interventions related to section 114 notices, the establishment of the new Local Government Outcomes Framework and local audit reform including the Local Audit Office indicate a new phase of intervention and open opportunities to develop a more systematic and evidence-based approach.  More thought is needed on how this should work in future, including the role of peer reviews and inter-council support arrangements.  The centralisation of intervention power and the dominance of technocratic intervention needs to evolve to suit devolution and to provide greater support for local democracy. This could build on the new audit arrangements through a “district auditor” type overview of governance.

The acid test of reforms should be that while central government would still be able to intervene when councils were failing, the intervention process would minimise the suspension of local democracy, do as little damage as possible to the public’s trust in their local council, and foster good local democratic political leadership.

This article first appeared in the Municipal Journal on 16 October 2025 titled “How not to damage democracy”. It is available here: https://www.themj.co.uk/damage-democracy

Dr Jason Lowther is director of INLOGOV (the Institute of Local Government Studies) at the University of Birmingham.  Prof Paul Joyce is an Associate at INLOGOV.  Dr Philip Whiteman is a lecturer on public policy and administration at INLOGOV.

LGOF: CPA-lite or Daily Mail target practice?  

/ jlowther2015 / Leave a comment

Jason Lowther

In July, then Local Government Minister Jim McMahon announced a new Local Government Outcomes Framework (LGOF), which (he said) “forms an integral part of this Government’s reforms to ensure we have a sector which is fit, legal and decent”.  These reforms are already pretty extensive, including LG reorganisation, devolution, community engagement, member standards and funding arrangements.

The LGOF framework, the Minister hoped, “will help to put the right checks and balances in place to ensure value for the taxpayer and results for citizens to whom councils are ultimately responsible”.  Given the removal of most systematic monitoring of local performance and outcomes in England with the demise of the Audit Commission a decade ago, is this a new dawn for helpful local insights and intelligent central steering, or the raw material for a crude league table that obscures more than it illuminates?

History shows the difficulty of designing and using performance measures effectively.  Whilst the logic of measuring what matters to inform management (and political) decision making is clear, and there are many examples of successful applications, there are enough examples of failures and unintended negative consequences to encourage caution. 

The immediate precursor to LGOF was a set of measures developed by the ill-fated Office of Local Government (OFLOG).  These were immediately manipulated by the Times newspaper into a league table, labelling Nottingham as the worst council.  The fact that this took place during the pre-election period only made the impact more negative, leading to a stinging letter from the LGA to the then Secretary of State, Michael Gove.  OFLOG was in some ways set up to fail.  Sited inside the Ministry, its political independence was immediately open to challenge.  And reconciling providing local authorities with better data at the same time as acting as an accountability mechanism to central government was always going to be tricky. 

The health service experience of performance measures and targets presents mixed evidence.  It appears that four-hour A&E waiting times targets were associated with reduced mortality, but at the same time there were examples of departments admitting patients near to the time limit at the expense of others more in need of urgent care, a few examples of blatant misrepresentation of figures, and some bizarre holding of patients in ambulances and redefinition of corridors as wards.

Key lessons from these examples include the importance of having a clear focus for the LGOF and the adoption of a broad ‘exploratory’ approach to presenting the performance measures.   As the Institute for Government argued for OFLOG, a key contribution could be making data more consistently available, comparable and usable – and hence supporting evidence-based policy making through the deliberative use of robust evidence.

The LGOF data needs to be presented in ways that enable and encourage exploration and questioning, rather than simplistic league tables which ignore the inherent differences between different councils in terms of population, geography, deprivation, funding, etc.  It therefore needs exhibit what I call the three Cs: to be comparable across councils, contextualised to reflect local circumstances, and citizen-focussed (accessible to lay people).

There are many positive features of the new framework, including its attempt to look at missions and outcomes (rather than just council outputs).  Interested parties had until 12 September 2025 to respond to the Government’s consultation, so we now await the government’s response to that.  Councils can easily see how the proposed LGOF measures look for them using the excellent new LG Inform LGOF report. 

Dr Jason Lowther is Director of the Institute of Local Government Studies (INLOGOV) at the University of Birmingham.  This article was initially published in the Local Area Research and Intelligence Association (LARIA) newsletter. Email [email protected]