Combined authorities were never meant to be tidy. They were built quickly, under political pressure and with an expectation of early results. Speed mattered more than polish, delivery more than design.
That approach was probably unavoidable. But as combined authorities move into a more mature phase of their existence, the questions they face are changing. The challenge now is no longer whether they can exist, but whether they can endure – and whether they are equipped to lead complex systems rather than simply manage programmes.
Increasingly, that challenge lands firmly on HR and workforce strategy.
How combined authorities were built, and why that model is now straining
Most combined authorities were created without a national rulebook. Leaders improvised, borrowing staff through secondments, leaning on service level agreements and pulling capability in from constituent councils. The overriding objective was clear: get up and running and show progress.
The limits of that model are now well understood.
Secondments often created divided loyalties. Decision making slowed. Genuine autonomy was constrained. In many places, teams worked at an unsustainable pace while organisational identity remained blurred.
Crucially, combined authorities were often treated as small, ‘light touch' bodies. In reality, they evolved into strategic institutions with wide ranging responsibilities and rising expectations. Workforce planning lagged behind that reality, focusing on filling immediate gaps rather than shaping long-term capability.
With hindsight, many senior leaders now reflect that earlier investment in internal capacity – particularly across HR, governance and programme management – would have saved time, energy and political capital later on.
From transactional HR to organisational design
In their early years, HR teams were understandably consumed by the basics: contracts, terms and conditions, TUPE, recruitment under intense political scrutiny. That work mattered, but it was largely transactional.
As combined authorities mature, the HR role is changing. The agenda is shifting away from managing people and towards designing the organisation itself.
HR leaders are increasingly involved in questions such as:
• how the organisation is structured to balance strategy and delivery?
• how it avoids simply scaling up local authority culture?
• what capability is needed to convene partners rather than control services?
• how political leadership is supported without destabilising the organisation?
These are not traditional HR questions, but they are people questions, nonetheless.
Combined authorities operate in a grey zone. They lead systems they do not own and influence outcomes they do not directly control. HR strategy needs to be designed for that ambiguity.
Why culture cannot be left to chance
Early combined authorities often focused on delivery first, assuming culture would follow. Experience suggests the opposite. Where culture was not intentionally shaped, legacy behaviours quickly filled the space.
Organisations drawing staff from councils, local enterprise partnerships and other bodies often struggled to build a shared sense of purpose. Over time, this made collaboration harder rather than easier.
More recently established authorities have taken a different approach. Culture is increasingly treated as practical infrastructure, shaping how decisions are taken, how disagreement is handled and how the organisation positions itself with partners.
In this context, small signals matter. Branding, language, meeting styles and leadership behaviour all reinforce the message that the combined authority exists to add value across the system, not compete with councils.
HR and organisational development teams often sit at the centre of this work, whether explicitly recognised or not.
Devolution is expanding, but workforce models lag behind
The English Devolution White Paper makes one thing clear: combined authorities are not approaching a stable end point. More powers, wider scope and new expectations are on the way.
This creates a risk. Many current workforce models are designed to stabilise the present, not prepare for expansion. Without forward planning, authorities fall into reactive recruitment, over reliance on interim support and stretched leadership capacity.
The authorities that appear most confident about the next phase of devolution are planning differently.
Common features include:
• mapping future capabilities against likely devolution pathways
• investing in corporate capacity earlier rather than later
• building smaller, highly skilled teams designed to influence and convene
• using consultants selectively while deliberately building internal capability
This is not about creating bigger bureaucracies. It is about recognising that system leadership requires skill, clarity and resource.
Where governance and people strategy meet
The mayoral role brings visibility, mandate and momentum, but it also brings risk.
Many mayors arrive without deep experience of public sector governance or organisational leadership. Where induction and support are weak, tensions surface quickly: between politicians and officers, between councils and the combined authority, sometimes in full public view.
Where support is well designed, authority and confidence are established early.
HR has a critical, if often understated, role to play through:
• tailored induction programmes
• clarity about roles and boundaries
• well designed mayoral offices
• trusted relationships between mayors and chief executives
In combined authorities, people strategy and governance design are inseparable.
From programme delivery to system leadership
The biggest shift facing combined authorities is conceptual. They are being asked to move from delivering programmes to leading systems.
System leadership depends on influence, credibility and relationships, rather than hierarchy. It requires people who are comfortable with ambiguity, politics and competing priorities. This challenges traditional public sector models of leadership, development and progression.
It also pushes HR teams into new territory: developing capability that does not sit neatly within organisational charts or service lines.
The real risk for combined authorities
Devolution has always been as much about confidence as competence. Combined authorities have reached a moment of truth.
Those that continue to treat HR as a support function will struggle as powers expand and expectations rise. Those that use people strategy to shape culture, capability and organisational grip will find it easier to absorb change.
The real risk is not that combined authorities fail. It is that they muddle through – stretched, reactive and over reliant on goodwill.
The next phase of devolution will not be won by structures or deals alone. It will be won by organisations that accept a simple truth:
If you want to lead systems, you have to build one that can actually cope.
The next phase
Are you confident your combined authority's workforce model is ready for the next phase of devolution?
GatenbySanderson works with combined authorities and mayoral offices to design people strategies, leadership models and organisational structures fit for system leadership.
Get in touch to discuss how your organisation can build the capability, culture and confidence needed for what comes next.
Seb Lowe is a Partner and Lead in GatenbySanderson's Place and Growth Practice
