One of the more interesting tensions in local government leadership is that councils quite rightly want fresh thinking, innovation and different perspectives, while also needing to make senior appointments with care. These are high-profile roles carrying significant public, political and organisational responsibility, so it is entirely understandable that appointment processes often feel most comfortable when a candidate has already performed a very similar role elsewhere.
The challenge is that councils are increasingly being asked to solve problems for which there are few neat precedents. Financial pressure, housing demand, workforce shortages, devolution, technological change and rising expectations from residents all require adaptability and imagination that cannot always be measured by the number of years someone has spent moving through a traditional council career route.
In executive search, some of the most interesting candidates are often those whose careers have not followed the most expected route. They may have built their leadership experience in housing, health, regulation, economic development, central government or the wider public and social purpose sectors before moving into local government. They frequently bring many of the attributes councils say they value: the ability to work across organisational boundaries, experience of large-scale transformation, confidence operating in complex stakeholder environments and a willingness to challenge accepted wisdom constructively. Yet, on paper, they can still feel less immediately familiar than candidates whose CVs map more directly onto the role.
The practical challenge is not that councils lack ambition. It is that appointment processes, like all selection processes, can unintentionally reward familiarity over future potential. If the sector wants leadership teams capable of responding to unfamiliar pressures, it needs to be deliberate about distinguishing between directly relevant experience, transferable capability and simple pattern recognition.
That raises an important question about how the sector defines leadership potential. Experience matters, and local government is right to be thoughtful about who it entrusts with major responsibilities. However, there is a difference between assessing whether someone has done a job before and assessing whether they have the capability to succeed in a new one. The strongest leadership teams are rarely composed of people who have all travelled the same path. More often, they combine different experiences, perspectives and professional backgrounds in a way that strengthens decision-making and broadens organisational thinking.
This is also reflected in GatenbySanderson's behavioural capability data, gathered over many years and aligned to our Altitude model of leadership. Across a dataset of more than 8,000 leaders, local government shows clear comparative strengths in combining public purpose with pragmatic judgement and longer-term thinking. In practice, this points to leaders who understand the social value of their work, can make difficult decisions in resource-constrained environments and keep sight of future challenges as well as immediate pressures.
At the same time, when compared with the wider public sector, the data suggests some relative areas where councils may benefit from additional leadership breadth: developing strong and sustainable relationships across a wider range of stakeholders, maintaining an appetite for continuous learning, adapting quickly as demands change and creating confidence across complex organisational and political environments. These are not weaknesses in absolute terms, but they do underline the value of looking beyond the most familiar talent pools for leaders who may have built these capabilities in different, but highly relevant, settings.
The implication is not that councils should take greater risks or relax their expectations. It is that they may need to be more precise about which capabilities matter most for the future, and more open-minded about where those capabilities have been developed. Appointment panels can still test political judgement, partnership skills, financial grip and organisational leadership, but they should do so through evidence of impact, behaviour and context rather than through a narrow reading of career history.
A candidate who has led complex delivery across agencies, strengthened trust in a challenged environment or adapted successfully to shifting public demands may bring highly relevant leadership experience, even if it has been gained outside a conventional local government route.
For search firms, this places a responsibility on how markets are mapped and how candidate evidence is presented. A broader field is only useful if appointing organisations can understand why different experience is relevant. That means drawing out leadership behaviours, delivery contexts and transferable achievements, rather than simply presenting a longlist that invites panels to default back to the most familiar CVs.
As councils continue to grapple with increasingly complex challenges, the ability to attract leaders who see problems differently may become a source of competitive advantage. The question for the sector is not whether there is enough talent available. It is whether we are looking broadly enough for it, and whether appointment processes are designed to recognise potential when it does not arrive in the most familiar packaging.
If every organisation wants innovation but continues to define leadership in the same way, it should not be surprising if leadership teams begin to look increasingly similar. At a time of profound change, the greater risk may not be appointing somebody different. It may be overlooking them.
Ben Parsonage is a senior consultant in GatenbySanderson's local government practice
