There has always been disagreement in public life. Deeply held convictions informing robust debate and challenge are an intrinsic part of democracy. But in recent years, many of us working in and alongside local government have felt a clear shift in tone: sharper, more personal, more distrustful.
The Society of Local Authority Chief Executives' (SOLACE) most recent survey on standards in local government paints a troubling picture of the lived experience of chief executives, senior officers and councillors across the country.
An overwhelming 92% report experiencing poor standards or inappropriate behaviour in the last three years, with issues most frequently arising between councillors and officers.
A widening gap between the expectations placed upon public servants – politicians and officers – and the environment in which they operate in means public frustration driven by economic pressures and strained services, fuelled by wider political polarisation, is often directed at those closest to communities: councils and the people who work for them. It is therefore unsurprising that 70% of senior officers also report worsening behaviour from members of the public.
Leadership in local government has always required resilience. We navigate complex political systems and balance competing priorities with finite resources. What feels different now is the erosion of some of the shared assumptions that once underpinned public life: trust in expertise, respect for roles, and a sense that, even in disagreement, we are working towards a common good.
Instead, officers increasingly find themselves in environments where motives are questioned, professional advice is framed as bias and disagreement quickly becomes personalised. Algorithmic social media has amplified this shift, creating spaces where critique is instantaneous, unfiltered, and often encouraged. It is now the most common setting for poor behaviour, blurring the boundaries between public and professional life and normalising interactions that would once have been unacceptable.
The survey shows 80% of senior officers feel some level of personal risk in their role, with many experiencing abuse or intimidation from both elected members and the public.
These are not easy conditions in which to make balanced, evidence-based decisions. Nearly a quarter of respondents say such behaviours have made them less effective in their role and almost half have considered stepping back or moving on altogether.
The implications are profound. The sustainability of local public leadership depends not only on funding or governance structures, but on whether people feel willing and able to do these jobs.
What does good leadership look like in this environment?
It begins with clarity of purpose. Public service is about improving the lives of our people and places. That mission has not changed, even if the operating context has.
Holding onto that purpose requires conscious effort. It means modelling positive behaviours: respect, integrity and openness. It means being prepared to challenge unacceptable behaviour, even when doing so is uncomfortable.
System reform is important, but insufficient on its own. Rules and sanctions cannot create the culture we need. That must come from shared leadership and trust making across political and managerial spheres, recognising how we behave is as important as the decisions we take.
One particularly concerning finding from the survey is that nearly a quarter of officers do not feel safe to raise concerns about councillor behaviour. Cultures where issues cannot be surfaced are rarely healthy or sustainable.
It would be wrong to frame this solely as an issue of individual behaviour. Systems matter. Many respondents highlight the lack of effective mechanisms to address poor standards, particularly when it comes to elected member conduct. There is strong support for a more robust and enforceable standards regime, with 69% backing legally binding sanctions. It was therefore deeply disappointing that proposals to strengthen the standards framework in England did not progress in the most recent King's Speech.
Solace has long been actively working to support the sector. Through our Commission on Professional Standards and Ethics, chaired by Kath O'Dwyer, we are developing practical tools and guidance – from supporting political transition, to helping leaders identify early warning signs in organisational culture – to equip leaders to navigate increasingly challenging environments with confidence. The Commission's final report, due later this year, will set out clear recommendations for reform.
System reform is important, but insufficient on its own. Rules and sanctions cannot create the culture we need. That must come from shared leadership and trust making across political and managerial spheres, recognising how we behave is as important as the decisions we take.
Ultimately, leading in an age of anger requires a collective response. National political discourse sets a tone. Media and social media shape perceptions.
Local leaders – political and managerial alike – either reinforce or resist these dynamics through their actions. Local government has a proud tradition of public service built on mutual respect and shared endeavour. That is worth protecting.
I remain optimistic. Every day I see examples of outstanding leadership: people working across political divides, engaging constructively with communities, and delivering real change under pressure.
But optimism must be matched by commitment to the standards we expect of each other, by stronger systems where needed, and the confidence to call out behaviour that falls short. We must resist the idea that poor behaviour is inevitable. As one survey respondent observed, accepting it as the norm is part of the problem.
Leading as a public servant has never been easy. In today's climate, it is undoubtedly harder – but it also matters more than ever.
Robin Tuddenham is Solace president, and chief executive, Calderdale Council
