In local government, the stakes of senior leadership recruitment are high. Appointing a chief executive or executive director isn't just about filling a vacancy, it's about shaping the future of a place, its services and its people. Traditionally, experience has been the currency of choice. But as the sector faces unprecedented challenges, is it time for aptitude now to take precedence over experience?
This isn't a binary debate. Experience and aptitude are not mutually exclusive. But in a landscape where tomorrow's problems don't resemble yesterday's, we must rethink what we value most in our leaders.
The case for aptitude
Let's start with the obvious: the challenges facing local government are new. Climate resilience, digital transformation, AI-driven service delivery, structural change at an enormous scale and radical shifts in governance models are not issues most leaders have tackled before. So, if no one has the exact experience, what should we be hiring for?
Increasingly, the answer lies in aptitude. The underlying potential of a candidate to adapt, learn, and lead in ambiguity. Traits like curiosity, resilience, emotional intelligence, and problem-solving ability are becoming more valuable than a CV stacked with familiar job titles. Aptitude isn't just desirable, it is becoming essential.
There's a compelling argument that first-time leaders bring energy, drive, and fresh thinking. While they may not have held the top job, they have shown they can lead.
Aptitude without experience can result in gaps. But of course, hiring on aptitude alone isn't without risk. Senior leadership demands more than potential; it requires mature communication skills, emotional intelligence, and resilience to lead large, complex organisations under scrutiny.
Leaders may struggle with political nuance, stakeholder management, or the sheer scale of decision-making required. They may not yet have developed the emotional quotient to lead at scale or the resilience to withstand public scrutiny.
Building confidence
The experience vs aptitude debate is particularly relevant when elected members are involved in the appointment. Members may be more risk-averse, preferring candidates with proven track records. They may also be influenced by public perception, media scrutiny, or internal politics. For many, the perceived risk of hiring someone without prior executive experience is too great. They are, after all, democratically accountable for these decisions. So how do we build confidence in aptitude-based appointments?
One answer lies in robust assessment and onboarding. If we are going to hire for potential, we must invest in it. That means tailored, not off-the-shelf, induction programmes; mentoring from experienced peers both within and outside the organisation and executive coaching that supports the transition into senior leadership.
Harvard Business Review recently highlighted that senior leaders often receive less onboarding support than mid-level managers, despite facing greater complexity and visibility. This lack of support can lead to isolation, poor decision-making, and burnout. Structured onboarding, peer coaching, and reflective practice are essential to help new leaders thrive. Executive recruiters, and candidates, must be honest about the gaps, but have a plan, together, on how to close them. Executive coaching, mentoring, regular 360 degree feedback and peer forums should not be luxuries – they should be necessities if we want aptitude-based appointments to succeed.
To really shift the dial, both senior officers and executive recruiters need to engage elected members in the conversation about aptitude early. For me, this means educating members on the value of soft skills and leadership potential; sharing success stories of first-time leaders who've thrived and providing assurances, prior to appointment, that the appointee will receive the structured support and development required to succeed.
Will we lose experienced leaders?
There's a broader question here: if we shift too far toward aptitude, do we risk losing experienced leaders from the sector? Possibly. But perhaps the real risk is continuing to hire based on outdated criteria and missing out on the leaders who can truly shape the future.
We must recognise that experience and aptitude are not opposites. You can be experienced and have aptitude. But you can also have experience and no aptitude, and still get the job. That's where the real risk lies. Our sector needs both – experienced leaders who continue to grow, and new leaders who bring fresh thinking. The key is to assess both fairly and support them appropriately.
Hiring for attitude and aptitude is the future of recruitment, not just a trend. In a volatile economy, organisations need leaders who can pivot, collaborate and innovate. Experience alone won't deliver that. We need to move beyond the binary of ‘experience vs aptitude' and start asking better questions such as what does this role really require, what behaviours will drive success and what support will this leader need to thrive?
As I wrote in a previous article, no one has the perfect experience for what comes next. But many have the mindset, the values and the capability to lead through it.
Frazer Thouard is head of GatenbySanderson's local government practice
