As outlined above, there has been a rise in interest recently in investigating a new age of leadership theory. Therefore following a discussion of the theoretical and notional context within which place leadership literature exist, this section will narrow the focus to look more precisely at what broad categories of contemporary place leadership research is emerging, how place leadership is being defined and, on a more practical level, how, and by whom, place leadership is being performed.
A substantial body of research has examined the role that leadership plays in place prosperity (Collinge & Gibney, 2010; Stimson et al., 2009) and place shaping (Collinge
& Gibney, 2010). This research has discovered that effective place leaders are those who are strategic visionaries and who can monitor local performance to be able to respond to change (Stimson et al., 2009). Similarly, another body of research has looked at transformational leadership. For example, Bailey et al. (2010) investigated how Europe’s mature regions can utilise their local leadership capacities and capabilities to overcome the challenges of economic restructuring and embark upon a path of sustainable growth. Related to these are studies which have examined the importance of effective leadership in peripheral places (Kroehn et al., 2010), as well as for increasing the resilience of places (Trickett & Lee, 2010). Much of this research is based on comparative case studies to show how place leadership differs between different places (Budd & Sancino, 2016; Beer & Sotarauta, 2015). As described above, place leadership
Chapter 3
49
is driven by national policy structures, local agency and the particularities of place. This includes local and regional government forms and the type and style of local leaders.
Mouritzen and Svara (2002) refer to four distinct forms of local government. These include the ‘strong mayor form’ whereby an elected mayor has complete control of all executive tasks; the ‘committee-leader form’ whereby a political leader, together with their elected committee members, perform executive functions together with the CEO;
the ‘collective form’ of shared responsibility across the executive committee; and the
‘council-manager form’ whereby the CEO is chosen by the elected members to manage the city (ibid, p.55-56). These local government forms, together with the individual character traits of leaders, shape the leadership style that is adopted (John & Cole 1999).
To this end, Goleman (2000; p.3) identifies six styles of leadership:
1. “Coercive: the leader demands compliance (‘do what I tell you’)”;
2. “Authoritative: the leader mobilizes people toward a vision (‘come with me’)”;
3. “Affiliative: the leader creates harmony and builds emotional bonds (‘people come first’)”;
4. “Democratic: the leader forges consensus through participation (‘what do you think?’)”;
5. “Pacesetting: the leader sets high standards for performance (‘do as I do, now’)”;
6. “Coaching: the leader develops people for the future (‘try this’)”.
However, beyond leaders who occupy traditional leadership roles, place leadership is commonly defined more broadly as consisting of members of the state, non-state, business, community, voluntary and faith sectors (Liddle, 2010).
To this end, Hambleton (2014) identifies five place leadership types:
1. Political: politicians who are elected by the public on a mandate;
2. Public Managerial: public servants who possess professional and managerial expertise;
3. Community: people with civic interests including community activists, voluntary sector leaders, religious leaders and higher education leaders;
4. Business: local businesses and entrepreneurs;
5. Trade Union: trade union representatives elected by their members.
50
Place leadership is therefore viewed as a practice that involves a whole network of actors operating at multiple and varying levels and scales (Stimson et al., 2002; Beer &
Clower, 2014). Place leadership is also described as a collaborative and inclusive process rather than based on traditional positions and hierarchies. As such, the term
‘informal governance’ is often used to describe a web of ‘un-codified’ and ‘non-institutional’ activity taking place outside of ‘formal governance’ (Flinders et al, 2016b). Similarly, Sotarauta et al (2012; p.207) characterise place leadership as the
“fragmented or shared actions, events and incidents amongst a whole series of organisations and leaders, rather than the processes that simply flow top-down”. Place leadership has also been referred to as leadership that is based on power sharing, is flexible, and is driven by trust and a willingness to work together (Stimson et al., 2009).
Furthermore, Beer and Clower (2014) note how place leadership differs from leadership generally by the way that place leadership emanates from local communities. Similarly, Peters (2012) positions place leadership as originating from the social space of place, and Sotarauta (2014) from the social relationships within place. To this end, Hambleton (2014) draws upon the notion of ‘civic leadership’ to illustrate how place leadership should be an inclusive process that is modified to meet the needs of specific cities and neighbourhoods. This work utilises many concepts relating to the inclusive city such as Fainstein’s (2010) proposal of the ‘just city’ and Lefebvre’s (1968) ‘right to the city’
(also see Harvey, 2008).
However, with an extensive array of actors and institutions at various levels and scales involved in leading a place, this can create a blurring of roles and responsibilities (Beer
& Clower, 2014). To this end, Beer & Clower (2014) present ‘absent leadership’ as a more pressing concern for contemporary places than ‘poor leadership’. Others also highlight this in relation to the global economy that, with no geographical confinement, creates issues of accountability as leaders are less inclined to assume responsibility for outcomes (The Third Warwick Commission, 2012). Others add to this by highlighting the strains of leading on an individual’s time, resource and career development (Gray &
Sinclair, 2005) that, even with the best intentions, can limit the extent to which someone can commit to thinking about their duty to lead a place alongside their leadership responsibilities within their own organisation. Furthermore, whilst claiming inclusivity, place leaders continue to be described as those who “tend to possess a greater range and depth of assets… than other actors” (Sotarauta & Beer, 2016; p.3).
Chapter 3
51