Leadership is often described in terms of vision, strategy and decision making. Delivery, meanwhile, is frequently treated as something that happens further down the organisation. In reality, the relationship between leadership and delivery is far more connected and getting the balance right is essential if an organisation is going to perform effectively. Good leaders need to understand what is happening on the ground. They need enough knowledge of the work to ask the right questions, challenge assumptions, identify risks and make informed decisions. Leadership does not mean becoming detached from delivery or simply receiving reports about what other people are doing. The problem starts when understanding the work becomes doing the work. A leader who continually steps in to solve problems, take over tasks or make decisions that should sit elsewhere may feel that they are helping. In reality, they can unintentionally weaken the capability of the organisation. People stop taking ownership because they know someone else will step in. Decisions become concentrated at the top. Leaders become overloaded and the organisation becomes increasingly dependent on them. There is an important difference between being accountable for delivery and personally delivering everything. Effective leaders establish clarity about what needs to be achieved, why it matters and who is responsible for delivering it. They create the environment in which people have the authority, resources and support to do their jobs well. They provide direction when it is needed, remove barriers and intervene when there is a genuine issue that cannot be resolved at the appropriate level. That requires trust. Trust does not mean stepping away and hoping everything works out. It means setting clear expectations, establishing appropriate controls and allowing capable people to get on with the job. Where capability is lacking, the answer should not automatically be for the leader to take the work back. It may instead be to coach, develop, resource or reorganise so that the capability exists where it is needed. There is also a balance to be struck between leadership and expertise. Technical or professional knowledge matters, and experienced leaders will often have considerable expertise themselves. But being the most knowledgeable person in the room does not mean being the person who should make every decision or undertake every task. Organisations become stronger when knowledge and responsibility are distributed rather than concentrated. This is particularly important during transformation and organisational change. Change creates uncertainty, competing priorities and pressure to deliver quickly. Leaders can easily become drawn into the detail because they want to maintain control. Yet sustainable transformation depends on people throughout the organisation understanding their role, taking ownership and developing the confidence to make decisions. The strongest leaders therefore know when to step forward and when to step back. They remain visible and engaged without becoming the bottleneck. They challenge without undermining. They support without taking over. Most importantly, they recognise that their success should not be measured by how much they personally do, but by what the organisation is capable of achieving without them having to do it all. Leadership is not about being the person with all the answers. It is about creating the conditions in which the right people can provide the answers and deliver the results. Leaders lead. People deliver. The real skill is knowing where one ends and the other begins.

Restructuring an organisation often begins with a familiar question: should the organisation start again from the ground up, or should it build on the structure and capability already in place? There is no universal answer. The right approach depends on why the organisation is restructuring, what it needs to achieve and whether the existing organisation provides a sound foundation for the future. A restructure should not be an exercise in moving boxes on an organisation chart. It should be an opportunity to determine how the organisation needs to work. Starting again from first principles can be tempting. It creates an opportunity to challenge assumptions, remove legacy arrangements and design an organisation around its future strategy rather than its historical development. This can be particularly valuable where responsibilities have become fragmented, duplication has developed or the organisation has changed significantly since its existing structure was created. However, starting from ground zero does not mean ignoring what already exists. Organisations contain valuable knowledge, experience, relationships and capability that may not be immediately visible on an organisation chart. Removing these simply because they belong to the existing structure can create unnecessary disruption and potentially weaken the organisation rather than strengthen it. Building on what exists can provide greater continuity. It allows an organisation to retain successful teams, established expertise and effective ways of working while addressing the areas that are no longer fit for purpose. It can also make implementation easier because people are not being asked to adapt to an entirely new operating environment at the same time. The danger is that an incremental approach can become little more than rearranging the existing structure. Teams are renamed, responsibilities are moved and reporting lines are changed, but the fundamental problems remain. If the organisation's processes, decision making, accountability and ways of working are not examined, a new structure may simply reproduce old problems in a different form. The starting point should therefore be the organisation's purpose and future requirements, not its existing hierarchy. What outcomes does the organisation need to deliver? What capabilities will it require? Where should decisions be made? Which functions need to work more closely together? Where are there unnecessary duplication, gaps or barriers? What does the customer, resident, service user or wider organisation actually need from the service? These questions provide the basis for determining the functions and capabilities required. Only then should consideration be given to the structure needed to support them. This does not mean every restructure needs a blank sheet of paper. In many cases, the most effective approach is a combination of both. Start with a clear view of what the organisation needs to become, assess the existing organisation against that future state, retain what works and redesign what does not. That distinction matters. The objective is not to preserve the existing structure simply because it exists, nor to dismantle it simply because change is being proposed. The objective is to create an organisation that is capable of delivering its strategy effectively. People also need to be part of that assessment. Existing employees often understand the organisation's strengths and weaknesses better than any organisation chart can show. Their knowledge can identify practical issues, dependencies and opportunities that may otherwise be missed. Restructuring should therefore recognise what people bring to the organisation, rather than treating the existing workforce as another element to be moved around. Ultimately, successful restructuring is about more than organisational design. It is about creating the conditions for better performance. Structure, governance, processes, technology, capability and culture all need to work together. The question is therefore not simply whether to start again or build on what exists. It is whether the organisation is prepared to understand what it needs to become, objectively assess what it already has and make deliberate choices about what should stay, what should change and what needs to be built. Sometimes that means starting again. Sometimes it means building on a strong foundation. The important thing is to make that decision based on organisational need, not organisational habit. BONUS - Useful Questions to ask 1. Why are you restructuring? What problem are you trying to solve? What has changed to make the current structure no longer appropriate? Is the driver strategic, operational, financial, regulatory or cultural? What happens if nothing changes? 2. Is the current structure actually the problem? Are the problems caused by structure, or by processes, governance, systems or ways of working? Are responsibilities unclear? Is there duplication between teams? Are there gaps in accountability? Are decisions being made at the right level? 3. What needs to be different in the future? What does the organisation need to achieve over the next three to five years? What capabilities will be needed that do not currently exist? What will customers, residents or service users need from the organisation? What does the future operating model need to enable? 4. What is already working? Which parts of the current organisation perform well? Where is there strong capability and expertise? Which processes work effectively? What relationships or knowledge would be difficult to replace? What should definitely not be lost through restructuring? 5. Where are the weaknesses? Where is performance consistently below expectations? Where are there bottlenecks or unnecessary layers? Where does work cross organisational boundaries unnecessarily? Are resources aligned with priorities? Are teams spending too much time maintaining processes rather than delivering outcomes? 6. What do your people tell you? Do employees understand what their role is and how it contributes to organisational objectives? Where do people experience frustration or duplication? What do staff believe needs to change? Are there skills or capabilities that are being underused? What knowledge could be lost through restructuring? 7. What would starting again really mean? Would a blank sheet genuinely solve the underlying problems? What would you keep if you were designing the organisation from scratch? What would you remove? What would you create? Are you prepared for the disruption that a completely new structure could create? 8. What would building on the existing structure mean? Can the current organisation realistically deliver the future strategy? Which parts can be retained? Which parts need to change? Are you genuinely redesigning the organisation, or simply moving boxes on an organisation chart? Would incremental change address the underlying issues? 9. What evidence supports your decision? Have you used performance data? Have you mapped key processes? Have you considered demand and workload? Have you assessed current capability? Have you tested the assumptions behind the existing structure? 10. Finally, ask the most important question: If we were designing this organisation today, knowing what we now know, what would we design differently?

It is a simple question, but one that can create considerable confusion in project governance. In some organisations, the project start date is recorded when an idea first emerges. In others, it is when business case development begins. Some organisations only regard the project as having started once funding has been approved and delivery is authorised. These distinctions matter. The date a project is deemed to have started affects reporting, accountability, resource allocation, delivery timescales and how project performance is measured. The key question is whether developing an idea and building a business case should be considered project delivery, or whether they are activities that take place before the project formally begins. UK government project delivery guidance provides a useful framework for considering this distinction. The Government Functional Standard for Project Delivery defines a project as a unique, temporary management environment created to deliver one or more business products or outcomes. The standard also distinguishes between portfolios, programmes and projects. The Government's Teal Book expands on this standard and recognises that project delivery sits within a wider environment that includes policy development, evaluation, portfolios and programmes. Its structure separates project delivery from the wider work of developing and shaping proposals. This distinction is particularly important in local government and Mayoral Combined Authorities, where a potential project can spend considerable time in development before there is an agreed scope or a decision to proceed. An idea is not a project. An organisation may identify a problem, opportunity or strategic priority. It may then undertake research, stakeholder engagement, options appraisal, feasibility work and financial analysis. A business case may be developed and considered through several approval stages. All of this work is important. But it is not necessarily project delivery. The Government's current Guidance on developing business cases makes this distinction particularly relevant. The guidance uses the Five Case Model to develop business cases for projects and programmes. The process is designed to establish whether there is a compelling case for change, assess the available options and determine whether the preferred approach is commercially, financially and operationally deliverable. The Green Book describes appraisal as the process of assessing the costs, benefits and risks of different options for achieving government objectives. In other words, much of the activity undertaken during business case development is about deciding what should be done and whether it represents value for money. That is fundamentally different from managing an agreed project. A project manager cannot effectively manage delivery when the organisation is still deciding what the project should deliver. If the scope is still being developed, the preferred option has not been agreed, funding is uncertain and the delivery approach remains subject to change, the organisation is still developing the proposition. This does not mean that business case development should be unmanaged. It requires appropriate governance, clear ownership, defined decision points and sufficient project delivery expertise to test whether the proposed approach is realistic. Indeed, the Five Case Model includes a management case specifically concerned with how a proposal will be delivered. However, calling this activity the project can create some unintended consequences. A project may appear to have been running for eighteen months when, in reality, the first twelve months were spent developing and testing the proposal. A project may consequently appear to have missed its original milestones when those milestones were never intended to represent delivery activity. It can also make resource reporting difficult. If project teams are allocated against proposals that have not yet been approved, organisations can lose sight of the distinction between resources used to develop investment decisions and resources used to deliver approved projects. Most importantly, it can blur accountability. There is a fundamental difference between being responsible for developing a business case and being responsible for delivering an approved project. The skills, governance arrangements, risks and measures of success are not necessarily the same. A clearer approach is to recognise a defined development phase before formal project initiation. The terminology can vary. It might be called concept development, feasibility, business case development, pre project activity or project development. The label is less important than establishing a clear point at which the organisation moves from deciding whether and what to deliver into delivering an agreed proposition. Project initiation can then establish the delivery environment. This is where governance, roles and responsibilities, resources, risks, controls, milestones, dependencies, benefits and the delivery plan can be formally established. The project has something tangible to manage because there is now an agreed proposition against which delivery can be measured. Different project management methodologies will use different terminology and life cycle models. Agile, waterfall, PRINCE2 and government project delivery approaches do not all describe project stages in exactly the same way. The Government Functional Standard itself supports tailoring delivery approaches to the circumstances of the project. The principle, however, remains useful regardless of methodology. The starting point for a project should be clear enough that everyone understands what is being delivered, why it is being delivered, who is accountable and what authority exists to proceed. That does not make everything before that point less important. In fact, good project delivery depends on good development and appraisal. But development and delivery should not automatically be treated as the same thing. An idea starts a conversation. A business case tests the proposition. An approved scope creates something that can be managed. Project initiation should mark the transition from developing the proposition to delivering it. Getting that distinction right creates clearer governance, more meaningful reporting and greater accountability. It also gives organisations a much more accurate picture of how long their projects actually take and where time and resources are being spent.

Leadership is often incorrectly judged by visible measures. The size of a budget, the number of direct reports or the breadth of a portfolio can all create the impression of influence and success. Yet these are poor indicators of leadership effectiveness. The most successful leaders are not those who oversee the largest departments. They are those who build capable teams, deliver consistent outcomes and leave their organisations stronger than they found them. One of the most common misconceptions in organisational leadership is that larger teams automatically create greater value. As headcount increases, so do the demands placed on a leader's time, attention and judgement. Every additional member of staff requires direction, support, coaching, performance management and regular communication. There comes a point where a leader's capacity becomes stretched, reducing the time available to develop individuals, resolve issues and maintain close oversight. Without the right management structure and clear delegation, increasing the size of a team can reduce effectiveness rather than improve it. This is where the concept of empire building becomes relevant. It rarely begins with poor intent. A leader may assume responsibility for another function to improve coordination, absorb a team to address a capability gap or create additional roles to strengthen governance. Individually, these decisions can be justified. Collectively, they can create increasingly complex structures where success becomes associated with the size of a department rather than the value it delivers. The most effective leaders adopt a different mindset. Rather than asking how their function can grow, they ask how the organisation or team can perform better. Their focus is not on extending control but on increasing capability. They simplify processes, remove barriers to delivery and create the conditions in which others can succeed. Great leaders also recognise that capability exists across the organisation. They value the expertise of other teams, respect professional boundaries and understand that sustainable success depends on collaboration rather than ownership. No single function has a monopoly on good ideas or effective delivery. The distinction is significant. Leaders who build empires often accumulate responsibility, while leaders who build capability develop people. One increases organisational complexity, the other reduces it. One centralises decision making, the other empowers teams to make informed decisions. One creates dependency, the other creates resilience. Some of the highest performing teams are also the leanest. Their reputation is not built on organisational size but on professionalism, credibility and consistent delivery. They earn influence because colleagues trust them to solve problems, provide sound advice and deliver results. Their authority comes from competence rather than hierarchy. Conversely, organisations can become vulnerable when too much authority is concentrated in one area or one individual. Decision making slows, routine issues require unnecessary escalation and progress becomes dependent on a single leader's availability. Although these leaders may appear influential, they often become less agile and less effective over time. Perhaps the simplest measure of leadership can be expressed as: Leadership is measured by the capability you create, not the size of the team you control. Sustainable success is built on achieving results, earning trust and reducing unnecessary complexity, not on expanding organisational structures. As organisations continue to navigate financial constraints, increasing demand and continual transformation, this distinction has never been more important. The leaders who will have the greatest long term impact are those who invest in people, strengthen organisational capability and enable others to perform at their best. Their legacy is measured not by the number of people they managed, but by the capability they created. A useful question for every leader is therefore this: Could your team continue to perform successfully without you for a month? If the answer is yes, you have created capability. If the answer is no, you may have created dependency. History rarely celebrates those who built the largest departments. It remembers the leaders who developed talented people, solved meaningful problems and created organisations that continued to thrive long after they had moved on. Ultimately, great leadership is not about building empires. It is about building capability.

The establishment of No. 10 North marks a significant development in English devolution. While the announcement has understandably generated political debate, its greatest significance lies in what it could mean for the future relationship between central and local government. For combined authorities, councils and public sector leaders, this is more than a symbolic move. It has the potential to reshape the narrative across England. For decades, local government has argued that decisions affecting communities are often best made by those who understand the needs of those communities. Successive devolution deals have gradually transferred powers away from Whitehall, but progress has often been incremental. The creation of No. 10 North signals a stronger commitment to regional leadership and a recognition that economic growth cannot be driven solely from Westminster. The first question many leaders will ask is whether this represents a genuine shift in power or simply a change in geography. The answer will depend on the decisions that follow. If greater responsibility for housing, transport, skills, planning and economic development is accompanied by increased funding and greater local autonomy, combined authorities could find themselves with an unprecedented opportunity to shape the future of their regions. If not, No. 10 North risks becoming a powerful symbol without delivering meaningful change. Combined authorities that already have mature governance arrangements are likely to be well positioned to benefit. Organisations that have invested in strong leadership, effective scrutiny, robust programme management and clear decision making frameworks will be better equipped to manage larger portfolios of investment and deliver ambitious regional programmes. The ability to demonstrate delivery confidence will become just as important as presenting an ambitious vision. Heron House by Anthony O'Neil - license For local authorities that have not yet secured advanced devolution agreements, the pace of change may accelerate. There is likely to be increased pressure to demonstrate collaboration across geographical boundaries, strengthen partnerships and develop credible proposals that align with national priorities. Authorities that are able to articulate a compelling economic narrative, supported by evidence and realistic delivery plans, may find themselves in a stronger position when future opportunities emerge. One area that should not be overlooked is programme management. As funding becomes increasingly linked to outcomes rather than activity, the importance of strong governance, benefits realisation, risk management and assurance will continue to grow. The Programme Management Office is no longer simply an administrative function. It provides the discipline that enables organisations to deliver complex programmes with confidence, transparency and accountability. As devolution evolves, those capabilities will become essential rather than desirable. There are also important implications for organisational design. Combined authorities will need to consider whether their existing structures, skills and capacity are sufficient to manage expanded responsibilities. This may require investment in commercial expertise, digital capability, transformation professionals and experienced programme leaders who can coordinate multiple workstreams while maintaining strategic focus. The opportunity extends beyond combined authorities themselves. Local councils, public sector partners, businesses and voluntary organisations all have a role to play in delivering regional growth. Effective collaboration will become increasingly important as programmes span organisational boundaries and require shared ownership of outcomes. The authorities that succeed are likely to be those that build strong partnerships rather than working in isolation. Having worked within a Mayoral Combined Authority during a period of organisational transformation, I have seen first hand that devolution is about far more than structures and funding. Success depends on governance, organisational capability, programme delivery and strong partnerships. As the Government sets a new direction, these foundations will become even more important. Devolution is no longer simply about requesting additional powers from central government. It is about demonstrating the capability to use those powers effectively. Accountability, delivery and measurable outcomes will increasingly define success.

Most local authorities should now be preparing for their mid year point reviews. Budgets have been agreed, transformation programmes are in full swing, and service demand continues to evolve. It is also the point where many organisations begin to see whether the ambitions set in April are translating into measurable outcomes. A mid-year review should never be viewed as simply a financial health check or an exercise in reporting progress. It is an opportunity to pause, reflect and ask some honest questions before the final six months of the year. Waiting until year-end to address emerging issues often leaves little opportunity to recover performance, whereas acting now provides time to adjust priorities, reallocate resources and strengthen delivery. The following ten-point checklist provides a practical framework for leaders, programme managers and senior officers to assess whether their organisation remains on track. 1. Are your strategic priorities still the right priorities? The environment in local government can change quickly especially after an election. Similarly new legislation, funding announcements, political priorities or increased service demand may require organisations to rethink their focus. Ask yourself: Do our current priorities still reflect the needs of our communities? Are our resources aligned to these priorities? Should any programmes be accelerated, paused or stopped? 2. Is your transformation programme delivering measurable benefits? Transformation should deliver more than activity; it should deliver tangible improvements. Mid-year is the ideal point to review whether expected benefits are being realised. Consider: Have anticipated efficiencies been achieved? Are service improvements visible? Have any benefits become unrealistic? Are projects still delivering value for money? If the answer is no, it may be time to reset expectations or reshape delivery. 3. Are your finances still on track? Financial pressures continue to challenge local authorities across the country. Reviewing budgets at the halfway point enables organisations to identify potential overspends before they become unmanageable. Review: Budget forecasts Savings delivery Income assumptions Demand-led cost pressures Financial risks Early intervention often prevents more difficult decisions later in the year. 4. Is your governance supporting delivery? Effective governance should enable timely decisions rather than create unnecessary delays. Programme Boards, leadership teams and governance forums should be providing clear oversight and removing barriers to delivery. Ask: Are decisions being made promptly? Is accountability clear? Are risks escalated appropriately? Is assurance providing confidence rather than bureaucracy? Strong governance creates confidence across both officers and elected members. 5. Does your workforce have the capacity to deliver? Even the strongest strategies depend on having the right people in the right roles. Take time to assess: Recruitment challenges Skills shortages Leadership capacity Staff wellbeing Succession planning Supporting employees through change remains one of the greatest contributors to successful transformation. 6. Are your risks still current? Risk registers should be living documents rather than historic records. New risks emerge throughout the year, while others reduce or disappear altogether. Review whether: Existing risks remain relevant New operational or strategic risks have emerged Mitigating actions remain appropriate Risk owners are actively managing issues Effective risk management is about anticipation rather than reaction. 7. Are your performance measures telling the whole story? Performance dashboards provide valuable information, but numbers alone rarely explain why performance is improving or declining. Look beyond the RAG ratings by asking: What is driving performance? Are targets still realistic? Are the measures still meaningful? What lessons can be learned? Understanding the story behind the data leads to better decision-making. 8. Are residents experiencing better outcomes? Ultimately, every programme, project and service improvement should make a positive difference to residents. Consider: Customer satisfaction Service accessibility Complaints and feedback Community engagement Quality of service delivery Success should always be measured through the experience of those who use public services. 9. Have you communicated effectively? Successful organisations communicate consistently throughout change. Staff should understand not only what is changing, but why it matters. Review whether: Leaders remain visible Staff feel informed Members receive timely updates Successes are being celebrated Challenges are communicated honestly Open communication builds trust and reduces uncertainty. 10. What must be delivered before 31 March? Perhaps the most important question is the simplest. Every directorate, programme and service should be clear about what success looks like by the end of the financial year. Identify: The critical deliverables Key decisions that cannot be delayed Programmes requiring additional support Activities that no longer add value Clarity today creates momentum for the months ahead. A successful mid-year review is not about proving that every target is green or every project is on schedule. It is about creating the space for honest conversations, challenging assumptions and making informed decisions while there is still time to influence outcomes. The strongest organisations are those willing to adapt. They recognise that plans made in April may need refining by July, and they have the confidence to adjust course when circumstances change. By taking a structured approach to reviewing strategy, governance, finance, workforce, performance and resident outcomes, leaders can strengthen delivery and improve the likelihood of finishing the financial year successfully. The question is not whether your organisation has reached the halfway point. The question is whether you are prepared to use it as an opportunity to finish stronger than you started.

Organisational change rarely fails because the strategy is wrong. More often, it fails because the foundations are not established early enough. The first 100 days of any transformation programme set the tone for everything that follows. During this period, leaders have a unique opportunity to build confidence, create momentum and establish the governance needed to deliver sustainable change. Whether your organisation is embarking on restructuring, implementing a new operating model or responding to legislative reform, a structured approach during the first 100 days can significantly improve the likelihood of success. Days 1–30: Build the Foundations Once the change action is decided upon, the initial phase is about creating clarity. Employees need to understand why change is happening, what the organisation is trying to achieve and how success will be measured. This is also the time to establish robust governance, identify key stakeholders and assess organisational readiness. Checklist Define and communicate the case for change. Establish governance, roles and decision-making responsibilities. Identify sponsors, stakeholders and change champions. Assess organisational readiness and cultural strengths. Develop a communication and engagement plan, ensuring staff can provide feedback. Agree clear measures of success and programme milestones. Strong foundations create confidence. Without them, organisations often experience confusion, duplication and resistance before the programme has gained momentum. Days 31–60: Mobilise the Organisation With the foundations in place, attention turns to engagement. Successful transformation is not something that happens to people; it happens with them. Leaders should focus on meaningful communication, visible leadership and empowering managers to lead conversations within their teams. Quick wins are particularly valuable during this phase. They demonstrate progress, reinforce confidence and show employees that change is producing tangible outcomes. Checklist Deliver regular and honest programme updates. Equip managers with the tools to lead change locally. Encourage two-way communication and feedback. Celebrate early successes and recognise positive behaviours. Monitor risks and address emerging issues promptly. Review progress against agreed milestones. Employees are far more likely to support change when they feel informed, involved and listened to throughout the journey. Days 61–100: Embed and Sustain As implementation progresses, leaders should shift their focus from activity to sustainability. The objective is to ensure that new behaviours, processes and ways of working become part of everyday practice rather than short-term initiatives. Measuring progress is essential, but organisations should look beyond project milestones. Employee engagement, customer outcomes and service performance often provide the strongest indicators that change is becoming embedded. Checklist Review benefits realised against programme objectives. Reinforce new behaviours through leadership visibility. Continue stakeholder engagement and feedback. Capture lessons learned and adjust where necessary. Recognise individual and team contributions. Develop plans to sustain improvements beyond the programme. Three Questions Every Leader Should Ask Throughout the first 100 days, leaders should continually reflect on three simple questions: Do our people understand why we are changing? Are our leaders owning the course of change and inspiring confidence? Are we measuring meaningful outcomes rather than simply completing activities? If the answer to any of these questions is no, it is worth addressing the issue before moving to the next phase. Organisational change is not a single event but a continuous process of leadership, communication and engagement. Investing time in the first 100 days creates the conditions for long-term success, helping organisations move beyond implementation to genuine and lasting transformation. What if You Don't Have 100 Days? Not every organisation has the luxury of a 100-day implementation window. Regulatory deadlines, financial pressures, organisational restructures and crisis situations often demand change at a much faster pace. While the timeline may be compressed, the principles remain the same. Leaders must still establish a clear case for change, communicate consistently, engage stakeholders, provide visible leadership and maintain effective governance. Skipping these fundamentals to save time rarely accelerates delivery—it often creates confusion, resistance and costly delays later in the programme. Whether your transformation lasts 30 days, 100 days or a year, success depends less on the length of the programme and more on the discipline with which the core principles of effective change management are applied.

Culture is often described as "the way we do things around here". It shapes behaviour, decision making, customer experience, employee engagement and ultimately organisational performance. Yet many transformation programmes focus heavily on structures, systems and processes while overlooking the cultural shifts needed to sustain change. New operating models can be implemented in months. Changing culture can take years. The organisations that succeed understand that culture change is not a communications campaign or a series of workshops. It is a deliberate and sustained leadership activity. There is no magic solution, but there is a proven formula. Organisations that successfully change their culture tend to follow the same ten steps. 1. Define the Culture You Want Before changing culture, leaders must clearly articulate the desired future state. Without a clear vision, culture change becomes vague and inconsistent. Ask: What behaviours do we want to see? What values should guide decision making? What type of organisation are we trying to become? 2. Understand Your Current Reality Many organisations underestimate the gap between their stated values and lived experience. Gather evidence through employee feedback, engagement surveys, interviews and observation. Listen carefully to what employees say, but also examine what they do. Real cultural change begins with an honest assessment of the current position. 3. Secure Visible Leadership Commitment Employees watch leaders far more closely than they read corporate communications. Leaders must consistently demonstrate the behaviours they expect from others. If senior leaders do not model the desired culture, change efforts will quickly lose credibility. Culture change starts at the top. 4. Connect Culture to Purpose People are more likely to embrace change when they understand why it matters. Link cultural aspirations to organisational goals, customer outcomes and community impact. When employees see the connection between culture and purpose, engagement increases significantly. 5. Engage Employees Early Culture cannot be imposed. It must be built collectively. Involve employees in defining behaviours, identifying barriers and shaping solutions. Participation creates ownership and ownership drives commitment. The most successful cultural transformations are done with people, not to them. 6. Align Systems and Processes Many organisations ask employees to behave differently while rewarding the same behaviours as before. Recruitment, performance management, recognition schemes and promotion processes must support the desired culture. If systems remain unchanged, old habits will continue. Structures should reinforce culture rather than undermine it. 7. Empower Middle Managers Middle managers play a critical role in translating strategy into daily practice. They influence team behaviours, reinforce expectations and shape employee experience. Investing in leadership capability at this level is often one of the most important drivers of successful culture change. 8. Communicate Consistently Communication should be regular, authentic and two way. Employees need to understand what is changing, why it matters and what is expected of them. More importantly, they need opportunities to ask questions and provide feedback. Remember - Consistency builds trust. 9. Measure Progress What gets measured gets managed. Culture should be measured with the same discipline as financial or operational performance. Track indicators such as employee engagement, retention, customer satisfaction, leadership behaviours and organisational performance. Regular measurement helps identify where progress is being made and where additional support is required. 10. Maintain Momentum One of the biggest mistakes organisations make is treating culture change as a project with a fixed end date. Culture requires ongoing reinforcement. Celebrate successes, recognise positive behaviours and continue investing in leadership development. Sustainable change is achieved through consistency over time. Final Thoughts Changing organisational culture is challenging because it involves changing habits, beliefs and behaviours that may have existed for years. However, organisations that approach culture change systematically are far more likely to achieve lasting results. The winning formula is simple: define the destination, engage people, align systems, demonstrate leadership and maintain momentum. Culture is not changed by slogans on a wall. It is changed by thousands of daily actions that collectively shape how an organisation thinks, behaves and performs. When culture and strategy work together, transformation becomes significantly easier and far more sustainable.

As England's devolution agenda continues to gather pace, Strategic Authorities and Combined Authorities are taking on greater responsibility for economic growth, transport, housing, regeneration, skills, and public service reform. Much of the discussion surrounding these new organisations focuses on governance frameworks, assurance processes, constitutions, and delegated powers. While these are all important, ensuring the right behaviours and values seems to have taken a back seat. I write this article with a degree of irony. For years, I questioned whether the Nolan Principles had become outdated and even joked that one day I might undertake a PhD to rewrite them for the modern public sector. However, my recent assignment within a Mayoral Combined Authority has led me to a different conclusion. Whilst governance structures have evolved significantly since 1995, the leadership challenges remain much the same. Building trust, making evidence-based decisions, and maintaining public confidence are as important today as they were thirty years ago. The Nolan Principles were introduced in 1995 to establish standards in public life. More than three decades later, they remain highly relevant. For Strategic Authorities and Combined Authorities, they provide far more than a code of conduct; they offer a practical framework for effective leadership, stronger partnerships, and good governance. What are the Nolan Principles? Putting People Before Politics - Selflessness Strategic Authorities exist to improve outcomes for residents, communities, and businesses. Selflessness requires leaders to place the public interest above organisational, political, or personal priorities. This can be particularly challenging when multiple councils and partners are involved, each with their own ambitions and pressures. The most effective leaders recognise that regional success often requires looking beyond local boundaries and focusing on what delivers the greatest collective benefit. Trust Is Earned Through Integrity Trust is one of the most valuable assets any public organisation possesses. Combined Authorities often oversee significant public investment and complex partnership arrangements involving local government, central government, businesses, and delivery partners. Integrity ensures decisions are made fairly, transparently, and free from inappropriate influence. When stakeholders believe leaders are acting with integrity, collaboration becomes easier and confidence in decision-making grows. Better Decisions Start with Better Evidence - Objectivity Whether allocating funding, prioritising transport schemes, determining investment opportunities, or setting strategic priorities, decisions should be based on evidence rather than assumption, influence, or political expediency. Objectivity ensures resources are directed where they can have the greatest impact. It also provides assurance to residents, partners, and government that decisions are being made through a fair and robust process. In an environment where resources are increasingly constrained, evidence-based decision-making has never been more important. Accountability Builds Public Confidence One of the greatest challenges facing Strategic Authorities is ensuring clarity around who is responsible for what. Residents often see a single public sector landscape, while behind the scenes responsibilities may be shared between constituent councils, elected Mayors, and partner organisations. Accountability requires leaders to own decisions, explain outcomes, and accept scrutiny. Organisations that embrace accountability build credibility with stakeholders and strengthen public confidence in the decisions they make. Openness Strengthens Partnerships Combined Authorities are built on collaboration. Success depends on effective relationships between councils, businesses, government departments, community organisations, and residents. Openness creates the transparency needed to support those relationships. This means being clear about priorities, honest about challenges, and transparent in decision-making. When organisations operate openly, they create stronger partnerships, reduce misunderstanding, and encourage greater engagement from stakeholders. Honesty Creates Credibility Leaders do not gain trust by pretending challenges do not exist. They gain trust by communicating openly about risks, constraints, and difficult decisions. Strategic Authorities often operate in complex environments where competing priorities, financial pressures, and delivery challenges are unavoidable. Honest communication helps stakeholders understand the reality of the situation and creates credibility, even when decisions may not be universally popular. Authentic leadership is built upon honesty. Leadership Sets the Culture The behaviour of leaders establishes the culture of an organisation. Policies, governance frameworks, and operating models are important, but people ultimately take their cues from what leaders say and do. When senior leaders consistently demonstrate selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, and honesty, those behaviours become embedded across the organisation. Strong leadership transforms principles from words in a governance document into everyday practice. Good Governance Is More Than a Structure Chart As Strategic Authorities continue to evolve, there will rightly be significant attention given to governance arrangements, decision-making frameworks, and organisational design. However, the most successful authorities will understand that governance is ultimately about behaviour rather than bureaucracy. The Nolan Principles provide a timeless framework for navigating complexity, building trust, and delivering effective public service. They help leaders make better decisions, create stronger partnerships, and maintain public confidence in an increasingly complex governance landscape. For Mayors, Chief Executives, Directors, elected members, and senior leaders, the challenge is not whether these principles remain relevant. The challenge is ensuring they are visible in every decision, every partnership, and every conversation. Because good governance is not only defined by the structures we create—it is defined by the behaviours we choose to demonstrate.

The establishment of new Mayoral Strategic Authorities and Combined Authorities represents one of the most significant developments in English devolution. While much attention is often focused on geography, powers, funding, and political leadership, governance arrangements will ultimately determine whether the new organisation is able to make decisions efficiently and deliver meaningful outcomes for residents. Good governance should enable delivery, not become a barrier to it. Organisations that invest time in designing practical governance arrangements from the outset are more likely to build effective partnerships, maintain momentum, and avoid unnecessary delays. As authorities across England consider new devolution arrangements, there are five governance considerations that deserve particular attention. 1. Create Structures That Support Decision-Making Governance exists to facilitate decisions, not to delay them. New authorities should establish clear pathways for decision-making, escalation, and accountability from the beginning. Unclear approval routes, overlapping responsibilities, or excessive committee structures can quickly slow progress and create frustration among partners. Effective governance provides clarity on who decides, when decisions are made, and how disagreements are resolved. The objective should always be to enable timely, informed, and transparent decisions that keep programmes moving forward. 2. Build Strong Partnership Arrangements A Combined Authority or Mayoral Strategic Authority brings together organisations with different priorities, histories, and operating cultures. Governance arrangements must therefore support genuine partnership working rather than simply formal compliance. Successful authorities create opportunities for constructive challenge, collective problem-solving, and shared ownership of outcomes. Governance frameworks should encourage collaboration between political leaders, senior officers, delivery teams, and external stakeholders while maintaining clear accountability for decisions. 3. Design Governance That Works Across Political Boundaries Political diversity is a reality within many devolved areas. Different administrations may have varying priorities, local pressures, and political perspectives. Governance arrangements should be robust enough to withstand political change and flexible enough to support constructive discussion where views differ. The most effective structures focus on shared strategic outcomes, transparent decision-making, and evidence-based discussions. This helps maintain momentum and continuity even when political priorities evolve over time. 4. Avoid Duplication and Governance Overload One of the most common risks in new organisations is the creation of multiple layers of governance that replicate existing arrangements. Individual councils and constituent authorities already operate within established governance frameworks. Adding unnecessary committees, reporting requirements, or approval stages can increase administrative burden without improving oversight. The best governance models complement existing arrangements rather than duplicate them. They focus on adding value, providing strategic coordination, and ensuring accountability while avoiding unnecessary bureaucracy. 5. Balance Assurance with Agility Strong governance provides assurance, manages risk, and protects public investment. However, excessive control can reduce flexibility and slow delivery. Authorities should seek an appropriate balance between oversight and agility. Governance arrangements should provide sufficient scrutiny and transparency while still allowing programmes and projects to respond to changing circumstances. Achieving this balance helps organisations maintain pace without compromising accountability. The success of any new Mayoral Strategic Authority or Combined Authority will depend as much on its governance arrangements as its powers or funding settlements. Effective governance encourages collaboration, supports robust decision-making, reduces duplication, and enables delivery. When governance is designed well, it becomes largely invisible—providing the structure and confidence needed for leaders to focus on what matters most: improving outcomes for communities, businesses, and residents across the region. My biggest piece of advice is Keep it simple!