Understanding the organisation and early cultural challenges

A Local government reform perspective: creating a cohesive culture

When Anna arrived at Northamptonshire County, she encountered a highly siloed organisation. Directors often operated independently, with little trust between teams, and the leadership lacked cohesion. Financial management was poor, and there was no effective organisational leadership team. Staff and senior management alike were caught in a culture of denial, often unwilling to face the realities of the organisation. The top-down structure meant that although the Chief Executive had a clear vision, it was largely unshared and unimplemented across the authority, with minimal accountability and follow-up. This combination of structural weakness and cultural dysfunction meant that problems were not only unaddressed but, in many cases, not openly acknowledged, creating a disconnect between leadership intent and organisational reality.

What did the organisation feel like on the inside when you arrived?

• Anna described it as disjointed and distrustful, with directors “almost knowing best” but operating in isolation. This resulted in limited collaboration, inconsistent decision-making, and a lack of shared ownership across the organisation, with teams prioritising their own areas rather than collective outcomes.

What were the early warning signs that culture, not just finances, was fundamentally broken?

• Dysfunction was visible in siloed decision-making, lack of accountability, and minimal follow-up. Decisions were often made without wider input or challenge, and there was little evidence of collective responsibility for outcomes once those decisions had been taken.

• The Section 114 (bankruptcy) notices reflected both financial mismanagement and deeper cultural and governance failures. They exposed not only weaknesses in financial control but also a broader inability to confront issues, escalate risks, and take corrective action in a timely way.

Working with commissioners

• Best value reviews were challenging but ultimately provided clarity and control. They created a structured framework for understanding the scale of the issues and establishing a more disciplined approach to governance and performance.

• Commissioners’ involvement allowed leadership to assert boundaries with members, bringing a sense of relief and normalcy. This external oversight helped reset expectations, enabling officers to focus on delivery while reinforcing clearer roles and responsibilities between members and leadership.

How did staff respond?

• Reactions varied: some staff were enthusiastic, some mourned the legacy of their previous organisations, and some were initially resistant but later became advocates. These differing responses reflected both the emotional impact of change and varying levels of trust in the organisation’s ability to improve.

• Anna emphasised that communication was critical. Structured Q&A sessions and the use of “change champions” fostered two-way dialogue. This approach ensured that staff felt heard as well as informed, helping to surface concerns early and build a sense of shared journey.

• Early surveys were conducted within three months to measure how well staff understood the organisation’s vision and priorities. These provided a baseline for cultural change, allowing leadership to track progress and adjust their approach based on real feedback rather than assumptions.