Ever thought of being the city manager for a London borough? Wandsworth perhaps, with its new Battersea Power Station development. Or Bath, where the entire city is a World Heritage site. Maybe Devon, with its miles of coastline and abundance of quaint cottages. Or Manchester, so you can watch Man City on the weekend. If you're looking for a change of scene, a move to U.K. local government might be just for you.

U.K. local government tends to be outward-looking and, certainly for the bigger jobs, would likely respond to your application with much interest and curiosity. You’d likely find the visa process straightforward. U.K. city management roles are interesting, as those with larger populations (over 100,000) usually combine both city and county functions into a ‘unitary council’ or London borough. Their city managers, or chief executives, tend to be highly skilled but recruiting for some roles has been difficult in some places.

U.K. local government is similar in many ways to U.S. local government. Sure, coastal areas and rural areas will have different priorities than big cities, which is the same for the United States and the United Kingdom. But broadly, the issues, dynamics, public involvement, and structures are similar.

Different Accents, Same Headaches

Both U.S. and the U.K. local governments are tackling the same issues: affordable housing, economic development, revitalizing town and city centres, encouraging active travel, increasing equity, responding to climate change, performance improvement, and, of course, funding to meet resident expectations.

Driving Improvement from Within

A notable difference between the United States and the United Kingdom is the role of national government. The U.S. federal government won't directly involve itself in the running of councils. Across the Pond, there’s no Home Rule versus Dillon’s Rule —all U.K. local governments have the same relationship with central government (with the exception of the city of London; more on that later).

The U.K.'s national government will, however, involve itself in the funding, priorities, and structure of U.K. local government. This can be driven by the need for ‘efficiency savings,’ or perceived or real failures. It can even take all executive power away from a specific council if it is seen to be failing its electorate, mainly due to uncontrolled spending. While such interference could be seen as undemocratic (local people voted for their councilmembers after all) there are some good reasons for this —not least because if a council went bankrupt (not unknown) it would be the national government that would have to bail them out.

There are other advantages to the relationship —especially that the threat of government intervention means towns and cities compare themselves with each other, so they are less parochial perhaps than some councils in the United States —and less likely to get away with failing their electorate or with any corruption for any length of time. It also means U.K. local government has developed a strong self-supporting and self-improving network.

Politics in Plain Sight

Another notable difference is the political nature of U.K. local government. The large majority of councils in the United Kingdom are formally political. This may appear to be a negative force, but it does provide a ‘brand’ for councilmembers, a disciplinary structure, and an additional external support network. Senior party politicians at the regional or national level may intervene behind the scenes in a failing council to protect its brand by unofficially advising members on how to reverse the decline and prevent the embarrassment of national government intervention.

This party political system is an important difference; nearly all major councils vote on issues on a party basis. With the exception of urban planning issues, councilmembers will generally vote in party blocs —even on planning (considered a quasi-judicial function), politics can influence a vote. This is positive in terms of predictability and political accountability in local elections, and it avoids individuals hijacking issues for personal or random reasons.

Local government staff in both the United States and the United Kingdom, however, are expected to act in a politically impartial way; both have codes of conduct to ensure that they do.

Tomayto, Tomahto... Manager or Chief Exec?

The structures of U.S. and U.K. local governments are very similar. The United Kingdom has county, city, and town councils. But ‘city’ tends to mean a much larger urban conurbation in the United Kingdom, or at least that it boasts a cathedral. The United States, in contrast, seems to use the term more loosely, calling a place a ‘city’ even if it takes just five minutes to traverse its downtown. Working for Malibu City Council, I was surprised that it is essentially rural with a population of not much more than 10,000.

Like the United States, some of the larger U.K. cities have directly elected mayors who hold executive power, but this isn’t a ‘strong mayor’ model because the mayor does not involve him or herself in staffing matters (or at least shouldn’t and won’t formally). Generally, in the United Kingdom, a ‘mayor’ will be a ceremonial figure —wearing red robes and big gold chain. When they're not chairing the main council meetings, they’ll be spending their time greeting dignitaries, planting trees, cutting ribbons, and giving prizes to children. Outside of the big cities with a directly elected mayor, most councils have a council-manager form of government. Names differ though; the most senior councilmember will be the ‘council leader,’ who will almost always be the leader of the largest political group of councilmembers, except where there's no clear party majority, in which case, there will be a negotiation.

Many of the apparent differences between the two countries are semantic, but you’d soon get used to it.

Anyone moving to the city of London Corporation—the government in the heart of the wider metropolitan area —would find a whole different ball game. The names, structures, and conventions differ from elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The local government there dates from 1067, and even today, the King needs permission to pass through it. ‘Chief Commoner’? ‘’City Remembrancer’? or ‘ward beadles’ anyone? —the centuries of tradition and roles might be more of a challenge to work through  but worth it to run a global financial capital!

More Seats, More Say

The number of councilmembers is also an area of difference. While many city councils in the United States might have five to 15 councilmembers, U.K. local government tends to have 50 or more —numbers more like that of New York City or Chicago. But there is safety in numbers; if you fall out with a few in the United Kingdom, it won't make much difference (so long as it's not the council leader): in the United States you may find your contract abruptly ended.

Big Tent Councils: City and County Combined

Another important difference, as noted, is population size of a council area, which tend to be larger in the United Kingdom in part as a result of national government-led drive for efficiency. A move is currently underway to combine smaller councils into larger ones, which includes combining county and smaller municipalities (district councils) within its area. The national government has recently said that a population of half a million would be considered a typical size.

At the Helm of a Bigger Ship

The staffing structure in the United Kingdom and United States councils is largely similar, although with the combining of county and district functions, the responsibilities tend to be broader, and so roles are more demanding. London local government is perhaps similar to NYC —it is divided into large boroughs —with a directly elected mayor who has pan-London responsibilities (notably on policing and transport). Typically, a larger London borough would have a budget in the region of $3 billion or more. Typical staff numbers would be around 5,000 FTE in London, depending on how many services are handled under contract by the private sector.

A handful of councils have independently combined their workforces (but not their democratic structures) to make significant budget savings. Wandsworth and Richmond councils are the most successful example of this. (Indeed, if we look for Transatlantic success stories, Richmond’s soccer team has greatly benefitted from American talent!)

Finding Your Inner Ted Lasso

For U.K. chief executives, I know of only one of you who got a green card for being an alien of extraordinary ability’; it's not easy to be allowed to work here in the United States, but not impossible. In contrast, U.S. managers looking for a visa sponsorship are likely to find the immigration door swings much wider.

So, if you’re up for the challenge to do for U.K. local government what Ted Lasso did for Richmond’s soccer, you would find U.K. local government curious and welcoming. And your accents are likely to be seen as bringing extra glamour to the council!

Interested in U.K. local government? ICMA maintains a strategic alliance in the United Kingdom with Solace (Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers) and frequently collaborates on content. If you're interested in learning more about this relationship, contact Jeanette Gass, senior program manager, at jgass@icma.org.

Attending the ICMA Annual Conference in Tampa, Florida, USA? Solace president Robin Tuddenham will accompany fellow global panelists from Australia and Eswatini to share perspectives on U.K. local governments' approach to equity, diversity, and inclusion initiatives that build a positive organizational culture that invests in people and enables them to maximize their potential and better serve their communities. Add this engaging session to your conference schedule today!