This book has a good title, and the subject matter is an important one. The monograph focuses on the role of the top appointed official in local government, called here the chief executive officer (CEO). It records information gained from a large survey of chief executives in 14 countries about their role and actions, and their perceptions of how they interact with, and of the role of, their political counterpart (i.e., the most senior political leader in local government). It aims to address two key questions: whether institutions matter (reflected in the cross-country analyses of different political/administrative arrangements) and the impact of individual characteristics of chief executives on performance.

The focus is significant for understanding political and managerial action beyond local government: first, because globalization requires strong local, as well as global, governance (“glocalization”); second, because it is increasingly recognized that much innovation, “modernization,” and change take place at the local level (both initiated at the local level and in response to national governments); third, because the focus on the chief executive enables researchers to examine the interface between political and administrative logics, structures, and cultures. In addition, many chief executives have contacts with a range of stakeholders. Not only are they the key administrative contact point for politicians, but also they may interact with partners, community groups, other tiers of government, and so forth. The focus is also of interest as some of the limitations of “new public management” are increasingly recognized—especially the marginalizing of the role of politicians in running the local authority. This book provides a more balanced picture by looking at the interface of democracy and bureaucracy, at least as seen through the eyes of the chief executive.

Leadership at the Apex consists of 10 chapters, a technical appendix, and notes. The chapters study institutions comparatively, addressing some theoretical issues (about rational choice theory compared with normative institutional theory, primarily) and then presenting empirical material in seven chapters, rounding off with a conclusions chapter. The data set is impressive in size: 14 countries (Western Europe, the United States, and Australia), with 4,300 chief executives, who completed a long questionnaire survey.

There is a very heterogeneous collection of local authorities in these countries. Taking size alone, the sample varies from the largest authority, Copenhagen Council, with 43,000 staff, to a couple of Spanish authorities each employing four people. While size is commented on in an early chapter, unfortunately it does not reflect in later empirical analyses or discussions of results. Yet organization theory would argue that organizational size is a key influence both on organizational design (structure, culture, processes) and on individual behavior and performance. The authors have focused on institutional arrangements, national culture, and individual characteristics to explain variation.

Potentially, the monograph has much to offer in its approach to the impact of country; the impact of institutions (mainly though not exclusively taken to be based on one of four models of institutional arrangements: the strong mayor form, the committee-leader form, the collective form, and the council-manager form); and the reported roles, actions, and other characteristics of chief executives reflecting on their own role and that of their political counterpart. However, the empirical data and their analysis turns out to be rather disappointing. The institutional arrangements are based on the ideal type for each country, neglecting variation or the opportunity to examine institutional arrangements empirically through dimensions, rather than a typology. The empirical results are also hard to follow, and I spent some frustrating time moving between the text, the technical appendix, and the notes to try to reconcile discrepancies in the presentation of results (where wording of questionnaire items could be different and the loadings on factors both different and presented differently). In the text, new questionnaire items are brought in to support analyses, but nowhere in the book is a clear overview of what the questionnaire covered. I would have liked to see either this or a complete copy of the questionnaire as part of the technical appendix. There are also scales presented that, in an examination of the notes and appendix, are found to be far from robust (e.g., six items are used to present four “leadership styles,” which means that some scales are based on a single item). Some of these concerns about either the empirical data or their presentation reduced my confidence in the findings of the book. However, this is a large sample, and some facts and tables, used carefully, can be useful.

It is possible that the research design focused more on breadth than on depth. It is notable that the conclusions are somewhat anodyne. Inappropriate conclusions are drawn, in places, from the data (e.g., reporting political leader behavior as though it is empirically evidenced, rather than seen through the eyes of chief executives, and stating that the chief executives are making the kinds of contributions that political leaders prefer). I felt I had to work hard to keep assessing what conclusions could legitimately be drawn from the research, what was drawn from the literature, and what might be only assertion or speculation. Surprisingly, the conclusions focus almost exclusively on the characteristics of the individual chief executives on the basis of their similarities, not their differences. The analysis by country, by institutional form, and by national culture is downplayed or not mentioned (as is size, commented on earlier). So, overall, this is a slightly disappointing book, though with several nuggets of interest across a number of chapters. Holding together a large research team for comparative analysis across a large number of countries is inevitably complex and difficult. The authors have scoped out a major area of questions and focus, but their empirical data is not sufficiently robust to help us too far toward conclusions.