This case illustrates leadership failure in public service organizations. In August 2014 an independent report into child sexual abuse in Rotherham, England, revealed that 1,400 children had been victims of organized sexual violence and abuse over a 15-year period and raised the most serious concerns about leadership in the local council and the behaviour of the regional police force (Hay, 2014).

The revelations were not new. Back in 2002, it was claimed that senior staff at Rotherham Council sanctioned a ‘raid’ on one of its own offices to locate and remove files containing details of the scale and seriousness of the abuse. This happened after council staff realized that a draft report investigating abuse allegations was about to reveal evidence of a widespread system of abuse. There were strong suspicions that the removal of case reports (detailed investigations into specific abuse cases) was an outcome of collusion and cover-up. Furthermore, investigations in 2002, 2003 and 2006 made by front-line youth workers were suppressed or ignored by people in leadership positions. Rotherham Council had tried to prevent the publication of a 2010 report into the murder of a 17-year-old girl, even taking the case unsuccessfully to the High Court.

In the years covered by the case it was claimed that ‘community leaders’ in Rotherham knew about the scale of abuse but were unable to stop it. After the highly critical report came out in 2014, the government ordered inspections of children’s services in the town.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission said that the report’s findings raised ‘serious and troubling concerns’ about the involvement of the police in the scandal. The regional police and crime commissioner (a new role supposedly created to oversee the police and ensure they are answerable to the local community)

had previously had a position of responsibility for children’s and young people’s services in Rotherham Council. It was reported that council workers had been reluctant to pursue repeated claims of abuse and violence because they were scared of being seen as racist and of damaging ‘community cohesion’. Suppression and disregard of evidence was aggravated by political sensitivities. Some council workers clearly believed that revelations could attract the attention of extremist political groups. Political tensions in the local region skirted around a ‘politically inconvenient truth’

that people in leadership roles were keen to hide.

This distressing case draws attention to the interplay between leadership, culture and politics across a range of organizations and agencies. The official report (Hay, 2014) concludes that over the 12 years covered by the enquiry, ‘the collective failures of political and officer leadership were blatant’ (p. 1) and that, ‘it is hard to believe that any senior officers or members [of Council] from the leader and Chief Executive downwards, were not aware of the issue. Most members showed little obvious leadership or interest in CSE [child sexual exploitation].

It is perhaps relevant to this case that from 1997 there had been five chief executives of the council, plus one acting chief executive, and there had also been regular staff turnover in a ‘director of safeguarding’

role. Responding to questioning during the inquiry, former chief executives claimed that their ‘overriding priority’ had been economic regeneration;

which might indicate that other problems, even of the most serious kind, were given a lower priority. Organization culture also fuelled this particular fire. Some senior councillors were described as aggressive and intimidating and the ‘overall culture’ was described as ‘macho’ and sexist to the extent that the culture probably impeded any efforts that council workers made to tackle a problem that was grounded in sexual abuse.

As of 2014, no past or present officer or official had been disciplined, even though misconduct in public office is a criminal offence in the UK. Only five men had been convicted of offences relating to this case.

When the Hay report came out, the initial response of people who had been in positions of leadership was a robust denial that they had done anything wrong, although they were all very sorry for what had happened.

Questions

1. Why do people in leadership positions sometimes resort to covering up sensitive information rather than act on it to change and improve?

2. Why do people in leadership positions sometimes fail to take responsibility for their past actions – often in the face of damning criticism?

3. To what extent might frequent changes of leadership in senior posts have contributed to the failure to stop wrongdoing in this case?

4. Under what conditions might frequent leadership changes be beneficial to organizations?