{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.011802575107296138, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.760869565217392, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Urban Conflict as a Constraint On Mayoral Leadership: Lessons From Gary and Cleveland

The study of executive leadership includes the common distinction between headship and leadership. The former involves merely occupying an elected or appointive position, while the latter involves the exercise of influence in the pursuit of goals. Guiding innovations through the successful expansion of formal authority and the exercise of informal influence have often been considered a measure of effective executive performance. The process of expanding political roles has frequently been interpreted in terms of political integration and coalition formation. This has been particularly the case in studies of mayoral leadership, where effective executive performance has been equated with a mayor’s ability to create an integrative convergence of power by building an executivecentered coalition (for examples of this literature, see Dahl,