It’s all about how you ensure that the boards of the future protect us from the disasters over the last couple of years.

I too believe that diversity is one of the keys. Homogeneous boards are complacent and risky. Complacent because it means that the organisations are careless about understanding the modern world and don’t care enough about their brands to adapt and stop hiding behind the old excuses like: “oh but we try so hard but there just aren’t enough people out there”. Risky because homogenous boards develop group think and don’t see some things coming.

But there are two forms of diversity that always seem to be forgotten: age and language.

If all your board is of one generation it will miss things that are intuitive to other generations. And on language: how may British international boards speak enough languages to really claim to be international?

-    Julia Middleton was recently interviewed by Knowledge Peers on managing and sustaining effective boards for not-for profit organisations. You can sign up for Knowledge Peers membership here.

-    About Time is a multi-faceted campaign supported by the Government Equalities Office, Anchor Trust and Common Purpose in the UK. The campaign will increase the number of people involved in public life across the UK, by overcoming barriers that get in the way of participation. At the core of the About Time campaign is the notion that diversity is critical to a board’s ability to spot issues and trends.

We were at Zeche Zollverein all day. It used to be the biggest coal refinery in Europe, serving the steel makers of the Ruhr. We were at the center where the coal came up and was treated , where all the mine shafts meet from entrances all around the focal point , many of them miles away.

Apparently you never say “Goodbye” in this region, you only say “Gluck Auf” meaning “come back up safely”. As we approach the end of a very tough and successful (through very hard hard work from all) year like so many others, I think maybe I will use “Gluck Auf” more often!

She said yes.

Only with age and experience – and regular disappointment with fellow leaders of my own age – have I really appreciated just how glorious Anita was that day.

She was at the height of her power. Her brand was vast and she just backed me on instinct. Maybe years on you might think: ‘clever her, she spotted a winner’… but it couldn’t have looked that certain to her at the time.

She could have taken the approach so many people seem to take, which is why I say I have been disappointed with other leaders. I can see the agony of the inner questioning:

• ‘Is this worth the risk?’
• ‘How might it catch me out?’
• ‘How would it look?’
• ‘I should do the due diligence.’
• ‘Why should I do this?’
• ‘Why doesn’t this person write a 16 page business plan?’
• ‘How could this inconvenience me and what would I have to do…?’

But Anita didn’t. She went with her instinct and as a result I would have done anything for her.

Sometimes I think the word ‘mentoring’ reduces what actually happens throughout this process. As a result of mentoring me, Anita became chair of my organisation and gave me an office to work from. But she also became my friend.

She asked the difficult questions, jumped in when I needed her and lightened the tone when I got grim. She mentored me, I suppose, but mostly she believed in me.

It takes courage when you start things from nothing when you are nothing. I should know. And courage was something Anita had in abundant supply, and that’s how she founded that first store in Brighton many years ago.

I know, now that I am closer to the age she must have been when we met, that it takes even more courage to risk it all again and again, backing and mentoring others to take the same route, even if it might risk your own hard won success.

Anita wasn’t timid at the start and most importantly she never became timid. The world needs more leaders like her.

27 March marks the anniversary of the first opening of The Body Shop in 1976

I think the report speaks to some strong points, but I do take issue with some of the content.

Alarm bells go off for me when civil society starts setting objectives. I really do think that if there’s an agenda point to be set, an open forum should be used to voice the view that it’s an important one. If people listen, it has resonance.  My idea of encouraging civil society is far more ‘bottom up’, and I really thought that this report was about encouraging a groundswell of participation.

The report also pushes the private sector out. In the foreword by Geoff Mulgan, it’s openly stated that: ‘For a century or more it has been pushed to the margins by commerce and the state, which have claimed the lion’s share of resources and power’. ‘It’ being civil society.

That may well be true, and I understand when you focus on civil society you focus on citizens acting together, not in state or market. But there is a big difference between the market and the private sector. It is crucial that we get the private sector to see itself as part of civil society – as citizens. That doesn’t simply translate to painting walls for community projects, or celebrating worship, or communication on the web, or arts and sports projects and campaigns. It needs to translate to how people work – and how they lead.

It’s this schizophrenia that young people and those in the early stages of their career that come on our courses find so hard to understand. They know that at work they are part of building society if they are in the private sector – even if they are just making money to pay taxes that pay for community development. Just ask people in India – they are very aware they are nation building there.

The report also explores the need for transparency – and specifically looks at the financial sector. I do fail to see how we can  say that civil society is not about the private sector, and then in the same breath tell the private sector that they must be transparent and behave like responsible citizens. But I take the point that we need strong institutions, and for institutions to be strong, they need sound leadership and to remain principled about their aims and purpose – which should ensure that they do not stifle transparency through bureaucracy.

One of the biggest, if not the biggest, barrier to tempting people into civil society is the intrusive and inaccurate nature of a higher profile. Don’t get me wrong – transparency is crucial – but when untruths and invasions on one’s personal life become the recompense for standing up it is understandable that many many people refuse to enter civic space. But this is where courage is needed – one of the tenents of good leadership…and civil society cannot be without strong leaders.

Where growing participatory and deliberative democracy is concerned – well – that’s never a bad thing…for all the reasons the report outlines. But I would urge that even in the healthiest participative democracy, we still need leaders to stand up and rally voices and action.

By the end of the day we were exhausted. Which is fitting – because our concluding discussion revealed a sense of fatigue.

It seems our leaders might be caught in a spiral. They’re over stretched. They’re not dealing with much positive news. They’re stressed. The fatigue is impacting on teams, who are then not ‘speaking out’ on how they can innovate. So how do you break the cycle?

Think about the rest

Leaders are tired – and they have been for a while. They have been making very tough calls all year. Some of these calls have been about other people’s lives – especially if you have had to make a call on redundancies. And at this time, when nothing feels stable or clear, and your colleagues want you to be visible and positive – even if you don’t feel like being so at all.

This whole year has been about facing realities – or ‘naming the beast’, as I pointed out to the Birmingham Post in May last year.

You have probably been having less sleep and leaders are working harder to achieve less. And then you come home, were you may have kids, and they know they’re not going to find jobs easily. Or you might have a partner, and they may be facing the same issues at work. Or you have both.

What are you going to do? Here are some top tips that emerged from our Leaders’ Questions event:

• You need to get enough sleep.
• Don’t load it all on yourself – it’s the leaders who share some of the burden with their teams who will keep going.
• Remember that everyone is frightened – and there’s nothing wrong with being frightened unless it freezes you.
• Resist the temptation to share all the load and try to keep positive. You can feel the fear, but if you reveal all the burden, you might just unsettle your colleagues  - and that really will load the burden on you.
• Take a step away. If you don’t look outwards you won’t see the next thing coming – and you never know, it could be an unbelievable opportunity.
• Focus on strengths and shelve the distractions. It’s not ‘getting back to basics’, it is doing what you do best as a priority.

Many also felt that there was a positive change in old boundaries disappearing. Unlikely conversations are taking place – and that’s great. It is also important that leaders ask different people in their organisations for perspective or suggestions on innovations. People you think are leaders and those other people look to as leaders are not necessarily the same people.

This is no time to be timid. But to be brave, you need to sustain your strength.

I shared with our participants at Leaders’ Questions that it had been suggested to me that it would take a cataclysmic event to provide the springboard for positive change and new ways of leading. I’m thinking economic collapse and a complete shift in international relations is a fairly big signpost.

Here’s hoping our 2,500 world leaders at the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting, which starts today, are brave. As they look to ‘Improve the State of the World: Rethink, Redesign, Rebuild’ – they will need to be.