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.

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.