The Advisory Group for this initiative includes senior leaders from both countries who, throughout the careers and outside their areas of work, have achieved extraordinary things. They set the challenge which will be met by a group of 40 – as Michael Duck of UBM described – hungry, intelligent people from the UK and India, all from very different sectors of work. These future leaders will meet in Pune in India early next year.

After much debate over various tough issues facing both the UK and India today, the challenge the Advisory Group settled on was:

‘If major heart surgery at $1,000 USD can be done, what has to change in how society innovates – including models and mindsets – for this to happen?’

Can it be done at this cost?

A member of our group is one of the few people in the world who would not only know, but could deliver it: Dr Devi Shetty. He has done 70,000 major heart surgeries in his life and opened a hospital with 5,000 beds. He said it could be done.

It was the rest of the Advisory Goup’s response to his statement that was intriguing. It seemed ridiculous, unthinkable…until you clicked that it was him making it.

We pushed him to tell us how much it currently cost. He thought probably $3,000 USD to $5,000 USD in India, so his proposition would probably reduce the cost by 75 per cent in India. He said it costs around $100,000 USD in the States, and he could not hazard a guess in the UK because of how the NHS does its accounting.

We had set some criteria for deciding the challenge for Dishaa. It had to be compelling, common to both countries, big (so it was worth spending time on) and small (so that the group could grasp it – and propse meaningful and potentially achievable solutions).

For so many leaders, Common Purpose provides an opportunity to see the world through other people’s eyes so it’s great that the Common Purpose 360 Day should challenge people to do something along these lines. Common Purpose extends to every leader an invitation to do one thing, big or small, to challenge the way they see the world.

You don’t have to conquer Everest. There are various ways you can challenge yourself to develop a different perspective.

• Visit a part of your city you’ve never seen,
• Subscribe to receive a blog from a writer you’re unfamiliar with,
• Use a different mode of transport for the day to get around,
• Watch a documentary on a topic you’ve no knowledge on,
• Buy your fruit and vegetables somewhere completely different,
• Enrol in a language course;
• Or just invite your neighbours to your house for afternoon tea!

What will you be doing?

One of the things we encourage our 30,000 alumni to do is try and contact other alumni that they don’t know. This year, I hope our alumni will do something a bit more international. Last year there was some wonderful feedback from people who got in touch with alumni in other parts of their cities or from sectors of work different from their own – but seldom in other countries.

Now that Common Purpose operates in so many countries the opportunity to simply email a someone on the other side of the world is incredible.

You can chat to someone who runs an airport in Bangalore, or a community project in a Johannesberg township, or a bank in Dublin, or a hospital in Leipzig, or a parent teachers association in Birmingham, or a town hall in Glasgow, or a policeman in Hong Kong (ok so the first course does not start till November, but soon…!), or a retailer in Budapest.

What an incredible source of knowledge, generosity and insight.

Having said this, I am not going to contact anyone. I am going to try a day of fasting. For some reason Ramadan seemed to go on for ever this year in the UK for my friends who were doing it. They looked gaunt and tired. It must require huge self control, particularly in a country where others continue to eat unaware. Maybe I’ll understand it better if I fast for one day. A small effort compared to their stretch.

Find out more about the 360 Day and get involved at www.commonpurpose360.org

***********

12 October 2010

So the impact on me? Very simple. For half a day I wondered what people are fussing about. Not eating is easy. Then I started getting bad tempered (no, not bad tempered but short tempered). I did start to obsess about the sun and how slowly it moves. I cannot imagine how you fast if sundown is at 10pm and not 7.30pm.
Did I learn anything? I think I was admiring of people who fast for Ramadan before so no change there, but now I think I am more understanding of their occasional (only very occasional!) short temperedness.

- Julia Middleton.

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.

Shall we focus on what these three men have to say on policy? Or the issues? Or will we scrutinise their competency? Or the strength of their ambition?

To me – above all – the focus should be on leadership. Who do we think will be the best leader with the best team?

The UK is in quite a mess. No secret there. We can get out of its mess, but the danger is that we will slide and all the difference will rest on the brave decisions and the national mood one of these three people will create.

We have huge assets for such a small country – in land mass and population – compared to existing and emerging world powers. But we will have to play a clever game to succeed…and to continue to prosper.

So what will I be looking for as I switch on the telly tonight? The leader with some policies I’m sure to disagree with. The one to lift a country from the recession blues and give it confidence. The leader who names the beast, who doesn’t pretend that there is no mess to speak of and confronts the hard questions. The one who can attract and keep talent around him and ensure they perform at their best. The one who speaks in a way that makes you listen.

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.

The article was published two days before the World Economic Forum buzz (or indeed lack thereof for those that stayed away). It’s also been the week of President Obama’s State of the Union address – kind of a spoken annual review, but with many more hand gestures and a serious campaign to go down in history as one of the world’s greatest orators.

Excuse my cynicism. I’m just a little tired of the puffery.

Robert Bruce has hit upon something. The public – these leaders’ publics – are baffled. And they deserve an explanation.

Like all professions, directors of finance have their language – ‘financese’. Removing the ‘puff’ from it would mean making the story of what they do accessible to others, and there’s a fear that this would devalue what highly paid professionals do. They’re not alone.

The thing is, I don’t believe they think of themselves as leaders – and they are. They’re often seen as the boring number crunchers, not the story tellers.

But this year they have such a key role to play – and an important story to tell. They have an even greater responsibility to rebuild the trust in business. It takes numbers to do this, absolutely, but there’s a story here too. It’s a story that should not be reserved for other finance directors or investors – though the stake in communicating to these people is quite clear, and mutually beneficial. But these leaders need to communicate to other people.

See, the numbers don’t lie – they’re just confusing. But the numbers do provide a clear means of telling an organisation’s story. All you need is an accompanying narrative and a clear and straightforward consideration of who needs to hear it. Surely that’s not beyond the capabilities of a financial director (although they might need the services of translators)? And if it is beyond their capabilities, it shouldn’t be.

This year’s story might not have a happy ending, but if we have learned one thing over the past year it is that leaders need to tell the truth because that is what people yearn for above all else – whether it’s good or bad.

In fact, I don’t think that’s limited to the private sector at all. Finance directors across sectors would be wise to redefine themselves as leaders on this issue if they haven’t already done so.

I say congratulations to ICAS for putting together a guide on ‘Making Corporate Reports Readable’. The next step is that leaders within organisations need to tell the story to their people clearly and honestly. They need to write it. They need to speak it. And they need to ensure that it is understood by all their stakeholders.

Stories that end in shock and awe, or that twist and turn are nice for suspense thrillers. Not when your job or the economic stability of your employer or country is at stake. Your people do deserve a straightforward story. And leaders are responsible – at the very least – for telling it well.

Other places where you can read up on this topic include:

• The Times
• Personal Computer World

Today at the World Economic Forum there will be a session on ‘Global Industry Outlook: Finance, Services and Media’, and yesterday there was a session on ‘New Corporate Governance in the Post-Crisis World’.

You can view the programme at Davos here, and view the media coverage here - or refer to the Common Purpose blog to see what our teams are reading.

What comes across when he speaks about the World Economic Forum is his humility and his thoughtfulness – and his hands.

As I post this, leaders at Davos are emerging from a morning session on ‘Rebuilding Trust in Business Leadership’.

I do think that as we look back on 2009 – when a lot of trust was lost – Stephen Green is there. He isn’t terribly exciting as a speaker, but I would follow him for his humility and success.

There are some other items on trust that I think are helpful and very interesting:

• From the Institute of Leadership & Management – the 2009 Index of Leadership Trust
• From the Reith Lectures, 2002: Onora O’Neill on Trust
• From the World Economic Forum in 2005 (even before the crash)

I wrote that down fast when the chair of a Strategic Health Authority in the UK said it to me the other day. What’s the point in talking things through with people who agree with you? So why do we spend our time doing it? And why do we get so worried when people do have different views? And why do we do we believe that homogenous teams are the most successful?

 There was a feature on BBC breakfast this morning about what your holiday reading choice says about you. As it happens, I made the terrible mistake last week of sending lots of friends  a text asking them to tell me what to read while I am on the beach. I asked for things that will hurt my head and change my mind. They took me seriously!

 The list is below. It’s long, and not exactly light reading, but it’s sure to change my mind on lots of things – that must be good.

Here it is – Summer Reading list.

If you have any suggestions of books, articles, podcasts, videos, magazines to add to the list then let me know.

30/09/2009

A bit late for summer, here is an updated list based on more titles that have been sent to me. Some of them good be could be nice for reading as the days get shroter this winter.