He is right I have been told this before and forgotten it.

But I have been thinking that maybe this is why some leaders have limited ability to hear what people think. Either because its not worth telling them if its negative. Or because by the time you have contorted your point to appear to be positive, it is almost impossible to find.

But I am more interested in unpicking what it takes to earn permission from those who are lead. Is it who the leader is or what he or she does? Or are the two are intertwined? Is it because they can see farther than others and express what they see in an inspiring way? Is it because they take care of the people they lead and help them to achieve great things? Does the answer differ in different cultures? Is it simply because they are older that they have earned the right to lead those that are younger?

I would be interested to see how people would complete the statement below:

“__________ earned permission to lead me because…”

It can be anyone – your boss, a coach, a chair, a friend, a colleague, a family member. Very curious to hear about how and why people have earned permission to lead you.

1. Everyone just wants to know what the final figure is. They don’t much care what it is, they just want the final one.
2. Deeper perhaps, they seek a sense of detachment. They listen to the radio in the morning for example but limit themselves to 20 minutes otherwise they get too depressed.

I think this must be right. After a while you have to protect yourself from too much reality.

Then a conversation developed between the Irish and Hungarian leaders at the meeting. The Irish said, 38 billion (it was 38 then) and “No one has apologised”. The Hungarians responded, “Ours have apologised but nothing has changed”.

Grim discussions between leaders these days.

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).

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.

Good crisis management is a part of good leadership. I don’t think you can have one without the other – and I think in that sense, leadership has two halves.

Crisis management is half the game. You need to be a leader to manage a crisis – just try a crisis without leadership and you will see what I mean.

The textbook definition is that crisis management is a strategic and tactical response to a specific situation. But really, it’s about courage. It’s the courage to make incomplete decisions at speed. It’s having the stamina to keep going, to at least appear to keep a cool head under fire, to make fine-line calls rather than clear decisions and to stay the course irrespective of the harsh judgements. And they will be harsh.

Crisis management is no mean feat. It’s a tough job, and you need to be a good leader to get it done – let alone to get it done well. It’s still only one half of the job of a leader – no matter how admirable it is.

The better leader you are, the better prepared your team is for a crisis. In fact, sometimes the true test of leadership is the quiet times – when there isn’t the adrenaline but you still have to have the drive to build something dynamic, robust and crisis proof. This is the second half of the leadership equation.

Painting a picture for the future sounds fabulously positive and indulgent. I’ve often heard cynics say that anyone can be a visionary. I really don’t think that’s true. It’s quite frightening to take on the responsibility for building vision – but you absolutely cannot lead without it.

I was always taught to keep my eyes on the hills and my feet on the ground. In a crisis, too many leaders do neither, and some only keep their feet on the ground…but they take their eyes off the hills.

Right now I appreciate that keeping your feet on the ground is essential, and it’s hard work. I’m just urging you to look up once in a while.

If you are keen to see what 12 UK leaders have to say on what they learned about leadership in 2009, what the challenges are now and opportunities going forward, watch our latest film on YouTube. You can also access these on the Common Purpose website.

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.

This year its not just the end of a year but of the first decade of what was  the eagerly anticipated New Millennium. And what a decade it has been – a great anti-climax. All those big aspirations and bold targets just didn’t hold water. The worst of it for me has been the collapse of trust in leadership at a rate that makes climate change look like it’s dawdling.

I am now wondering what leaders will need to think about, the challenges they will face and the triumphs they will celebrate in the coming decade.

So I would like to hear your views. What is your wish list is for our leaders as we welcome 2010. Will they need to be…

1.    Brave?
2.    Enlightened?
3.    Bold?
4.    Humble?
5.    Networked?
6.    Entreprising?
7.    Ruthless?
8.    Collaborative?
9.    Cautious?
10.    Authoritative?

Tell me which one is the most important and why in the comments below.

And have a very happy holiday season and New Year.