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.

No one can lead with targets if that’s what they think targets lead to – eliminating a focus on people. Good leaders need to listen to other people so that they know what the targets should be, when they should have been achieved, and when the targets need changing. If you don’t have targets you can’t delegate or work in collaboration, or indeed, strive for achievement at all. So how is it that having targets, or not, is even up for question?

Outstanding leaders focus on people as their top priority – they always have…and they also set them targets. I hardly think this is a blinding insight. One-to-one meetings are when you review targets. If ‘effective leaders should not just delegate… but should stay in touch with staff members afterwards, asking how they got on and talking through any problems’ – isn’t this the basis of a one-to-one? Not only to review tasks and goals and but wider development issues? There is also nothing more rewarding for people than achieving success, being supported to achieve it, and having that recognised.

And of course leadership can be taught – and everyone needs to be developed to realise their leadership potential, whether their job title is going to say they are a leader or not.

Leadership is complex and it is always a balancing act of hard and soft styles – and sometimes that means implementing an ‘iron touch’, which has probably never been more needed than it is now. Knowing which is appropriate is dependent on culture and circumstances, people, time, tasks and various other factors. Getting the balance right is the challenge and discussing this in terms of black and white I believe is highly irresponsible and sends people into a spectrum of extremes rather than giving inspiration on how to achieve a fusion of all these qualities, which is what defines great leaders.

It’s a good piece.

It’s sad when experienced leaders complete their formal career and expect ‘that call’. If it never comes, they retreat to the golf course. But the call doesn’t always happen because they have been so absorbed in the world that they know well that they have not planned or prepared for the next phase. They certainly have not thought of their careers as citizens.

With luck, a career as a citizen has been running in parallel to their formal career all the time, but for many it’s a new thing.

Leaders have a journey as a citizen that outstrips their time at work. But a citizenship career requires as much planning as you put into your formal career. All that educating yourself, getting hired, getting involved in interesting projects, expanding our networks and thinking, putting your skills to the best possible use, and learning to work with new people – it all applies.

There is no retirement age for citizens. But if it’s left as an afterthought of ‘what I’ll do when I leave here’, the danger is that when you do no one much wants you…because you have become only really effective ‘here’.

And even if you don’t revert, or evolve to golf, if you don’t plan things properly you become a volunteer. Now, I know I get in trouble for knocking volunteering, but let me clarify.

Reading with kids in schools or distributing books in a hospital are strong starts as they root you in reality and come with huge individual satisfaction. But to me, if you have been a successful leader all your life, surely these skills need to be used to change things so that reading is – for example – better taught in schools? So after you’re done reading, maybe it’s time to become a school governor? Or to join an NHS board?

We run a course for leaders at this stage – and by this I mean preferably a few years before the end of your formal career – to consider the multitude of options and figure out what has to change in you if you are to avoid the gold banishment.

We also run a campaign called About Time. This is for leaders who want to take on big board opportunities. I speak on both courses every year because it is so exciting opening up new worlds to people who have the time, commitment and potential ability to change things.

I speak on Frontrunner too – our course for university students – so that our future leaders think about their careers as citizens from the start.