So while the great and good enjoy the sun, snow and schmoozing in Davos, I can’t help but wonder what they’ll have to say about executive pay. We’ve been hearing a lot about fat cats, bankers’ bonuses and spreading perceptions of inequality, even protests. But is it really that bad? Should you know anyone who’s going to the Swiss speech-fest, here are a few stats to enliven the conversation.

According to research by the University of Exeter Business School, executive pay is a 'potential timebomb'. Professor Annie Pye’s study reports that the average annual salary for a CEO of a FTSE 100 listed company was £150,000 in 1987. Today that figure is £4million.

Top corporate recruitment firm MBS Group has talked to CEOs who have made the switch from running ‘Big Corp’ to smaller concerns. It makes for insightful reading. MBS Group’s report cites six key reasons why CEOs are packing their bags:

1. Exhaustion - this one is gaining coverage since the Lloyds Banking Group’s CEO, Antonio Horta-Osoria, took leave of absence due to stress and fatigue earlier this year. At time of writing, Mr H-O is saying he now wants to return, but shareholders are asking for assurances that this time he’ll be back for good before they reopen the door. It will be interesting to see if and how he is able to convince them, especially as another reason CEOs give for moving on is…
2. Media scrutiny - I’ve heard that many a CEO will say that their financial PR agency is the team that keeps them in a job. Whilst that’s rather damning about the CEO’s team and the trust they have in one another, it’s also an acknowledgement of how corporate leaders are much more in the public eye these days, and frequently find themselves as media fodder.
3. Pressure to deliver results - this one confounds me just a little: didn’t they know about that when they took the job? Aren’t there ways that a candidate’s ability to handle pressure can be assessed during recruitment? Yes, at the moment there is close scrutiny and pressure on organisations that are struggling to deliver results, yet I’d have thought that this is a case of reaping what organisations and their leaders have sown.
4. Losing talent - seems to me that they themselves are part of the loss. There is often an orderly queue behind the departing leader. Also, especially in tough times, an organisation that has just become leaderless can prove a happy hunting ground for talent scouts looking to lure away the disenfranchised. There may also be a sense of despair at the organisation’s inability to hang on to its best people.
5. Corporate nonsense - amen to that. If all you’re doing is playing B*@$%^it Bingo in interminable meetings then it may well be time to move on. Megafirms can get really bogged down in process and lose sight of why they’re on the planet at all. One of our clients has a 30-minute rule for meetings; it can be devilishly effective.
6. Personal reasons - both men and women talk in the MBS report about wanting to spend more time with children and spouse, having time for exercise and even (whisper this) hobbies. This generation of leaders seems to have a vision of success that includes their nearest and dearest and a life beyond work.

So what’s to be done?

When you’re delegating, you need to be a bit flexible. Different people will approach the same task in different ways. Some may want your involvement, others not. Some may want to be directed and taught how to do something; others may view direction as an affront to their skills and capabilities. How will you know?

The simplest way to ensure you’re flexible is to aim for dialogue. Don’t do all the talking. Why? You won’t know that the person to whom you’ve delegated fully understands, for one thing. If you simply end your monologue with, "OK, is that all clear?", the most likely answer will be "yes", if only for self-preservation! Second reason why dialogue in delegation is a good thing: the person will be able to tell you how they’re going to go about doing the task. This will tell you whether or not they know what they’re on about, need a little help, or are simply bluffing. Reason number three why dialogue is a good thing is that when we talk about doing something we’re more likely to do it. So it makes sense to give the microphone to the person you’re delegating to: as you let them speak you’ll be increasing their involvement and ownership of the task, and their likelihood of taking responsibility for getting it done.

I run lots of workshops where we cover delegation and one of the classic 'traps for beginners' (and it not’s just beginners… it could be you) is telling people the 'how' and not explaining the 'why'. Why does this task need to be done? It sounds so basic, but unless people get the Big Picture context of where their contribution is going to fit into things, then it’s pretty hard for them to get motivated about the 'how'. And yet it’s something that’s very often neglected. So when you’re delegating, start with the 'why'. How will completing this task - to the required standard, timing and budget - help the organisation get where it’s aiming to go? How else can you give a really clear brief?

Get clear on the results required. Stephen Covey says Begin with the end in mind and it’s very true of delegation. Explain where you both need to end up - what outcomes are necessary. So ensure you’ve covered 'why' (the bigger picture) and 'what' (the results) before getting into the nitty-gritty 'how'.

At a recent Association for Coaching conference, we got to hear how they train up leaders in NASA.  As a big fan of Apollo 13 (particularly that scene where the boffins on the ground try to fit the square thing into round thing – can you tell I’m not technical?), I was all ears.  Christine Williams, NASA’s ‘Director, Systems Department, Academy of Program Project and Engineering Leadership (APPEL)’ probably comes across a few bright sparks, and provided some real lightbulb moments for us all.  Once I’d got over the shock of Williams’ complex ‘solar system’ diagram of the leadership program (she must present to some really brainy people), there were three key takeaways:

1. Keep it relevant and credible. At NASA, they asked people ‘study the leaders they knew and respected’ in the organisation.  When the same names kept coming up, they modelled those individuals to arrive at benchmarks for those on the program to aim for.  That way there’s a clear and compelling line of sight to where people are going. 

With all the media attention on the UK's forthcoming election, there seems to be much talk of the leadership that these tough economic times seem to need.  But do tough times necessarily mean 'strong' leadership?  I guess it depends on your definition of 'strong'.  We can all probably recall - or are currently experiencing - 'strong' leadership as in tough, target-setting, task-focused.  How good was it for you?  Sometimes, it may indeed be what the situation requires...but it seems there is another way. 

If this new research by The Work Foundation had a different line-up of organizations that took part in the study, I think it would be easy to dismiss the conclusions as a bit 'pink and fluffy'.  Over 250 in-depth interviews, conducted with 77 business leaders in 6 high-profile organizations suggest a difference between good and outstanding leadership.  The key distinguishing factor is the focus on people and relationships.   The outstanding leaders realize they cannot create performance; rather they are conduits for it through the way they interact with others.  They possess a clear sense of self and of purpose in serving a goal, combined with humility.  The implication is clear: focus on results at the expense of people and the bigger picture or purpose, and you can be a good leader - but outstanding?  That might not be achieved without a significant shift in focus.  Tesco, Unilever and Guardian Media Group were among those taking part.  Have a look at the report's executive summary here.