It was so easy in the good old days. Leaders were autocrats and we all used to accept it that way - the boss was God and we all did what he said. Growth was limited of course, but at least things were clear. There could be no arguments about what was expected and what the sanction would be if we did not do as we were told.

Then, thankfully, along came more modern leadership methods - inclusivity, consensus, coaching - all designed to allow intelligent and resourceful employees to contribute more and thus for our businesses to grow faster. The reality however is that, because this leadership style requires a greater level of emotional intelligence on the part of the leader, and because organisations have remained wedded to hierarchical structures of authority, autocracy often still rules, but now comes wearing a disguise. Leaders have learned to manipulate people round to their way of thinking. As a young manager I was even taught to manipulate - I recall attending a Dale Carnegie leadership course in the late 1980s in which a fundamental principle was 'get the other person to think that the idea was theirs'.

So why is this important now?

Because now, more than for a generation given the economic challenges faced by our businesses, we need our leaders to be clear and to show strong leadership including not being afraid to sanction those who do not follow. Listening to Howard Davies, late of the FSA, being interviewed about Northern Rock (the organisation that invented the new financial alchemy of lending 115% of the value of a property at 5 times earnings to someone who self certificated their income), I was struck by the degree to which he wished to hide behind the perhaps more 'modern' form of leadership he sought to exercise. He was asked if he had had concerns about the level of self certification mortgages at Northern Rock before the current crisis, and he said that the the FSA had been concerned and had 'put Northern Rock under pressure' to review its practices. Woo, scary stuff. Did the Northern Rock executives quake in their boots and immediately change their practices, or did they smugly smile to themselves that they could handle the FSA?

Leaders have seemed reluctant to lay down what is unacceptable in their businesses, presumably because they have felt that this is too autocratic and goes against the modern leadership methods they have been taught or exhorted to use. So we end up in the ridiculous situation whereby most leaders are happily accepting things in their companies that they would describe as 'unacceptable'. Now more than ever is a time for strong leadership and for managers to mean what they say, and the great thing is that all the followers will immediately feel safer and more secure. Leaders should absolutely steer clear of any behaviours that intimidate, but they should be brave enough to risk unpopularity or of being thought of as unfair in setting clear objectives and boundaries.