Each of us might have a wish list of what good leaders should have - vision, determination, inspiration, humanity, etc. One essential element, to me, is their accountability. Executives should be accountable for their positions and actions.

We know that when an organisation gets bigger and bigger, it will develop certain rules and structures that help it operate routinely. In other words, matured organisations are resilient and able to survive for a long period, even if a monkey is put in charge.

In one extreme example, in the last two decades of his reign (to 1620), emperor Wanli of the Ming dynasty did not attend a single morning meeting with his ministers, act on any memoranda or make any personnel appointments. It is typical of the inaction that can be seen when an entrenched leader has the discretion to lead a quiet life.

Therefore, executives first need to be accountable for their positions and opt for action when opportunities or threats arise. The situation may be difficult, the decision may be hard and sometimes executives may bet their reputation on those decisions. But that is exactly why we call them leaders.

One friend shared a story with me. Once he was window shopping on a hot Sunday afternoon and noticed a group of seemingly nervous people gathered around a parked car. As he got closer, he realised there was a dog locked in the car and the windows of the car were closed. Those concerned passers-by were becoming agitated but nobody did anything until someone used a garbage can to break a side window of the car. We know it was a happy ending because the dog was going to be fine with fresh air.

The interesting part of the story is the person who was willing to take personal accountability because he did what so few ever do. Lacking accountability, my friend said, was probably a common human problem. It also makes a leader embracing accountability especially remarkable.

In the recent initial public offering of Alibaba Group Holding, which raised a record US$25 billion in the primary equity market, one of the major questions investors had about its founder and chairman, Jack Ma Yun, was over the 2011 decision to spin off Alipay to a mainland company he controls.

Alipay is an online payment platform that holds the payment in escrow until the buyer is satisfied with the purchase. In an emerging market that does not have an established credit system, Alipay helps fill the institutional void, enables buyers on the e-commerce marketplace to trust third-party sellers, facilitates the transaction and becomes the critical link in the ecosystem built by Alibaba.

Yahoo, a major Alibaba shareholder with one board seat, accused Ma of not informing it in advance of the decision. Ma and Alibaba replied that the board had engaged in previous discussions and, because of a change in central government regulations for the third-party payment provider, it was necessary to restructure Alipay as a company wholly owned by Chinese nationals so it could apply for the business licence. Ma said during the listing roadshow that the decision was the hardest of his life but it was necessary for the growth of the company.

Did Ma and Alibaba pay a cost for his actions? Probably yes. Ma was blasted right after the spin-off. He was blamed by the mainland business community for causing international investors to lose trust in mainland companies. In addition, Alibaba received a large discount in the valuation of its flotation, compared with what American peers could get, because investors cast doubts on the governance system and were afraid that other events like the Alipay restructuring might happen in the future.

But was the decision a necessary or a right one? Ma said "history will judge". It is true that only time can tell, but my view is that, at the critical point where a regulatory change potentially threatened the firm's growth and survival, Ma was willing to take action even if that decision might spark heated debate and damage his reputation. He held personal accountability for his position and actions.

In the corporate world, what we often see is opposite of accountability. Underperforming chief executives may serve firms year after year. Even if some of them are forced to step down, many benefit from huge severance pay packages (such as former Hewlett-Packard chief executive Leo Apotheker, who got US$7.2 million even though he served barely 10 months).

However, it may not be so difficult to discuss the issue of accountability if executives can think like the person who smashed the car window. He was appreciated not only because his action saved the dog's life, but also because of his readiness to be held accountable for his action.