Some people become leaders no matter what their chosen path because their positive energy is so uplifting. Even in tough times, they always find a way. They seem to live life on their own terms even when having to comply with someone else's requirements. When they walk into a room, they make it come alive. When they send a message, it feels good to receive it. Their energy makes them magnets attracting other people.

Just plain energy is a neglected dimension of leadership. It is a form of power available to anyone in any circumstances. While inspiration is a long-term proposition, energy is necessary on a daily basis, just to keep going.

Three things characterize the people who are energizers.

1. A relentless focus on the bright side. Energizers find the positive and run with it. A state government official in a state that doesn't like government overcomes that handicap through her strong positive presence. She dispenses compliments along with support for the community served by her agency, making it seem that she works for them rather than for the government. She greets everyone with the joy generally reserved for a close relative returning from war. I can see skeptics' eyebrows starting to rise, but judging from her success, people love meeting with her or getting her exclamation-filled emails. She is invited to everything.

The payoffs from stressing the bright side can be considerable. In my new book, SuperCorp, I tell the story about how Maurice Levy, CEO of the global marketing company Publicis Groupe, tilted the balance in his company's favor when his firm was one of several suitors for Internet pioneer Digitas. At one point in a long courtship, Digitas hit problems, and the stock collapsed. One of Publicis's major competitors sent Digitas's head an email saying, "Now you are at a price which is affordable, so we should start speaking." Levy sent an email the same day saying, "It's so unfair that you are hurt this way because the parameters remain very good." Levy's positive energy won the prized acquisition.

2. Redefining negatives as positives. Energizers are can-do people. They do not like to stay in negative territory, even when there are things that are genuinely depressing. For example, it might seem a stretch for anyone to call unemployment as "a good time for reflection and redirection while between jobs," but some energizers genuinely stress the minor positive notes in a gloomy symphony. A marketing manager laid off by a company hit hard by the recession saw potential in people he met at a career counseling center and convinced them that they could start a service business together. He became the energizing force for shifting their definition of the situation from negative to an opportunity.

"Positive thinking" and "counting blessings" can sound like naïve cliches. But energizers are not fools. They can be shrewd analysts who know their flaws and listen carefully to critics so that they can keep improving. Studies show that optimists are more likely to listen to negative information than pessimists, because they think they can do something about it. To keep moving through storms, energizers cultivate thick skins that shed negativity like a waterproof raincoat sheds drops of water. They are sometimes discouraged, but never victims.

An entrepreneur who has built numerous businesses and incubated others had a strong personal mission to raise national standards in his industry. He began that quest by meeting individually with the heads of major industry organizations, all of whom told him that he would fail. He nodded politely, asked for a small commitment to one action anyway, just as a test, he said, and went on to the next meeting. Eight or nine meetings later, he was well along on a path everyone had tried to discourage him from taking.

3. Fast response time. Energizers don't dawdle. Energizers don't tell you all the reasons something can't be done. They just get to it. They might take time to deliberate, but they keep the action moving. They are very responsive to emails or phone calls, even if the fast response is that they can't respond yet. This helps them get more done. Because they are so responsive, others go to them for information or connections. In the process, energizers get more information and a bigger personal network, which are the assets necessary for success.

The nice thing about this form of energy is that it is potentially abundant, renewable, and free. The only requirements for energizers are that they stay active, positive, responsive, and on mission. Are you an energizer? Any tips you'd like to share?

The G-20, the group of the world's largest economies, agreed last week to a US-led initiative called a "Framework for Sustainable and Balanced Growth." This is an effort to rectify current global imbalances in trade and capital flows, in which the US runs huge trade deficits financed by huge Chinese investments in US Treasuries.

The solution? Chinese consumers should spend more and US citizens should save more. Progress on meeting these objectives will be monitored by the International Monetary Fund, which will periodically issue a global scorecard.

While these are laudable objectives, they will be difficult to achieve. Consumer spending in China constitutes only 36% of its GDP, roughly half of the level in the US. At the same time, the personal savings rate in China is amazingly high — the average savings rate for urban Chinese households rose from 15.4% in 1995 to 22.4% in 2005.

And there are good structural reasons why Chinese households save so much and spend so little. First, China has nothing close to universal healthcare, despite its Communist ideology. So when a medical emergency arises, most Chinese families must pay large sums in cash to get treatment. To persuade Chinese families to consume more and save less, therefore, China must fully meet the healthcare needs of its citizens.

When China announced its initial stimulus package of $585 billion in late 2008, it was largely comprised of infrastructure spending and business incentives. During 2009, China did expand the stimulus package to include $120 billion to improve local healthcare. This is a step in the right direction, though not enough to solve the problem.

Second, if China wants its consumers to spend more and save less, it must substantially improve its Social Security system. China's modern retirement system, begun in 1997, does not cover most workers in rural areas or in small urban enterprises. In addition, workers can no longer count on their children to support them in old age.

Most problematically, contributions to the current retirement system are made to provincial governments, which must pay out legacy benefits on pre-1997 pensions that were never funded. This is an unviable situation for provincial governments and Chinese workers. Instead, China's national government should assume all obligations under the pre-1997 legacy pensions.

The challenges are equally daunting on the American side. The good news is that the personal savings rate of American households is rising: from negative 2% in 2005 to positive 6% during 2009. This means roughly $600 billion in incremental savings and reduced spending by consumers.

The bad news is that the US budget deficit is rising more quickly than our personal savings rate. In fiscal year 2008-2009, the US budget deficit will be $1.6 trillion. Over the next decade, the budget deficit is projected to average $1 trillion per year, according to the Brookings Institution.

Will Congress reverse these US budget deficits by letting the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of 2010? In theory, this could raise tax revenues by approximately $1.6 trillion over the next decade. However, only $700 to $800 billion of the Bush tax cuts went to wealthy Americans with annual incomes over $250,000; the other $800 to $900 billion went to middle and working class families. Maintaining low tax rates for these families will be strongly supported by both Democrats and Republicans, so the chances of Congress renewing the majority of the Bush cuts are high.

At the end of the day, the US budget deficits will fall and total US savings will rise only if Congress constrains the growth of public spending. This was done during the 1990s through a bipartisan measure called PAYGO — whereby public spending could not be increased unless it was paid for by other spending decreases and/or tax incentives. As a result of PAYGO and other factors, the US ran a budget surplus in 2000.

Congress could adopt a version of PAYGO to become effective once the economy rebounds (i.e., when GDP grew by at least 2% a year). In fact, the Obama Administration has proposed a form of PAYGO to constrain the growth in budget deficits. However, that proposal is filled with exemptions exceeding over $2 trillion — for Medicare payments to doctors, fixes to the alternative minimum tax and, of course, continuation of the Bush tax cuts for families with incomes below $250,000 per year.

In short, for the G-20 to succeed in correcting global imbalances and achieving sustainable growth, both China and the US would have to adopt bold measures involving significant financial and political issues. When the IMF begins to issue its reports, we will know whether either country has made substantial progress in achieving these worthy objectives. How likely do you think it is that they'll get good report cards?

Bob Pozen is a senior lecturer at Harvard Business School and the author of Too Big to Save? How to Fix the US Financial System (November 2009)