In a nutshell, the ability of American companies to compete in world markets depends on creating conditions in which workers can add sufficient value to justify their higher wages and benefits, much the Japanese auto manufacturers have done in this country. Until unions and mangers understand the necessity of effectively employing the nation's most important resource, the American worker, we are destined to have more Detroits.

Value-based leaders believe in democratic workplaces in which employees participate in decisions.

If America is to compete effectively in world markets, its corporate leaders must strategically position their companies in the right businesses, and then manage their workforces in the right ways. However, the nation has a shortage of business leaders who understand the importance of utilizing human capital to gain competitive advantage, let alone the know-how to do so. In the future, that shortcoming promises to be exacerbated because few business schools today teach aspiring executives how to create the kind of high-involvement organizations.

Motorcycle manufacturer Harley-Davidson is a prime example of an American company that uses employment conditions to boost productivity. Current CEO James Ziemer - who started with the company while in high school has negotiated imaginative contracts with the unions representing Harley's workers, agreeing to keep production in the U.S. in exchange for constantly reducing total labor costs through automating tasks and changing work rules. Because Harley regularly reassigns workers whose tasks have been automated to other parts of the company.

As Starbucks' CEO Howard Shultz explains, the high-quality customer service that makes it possible for his company to charge a premium for its coffee results from the investments it makes in employee welfare and training.

Managers who assume that higher profits drive better working conditions may have their logic backwards. Contrary to conventional wisdom, our research identified companies in virtually every industry that are profitable because they provide good jobs.

Leadership always contains far more down cycles than ups. Lincoln, Jefferson, Washington, Wilson, and both Roosevelts experienced setbacks that would have discouraged (the) less resilient.