Recently, there has been a profound change in how we think about corporate leadership. The 1990s was the era of celebrity leaders: we focused on Jack Welch, and not GE, on Bill Gates, and not Microsoft, on Steve Jobs, and not Apple, on Larry Ellison and not Oracle. But, on reflection, the records of most high-profile leaders have not withstood closer scrutiny. In almost all cases, it turns out that the success of organizations is due to the collective efforts of many, and not to the genius of a single, all-powerful individual at the top.

Sadly, too many corporate leaders still believe that the way to boost productivity and profits is to continually reduce salaries, benefits, and training expenditures, a strategy that can be taken only so far. At a certain point in a developed society, salaries and benefits can't be slashed further and, in the long term, comparative economic advantage then must be realized through the effective mobilization of an educated, engaged, and loyal workforce.

Manufacturing productivity is greatly determined by the design of jobs and how workers are rewarded.

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.

The other players of job market are Global Competitors, the glamour corporations in high technology, telecom, entertainment, consumer products and pharmaceuticals who are the headline makers as they move jobs, services and production around the globe. They pay the highest salaries, but offer little in terms of job security, training, or careers.

The optimist in me sees corporations in the present era as more open to change than they were in the 1990s. Certainly, because of the relatively poor performance of many corporations in the early part of millennial , there seems to be less arrogance in executive suites, and that usually translates to a willingness to consider alternatives.

The failure of unions to support efforts to increase employee involvement and ownership coincided with their unwillingness to speak out on the broader issues of business effectiveness and performance. When foreign competitors threatened the survival of American manufacturers, unions chose to voice traditional employee demands for higher wages, better benefits, and more security. What they failed to provide were effective responses to the challenge of globalization.