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.

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.

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.

Sadly, at Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler sales continually trend downward, manufacturing costs rise, and employment declines. As the result of the decrease in the number of cars produced by American manufacturers, membership in the United Auto Workers has dropped from a high of over 1.5 million thirty years ago to less than half a million today.

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.

American managers often say they would like to pay their employees more, they argue that they can't afford to do so and, at the same time, keep the prices of their products competitive. As one CEO recently explained, "I would treat my employees as well as Starbuck's treats theirs, if I could charge the equivalent for my product of three dollars for a cup of latte!"

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.