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.

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.

When we spoke about workplaces in 1972 we mainly were referring to old-line manufacturing firms, on the one hand, and Main St. shops and restaurants, on the other. Both of those categories are now insignificant in terms of employment. Today, the economy is dominated by the rapidly growing Low-Cost Operators - national discount and mall chain stores, fast food franchises and supermarkets - which offer employees low salaries, few benefits and little training.

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

Ed Lawler and I document that the key to creating good, productive jobs in all industries is to organize work processes and systems in ways that allow employees to contribute significant amounts of "added value" to the products they make and services they provide. When mangers give employees the organizational structure, resources, and authority needed for them to contribute their ideas and efforts, American workers, like those at Harley-Davidson, almost always prove capable of effectively competing against their overseas counterparts.

In the 80s, Ford's successful introduction of the Taurus was, in large part, due to productivity gains resulting from the setting aside of outmoded work rules. Yet, inexplicably, union leaders ignored such efforts to foster employee involvement, much as unions largely stayed on the sidelines with regard to the equally promising practices of employee stock ownership and gain-sharing.