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!"

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!"

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.

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.

By all indications, American business leaders are more adept at creating business strategies than they are skilled at human capital management. American entrepreneurs are world-beaters when it comes to creating new businesses, and corporate managers are adept at using the latest marketing, financial, and technological practices.

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.

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.