Coaching comprises a set of methods to mobilize and focus human energy in the pursuit of useful, "bankable" results, whether these are immediate and short-term, or longer-term developmental goals. Coaching methods have long existed in the repertoires of leadership, communication and motivation.

In academic discussions of leadership over the past thirty years, there has been too much emphasis on "leaders as equals among equals". This emphasis is misleading and dangerous. Actually, leaders must show the way to others.

Here are some propositions and questions to assist you to develop your own leadership "must do’s".

An ongoing challenge for you, the leader-manager, is to train people within your sphere of influence to work together and to contribute as individuals. How strong is your leadership "mind-set/heart-set"? Do you approach each task, each project, each day, with the thoughts: "I’m a leader. What is required of me here? What can I contribute - as a leader?"

Not all innovation leaders are equally talented at steering the "fuzzy front-end" of innovation, where the emphasis is on applied creativity, and the "speedy back-end", which requires a lot of implementation discipline. Perfectly balanced innovation leaders should be able to steer innovation projects from A to Z, but there are very few of them. Most leaders have a "default" mode of operation. On one hand, front-end leaders tend to focus on exploration and experimentation. They encourage the search for unarticulated customer needs and promising technology ideas. They tend to authorize innovators to break rules and create a challenging environment. Back-end leaders, on the other hand, are process and execution-oriented people who have the discipline, operational knowledge and the urge to commercialize innovation. Both front-end and back-end leaders share some common characteristics, notably a strong personal credibility based on their innovation track-record, a strong personal attachment to their products, services and customers and a similar level of passion, even though it may be expressed in very different ways. Innovative companies should make sure they have an adequate and balanced number of front-end and back-end leaders in their top management group.

The usual explanations why an IT-enabled business project does not deliver expected benefits include poor initial definition of requirements, poor business management, inappropriate or complex software technology, insufficient funds, poor project management discipline, and/or poor acceptance of the project as it goes live.

The first step in shaping the future requires identifying what trends exist and how important their impact on our organizations might be. To find out how organizations perceive these trends and deal with the associated threats and opportunities, we presented information on nine global trends, and surveyed a diverse group of 289 senior executives about them at the IMD Orchestrating Winning Performance Program in June 2007. So where among these forces of change do respondents see the greatest impact?

Polite teams get polite results. The upshot is that leaders need to be, if not disruptive, capable of creating the capacity for constructive confrontation. All too often, however, both organizations and individuals shy away from this. It is easier to build a team that gets along with one another than to push people to fulfill their potential. Great innovators, however, push people to a level that they themselves might not realize they are capable of.

A recent article in the Economist magazine stated: 'If China can keep flying high, it will help keep the world economy safe'. That’s quite a statement. Clearly, we are sailing through uncharted water. It would not be too bold a statement to say that the fate of the world’s economy now hinges not just on America, but also on China’s economic fitness. At least over the next two years.

In this IMD webcast, Mr Warren Buffett, recently cited in Forbes magazine as the richest man in the world, explains the rationale behind the investment decisions that have made him and his holding company Berkshire Hathaway Inc so successful.

Will the US keep its first place?

Once again, the United States is in first place in the rankings of the 2008 IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook (WCY), a pioneer in competitiveness since 1989. The US pushed Japan out of the top slot in 1994 and has maintained its leading position ever since. But will this continue? In our 20th anniversary edition this year, we may be seeing the US in the number one position for the last time! Singapore has been quickly catching up over the past couple of years and may boot the US out of its top spot next year, closing the gap that has become infinitely smaller. With the US at 100, Singapore is in a close second place at 99.3 in the WCY overall ranking. This year may be the turning point where the US falls from its leadership of top competitors in the world economy. Looking back over the 20-year history of competitiveness, we may learn some lessons from another leading country’s experience - Japan. Is this "déjà vu"?

In food retailing, hard discounters are capturing a growing share of the retail grocery market in many countries and have almost a 20% market share across Western Europe. Local value competitors are capturing significant market shares in countries like China and India. Huawei, a Chinese telecommunications and networking equipment company, has been doubling its international sales in recent years, and is now a supplier to some major European carriers.