The Nordic countries comprise of a geographical and cultural region in Northern Europe and the North Atlantic, where they are most commonly known as Norden which literally means ‘The North’. It includes Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden including their associated territories Greenland, Faroe Island and Aland Island. The population of the Nordic countries belongs mainly to Scandinavian or Finnish communities. And their main religion is Lutheran Christianity.

The Bloomberg Innovation Index which uses parameters such as research and development spending, value-added manufacturing, productivity and the concentration of high-tech public organizations scores. In its 2017 innovation index has announced Sweden at number two and Finland at number five in the top five! Bloomberg Indiex is called ‘The battle of ideas’.

Every year, the World Economic Forum releases its Global Competitiveness Report on the state of the world’s economies based again on innovations and productivity, which takes into account things like the quality of scientific research at universities, company spending on R&D (research and development), collaboration between universities and industry, patents, and the number of engineers and scientists in each country.

The 2016 ranking by WEF puts Sweden in the top 10 countries for the ease of doing business. The WEF looks at data on areas as varied as the soundness of banks to the sophistication of businesses in each country. It then uses the data to compile a picture of the economy of almost every country on earth. In WEF’s index also Denmark is lauded for its leadership in world for renewable energy technology, with 140% of the country’s energy being met by wind power.

Finland is “well positioned in terms of innovation,” WEF says, with its capacity to innovate supported by the excellent availability of scientists and engineers and a high degree of collaboration between universities and industry. The government funds high amount on R&D as well as corporate innovation projects.

WEF recognizes Sweden for its several high-profile technical success stories over the past decade; WEF thinks that Sweden is well equipped to embrace the Fourth Industrial Revolution, with a strong score on technological readiness and ranked within the top 10 in innovation. However, the availability of scientists and engineers is falling. It is a reminder to the country that renewed efforts are required to invest in human capital and skills to ensure long-term competitiveness and innovation capacity, for which Nordic countries are known.

Since 2008, Cornell University, INSEAD, and the World Intellectual Property Organization release the annual Global Innovation Index (GII). Basically, it’s a list of the most innovative countries in the world. In its 2016 GII index Sweden, Denmark, Iceland and Finland have scored high numbers.

The GII index also recognizes Sweden for its improvements in the basic factors of competitiveness, especially the macroeconomic environment. Sweden’s labor market functions reasonably well and the country is reported to have a high employment rate, with a high level of women’s participation in the workforce. Though WEF index suggests that Sweden has dropped its performance in terms of the effect of taxation on incentives to work, and restrictive labor regulations are perceived as the second-most problematic factor for doing business. In addition, the availability of scientists and engineers is falling, which is a reminder that renewed efforts to invest in human capital and skills are necessary to ensure long-term competitiveness and innovation capacity. What we need to note is that Swedes themselves promote an atmosphere of great personal ambition.

The Nordic countries share a common economic perspective. They are all small, open economies in which foreign trade has great economic significance. These countries have evolved rapidly from poor, agrarian countries into modern industrialized economies among the most competitive countries in the world. The “Nordic model” is therefore considered attractive by other countries in world by both individuals and policy-makers. The model is based transparency, pragmatism and the nationalist spirit among the citizens. These smaller countries are proud owners of large public sectors, including welfare services, and high taxation. And, they have performed so well economically.

Though there are some notes of cautions for these countries such as:  small, open economies are particularly vulnerable to international economic fluctuations. For example, in the financial crisis of 2008, Iceland was hit hard. Though, Finland and Sweden endured severe economic crises in the early 1990s, and Norway experienced a banking crisis around the same time. In the 1980s, Denmark suffered a serious structural crisis that led to the implementation of a comprehensive emergency program famously known as “potato diet”. The crises of the 1990s also led to many structural changes in the Swedish and Finnish economies, and Iceland is now going through the throbbing process of transformation.

But it is really appreciable these small Nordic countries are dominating the innovation indexes in research, infrastructure, institutions, market and business sophistication, and a commitment to knowledge and creativity!! The Nordic countries pride themselves on the honesty and transparency of their governments. A point to note here is that Nordic governments are subject to rigorous inquiry: for example, in Sweden everyone has access to all official records. Politicians are disparaged if they get off their bicycles and into official limousines. Transparency tops the governance of these small yet dynamic countries.

The Nordics have added two other important qualities to transparency: pragmatism and determinedness.  When these countries realized that the old social democratic consensus was no longer working, they let it go with remarkably little fuss and introduced new ideas from across the political spectrum. They were absolutely determined in pushing through reforms. It is stupidity to mistake Nordic geniality as their vulnerability. Pragmatism explains why the new consensus has quickly replaced the old one. Nordic countries can often seem to be amalgams of left- and right-wing policies.

They still have plenty of problems: their governments remain too big and their private sectors too small. Their taxes are still too high and some of their benefits too generous. The Danish system of flexicurity (flexi security) puts too much emphasis on security and not enough on flexibility. Norway’s oil boom is threatening to destroy the work ethic. It is a bad sign that over 6% of the workforce are on sick leave at any one time and around 9% of the working-age population live on disability pensions. But the Nordics are continuing to introduce structural reforms, thought bit slowly, they are continually working on them. The lesson the world should take from them is their ability to invest in human capital and protect them first.

The conventional practice of management to drive results at any costs is ruled out. Managers used to be hard on employees, suppress them, scare them and get work out of them. Today the scene has changed.  Managers need to strike a friendlier cord with their subordinates. They are aware of their subordinate’s personal lives, their hobbies, their hidden talents so that their personal and professional lives don’t collide. Today’s workplace atmosphere calls for an evolved way of management and of leadership. Today’s managers have to be good human first to get the best performance from his subordinates. Today’s manager needs to motivate and inspire his team to get the best out of his team members.

Nobody can stand an obsessive, insecure, complicated and fiddly manager.  People don’t leave organizations, they leave persons. No one likes to work with a ‘self obsessed’ manager; someone who says ‘I am so and so’, ‘I like so and so’, ‘this is my vision’, ‘that is my intention’ so on and forth. Instead of ‘me’ manager employees like a ‘we’ manager. A leader who can accommodate others is appreciated highly. Being human is no more considered a sign of vulnerability; it’s a mark of strong leadership. Employees are first human beings. Organizations must acknowledge this fact and hire managers who understand other’s emotions. We cannot underestimate social emotions; they are most crucial for success.  And, the most vital emotion at work place is empathy.

Leaders who want to be in control all the time get frustrated when their team looks up to them for answers and solutions. And, if they display any limitation or waver in their decision, the chances are the whole organization can crumble around them. Perfectionism and insecurity makes the leaders terribly anxious. Also a fixated manager always remains anxious. We should remember that even subordinates can see the strengths and weaknesses of their superiors. Despite some weaknesses if the managers function well, if they can handle tough situations without much fuss the subordinates support him/her quietly.

Clearly, some training and development needs are universal. Some traits of leadership can be taught but some are to be innate. It’s still not scientifically proved whether leaders are born or they can be developed.

A good leader understands that each member in his team is unique: each one has different skills, different levels of understanding, and is fit to take on different responsibilities and objectives. Thus the business world, political world, social world requires trained, well mannered and mature leaders. The academia needs to take on the responsibility of training and developing effective leaders.  When we say academia more emphasis is stressed on business schools which can play a big role in developing trusted leaders.

Organizations today seek collaborative thinkers who are cooperative and can solve problems. At B-Schools too much of emphasis is laid on developing analysts who are good at applying quantitative management formulas. The narrowly designed specializations corrupt minds of the students; they lose the ability of looking at problems from totality.  Companies demand leaders who can powerfully coherent ideas, both orally and in writing. Companies look at leadership traits that can motivate and guide their people. But business schools tend to train people to simply assert their ideas. We are trailing out on the importance of understanding and empathizing emotions. Working with our own and other’s emotions seems very difficult. Another thing is sensitizing the students to the real time issues and improving their critical abilities. Excellent communication is equally core area for development.

Can we expect a radical revamp from B schools? No, we can’t until industry and schools compare notes. I think the gap between expectation from the organizations and the skills taught at MBA schools can be shortened if there is a regular dialogue between both.

A 1999 study of MBA graduates conducted by Mark Kretovics who was then assistant dean at Colorado State University’s College of Business and is currently an assistant professor of higher education administration and student personnel in Kent State University’s Department of Teaching Leadership and Curriculum Studies, provides really striking findings. He assessed set of skills among a control group comprising of students from various streams of studies including MBAs. The study proved that out of 12 skill areas in 7 categories MBA graduates were significantly better than the group of university graduates not enrolled in a business program. The seven categories in which MBAs were superior were action, goal setting, information analysis, information gathering, quantitative skills, theory, and technology. However, the MBAs could not outsmart students from other streams in five other equally critical areas: helping others, inventiveness, leadership, affiliation, and wisdom. We see that these deficiencies are widespread among MBA programs in most part of the world.

In a 2002 poll by Canada’s Financial Post, 141 CEOs and senior executives rated non-business-school graduates as far better than MBAs in commitment to hard work, oral communication, written communication, understanding industry analysis, interpersonal skills, and even skills in marketing and sales. B Schools must take their roles seriously.

The primary task of leadership is giving direction. Leaders must be able to create trustworthiness in their organizations. Trust is the foundation of leadership. In 21^st century organizations must transform economy by improving lives, saving the environment and empowering communities. Transformation, environment protection and empowerment all three breed well when there is trust.  Organizations have to recognize themselves as social enterprises. The social networking and Internet are educating the people like never before. To face the complexities in the business world well prepared leaders are a must. Most MBA graduates arrive at new jobs unprepared. They should be prepared to work in multicultural, diversified, multiunit organizations.

Organizations expect highly motivated, able people with stronger skills who arrive with MBAs.  They look for stronger skills in writing, public speaking, building and running teams, supervising and delegating, and sharing leadership in ways that motivate and inspire subordinates. Even if it’s true that social skills are difficult to teach, curriculum can be designed to promote them. Organizations expect MBAs with a better grasp of the scientific method and how to apply it from hypothesis generation through the research and analysis that underlies the MBA profession. Research skills must be taught at the B Schools with precedence.

Business schools mistakenly defer to students when they’re designing their curriculum. They instead try to please students by designing lighter, misleading curriculum. That could explain why MBA programs do not pay enough attention to the nuts and bolts of problem solving.

Another area of concern is there is hardly any stress laid on the quality of being honest and having strong morals and principles. For building successful business ‘integrity’ is a must. A 2007 Bloomberg/LA Times survey reported that 6 out of 10 Americans believed that the CEOs of American companies are not ethical. In 2008 America witnessed the subprime crisis and the economic downhill.

Bad leadership and lack of genuine spirits are not going to take us any further. The base of leadership is integrity and spirit of service. Today we need leaders who can instead of only talking do the walking for transforming the economy. Leadership is a relationship between the person leading a group and group members. As with any relationship, success depends on both parties.

Whether the setting of an organization is business, government, education, entertainment, retail, or it’s an NGO; most people would agree that they would like to work with a good leader. And, a good leader is someone like a good physician. Just as the physician identifies the patient’s disease accurately to ensure effectiveness of the prescribed treatment, the business leader must also be able to diagnose problems, values and voices while finding effective solutions. All said and done, today all organizations are craving for trusted leaders.