It's a question that many decision-makers constantly ask themselves. As a sort of benchmark to compare what other organizations are doing or how they're thinking about these issues, GE has conducted its first "GE Global Innovation Barometer" which it released at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, based on a survey of 1,000 business executives across 12 countries. The barometer is intended to analyze executives' perceptions around innovation challenges as well as insights on drivers and deterrents to innovation.

In their recent book, The Why of Work: How Great Leaders Build Abundant Organizations That Win, co-authors Dave and Wendy Ulrich examine how leaders can cultivate and encourage a culture which helps employees to find meaning and purpose in their work.

The Ulrichs cite seven disciplines that leaders can use to build meaning within their organizations and develop a creative environment for employees.

When President Obama gave his State of the Union address on Jan. 25, he talked as lot about how the U.S. needs to invest in innovation in order to remain competitive with the rest of the world.

The federal government plays a critical role in helping to invest and encourage innovation throughout various sectors, including technology, biotechnology, alternative energy sources, medicine, pharmaceuticals, engineering and other disciplines. But the wherewithal for the U.S. to compete in the global market doesn't fall solely on the federal government, much less the President. Still, here are a few recommendations for helping to spur innovation in the U.S. without undermining a federal government that's already saddled with debt.

Since Google co-founder Larry Page took the reins as CEO from Eric Schmidt on Jan. 20, there's been no shortage of speculation as to why the changes were made now, what this means for Schmidt's own future and what the changes portend for the world's leading search company.

One thing that is clear is that Page steps into the role at a time when Google is being pressed by shareholders to return to its innovative roots and suppress growing competition from companies such as Facebook, Twitter and Groupon.

According to a new report by PricewaterhouseCoopers, the U.S. is losing ground to emerging market countries such as China, India and Brazil as the world's center of innovation on medical technology advancements. While this can certainly be viewed as a threat to the American R&D community, I see it more as a trigger -- and an opportunity to spur the U.S. med-tech community to new heights.

According to the PwC research, which quantified five factors using 86 different metrics, the U.S. is still solidly in place as the world innovation leader in the medical technology field with a total score of 7.1 on a scale of 1 to 9. The scores of other developed nations (Germany, U.K., Japan and France) fell within a narrow band with scores ranging from 4.8 to 5.4. Meanwhile, emerging market entrants such as China, India and Brazil clock in with scores of 3.4, 2.7 and 2.7, respectively. The five factors examined by PwC, according to a Wall St. Journal article, are price incentives, resources for innovation, a supporting regulatory system, patient demand and price sensitivity and a supportive investment community.

When you think of leadership, what springs to mind? Do you think of a particular person whom you feel has emulated the qualities that you look for in a leader? Or do you consider some of the traits that great leaders are known for - people who inspire, those who articulate their vision for an organization well, or perhaps those who have taken a bad or problematic situation and overcame the odds to lead a group of people to success.

There's been a lot of buzz lately about leadership, particularly as the economy shows signs of recovery and companies look to growth - and the people who will lead them to it. When considering leadership, including identifying and grooming would-be future leaders, it begs the question as to whether leadership can be taught. Much has been written already on this topic, and I agree with some authors who have argued that leadership can be taught, to some degree.