Last Friday I had the unusual experience of talking to approximately 200 nonprofit leaders—on the phone. The Center for Excellence in Nonprofits (CEN) asked me to lead a one-hour tele-conference on the topic of nonprofit competition, drawing from our book—Play to Win. CEN handled the logistics marvelously, but it was still an odd experience.

Since the call I have been reflecting that what I like best about speaking to groups is the interaction, the ability to hear as well as see the audience’s reaction to what I am saying; and the opportunity to take questions and comments along the way, and to tailor the talk as I go, depending on these responses, and the needs and interests of the audience.

For the CEN call, I was asked to first talk for 20 minutes during which time the audience was mute. I sometimes wondered if anyone was actually there.

My favorite part was the Q&A, where suddenly an old friend would pop up and ask a question.

These tele-conferences are a wonderfully efficient way to broaden communication in the sector, and I applaud CEN for the effort, but I still like being with people in the flesh.

I’m curious: For those who have participated in this type of teleconference, what is it like on your end?

Thomas Friedman’s blockbuster, The World is Flat, argues that we live in extraordinary times. He believes technology, transportation, and trade agreements are creating an era that will fundamentally change the world ever after, much as the Industrial Revolution did two centuries ago.

Friedman makes a persuasive argument. Outsourcing back office functions and offshoring of manufacturing work to lower wage countries is here to stay. The fiber optic cable that connects the world’s computers instantaneously will only get faster. The 24/7 world of business, where there is always an open market somewhere, may drive us all mad, but it is also the reality we will live with.

I am no economist, but it seems to me that fighting these trends is both pointless and missing an opportunity. If manufacturing jobs are moving overseas, providing a better life for millions of impoverished workers in China, Vietnam or India, ultimately, that will probably be a good thing for people in those countries.

Similarly, if thousands of high-skill technology and management jobs are being snatched up by Indian professionals, that will help the world’s largest democracy to build a more stable, peaceful and prosperous society.

But what will be the fate of Americans and of our own jobs? And where is the opportunity I mentioned above?

As the world’s wealthiest nation we might take a lesson from India, one of the world’s poorest. Fifty years ago that nation set up a series of Technology Institutes (IIT’s) and Management Institutes (IIM’s), in which the best and the brightest Indian students, without reference to their ability to pay, were given top-flight educations and emerged as engineers and business leaders. Meanwhile, over the past thirty years in America, our public education systems have steadily deteriorated.

America has a great advantage in the culture of entrepreneurship and independence we have always prized. However, boldness can only take us so far.

If we do not begin to reverse the decline of our education system, we and India may in our children’s life times reverse roles — they will be the source of great technical innovations and ideas, while our young people will be working at call centers — and the Indians will complain about our accents!