The Problem with Thought Leadership

You say people don't NEED to be led to the Thought River to drink...but some people seem to want that.

They want to be shown how to do everything - how to use the tools, what to say, how to say it.

They want the next guru to stand on a stage and tell them how to be happy, successful, rich, or all of the above.

And because some people want that, selling snake oil is a multimillion dollar industry.

I do agree that a lot of us are not looking for the next big "thought leader" to wow us with their wisdom and show us all the answers. But the more time I spend online, the more I think that a lot of us are not the norm.

The problem with your logic is you use the second bullet of leadership, not the first. If you didn't believe people's thoughts led you, Danny, you wouldn't subscribe to their blogs nor care what people commented here. This comment -- THIS COMMENT BY ME -- is full of my thought. By your reading it, or commenting after it, implies my thought is leading you to that action, no?

This is a great post.....and will be influencing my next post.....I agree with many of your points about the annoyance of the current use of 'thought leadership' in the same way that I'm annoyed with 'social media'...

-Rich

Danny I think you're right it is semantics and if someone can come up with a better phrase to capture it, fantastic.

Sure we don't lead people's thoughts but we can certainly influence them and their perceptions with new insights. And herein lies the nub of thought leadership - having that depth of knowledge and research to deliver new insights to business or socio economic and political challenges.

Danny, you raise an interesting point and one that has clearly struck a cord with others. The problem with your debate is that it mirrrors the discussion that has raged around the term public relations for over 40 years. To this day people passionately argue for and against the term.

Thought leadership rightly or wrongly is a term applied to a certain area of marketing and no doubt, if yours and other posts are anything to go by, it too will be a hotly debated term for some time yet.

The key to thought leadership is not about leading someone elses thoughts, rather it is about sharing deep knowledge or insights on a particular topic in order to frame the debate or discussion around that topic. The emphasis should be on sharing information. In so doing, the thought leader's intention should be to influence people to see things differently and thereby change their perceptions about that subject possibly influencing their business/personal decisions as a result of this new information.

I'd say that thought leadership applied in this way is actually a pretty useful business tool.

I don't love the term "thought leader" either (though I don't have a better option that will work with clients and have them know what the heck we're saying), but I think you're wrong in that you can't lead people's thoughts.

There are many, many people who don't have original thoughts (to janebinnion point) and are easily swayed because they can't think critically. It used to be (like MarkDykeman says) that thought leader equaled pundit. But now we have bloggers who can be considered pundits, thought leaders, or experts.

The term is not a social media term. It's been around, in the communication sphere, forever. The way we're using technology just enhances the ability to become a leader in how one thinks and gives us access to people who wouldn't necessarily be on TV or write for a national publication.

So, rather than think about it as leading a person's thoughts (which I still think happens more than you're willing to admit - there are A LOT of dumb people in this world), think of it as someone who can take the information they're given and look at it differently than most. That is thought leadership.

...and in fact it could be argued that there are no original thoughts anyway , just recycled thoughts! Or more likely it is just some people putting into words what many others were already thinking but didn't have time to write down.

You know, in the proper context, thought leader = pundit...

As I said over on Doug's post - I've always thought the term sounded a little "cult-ish".

If we're getting to create new terms? I'm more inclined toward "thought catalyst". I hate the term "followers" and the whole concept that there are a few inspirational, influential folks and everyone else is sheep.
My inspirations? Come from all sorts of people. But few who consider themselves 'thought leaders'.

I love blog posts that generate a good discussion, and this one's clearly done that.

Adding my two cents to the conversation: 1) You can't self-proclaim yourself a thought leader, no matter how "popular" you think you are. I love your distinction between inspiration and leading. 2) The HBR article annoyed me when I first saw it, especially the reference to "flaunting high-quality affiliations." As if name dropping is going to elevate your reputation. I've found that the people who don't flaunt "high profile" acquaintances are the ones that actually have influence because they're building networks and treating everyone as equally important and valuable.

Is the NHL's "scoring leader" is one who guides others to scoring? No... it's the top scorer.

Is the "race leader" one who guides others to racing? Nope again.

Danny, you're only looking at one definition of the word "leader". To lead is also to be the "top" or "best" at something. So if you are a thought leader, you are essentially thinking ahead of the pack. You are on the 'cutting edge' of thought. And I don't think this means everybody needs to follow your lead. But then again, if you truly are a 'thought leader", people would probably do well to emulate you... much like a young NHL player would do well to learn from the scoring leader.

It's not always about guiding others. It's about being unique and not following the status-quo. It's about innovation. And if that leads to outstanding results, of course others would benefit by listening to what you have to say.

Danny,
Enjoyed reading your post. I think these social media buzz words are starting to be challenged. I also read Geoff & Doug's posts (which were both excellent) and I can't agree enough. I'd like to take a look at a couple of your observations:

"You donu00e2u0080u0099t need to be led. No-one does. At least, not when it comes to thoughts." Unfortunately, people do need to be led; actually want to be led, especially when it comes to thoughts. Most people are unhappy with their present situations, and especially their jobs but they don't know how to get out of the rut (takes way too many thoughts to figure it out, yes?). But along comes the likes of Tony Robbins, Les Brown, Stephen Covey, etc and guess what? They're bringing the thoughts you need to have to change your life...now! This is why the self-improvement business is a billion dollar industry. These so-called "thought leaders" know this and they prey upon it; make a living off of it with books like "Engage".

Secondly: "So itu00e2u0080u0099s more thought reaction than thought leadership." I agree here. The question is, why aren't we challenging these thoughts? Thoughts, ideas & opinions were made to be challenged, yes? In most case, there is no data to support the idea but most people just assume the "thought" as a valid one because the person is already recognized as a "thought leader"; they've succeeded in making the perception a reality (kudos for them!). In many cases (Seth Godin, for one) the information is so banal and stale, that I'm amazed his posts aren't mocked instead of praised.

The reality is that there are few new thoughts for business & life success that you can't already find in Napoleon Hill's 1937 publication "Think & Grow Rich". As a social media community, we need to analyze and challenge these "thoughts" and ideas and make it a little harder for these so-called leaders to make a living off the ignorance of the masses.

"Thought leaders", "influencers", "gurus"...lions, tigers, and bears, oh my! Nuff said.

Danny, another thought-provoking post, thanks! I read this last night and am still digesting, but on the way in to work it hit me - what really bothers me about the term "thought leader" is the fact that it implies (to me, anyway) that thought leaders don't have to "walk the talk."

I realize that it's a matter of interpretation, of course, but to me the term evokes this image of the sage sitting above the world thinking great things and being all visionary but not actually DOING anything. More importantly, it evokes a sense of elitism and one-way communication, and a lack of genuine interaction with others deemed outside of the designated u00e2u0080u009cchosenu00e2u0080u009d.

I much prefer the idea of people being able to share and communicate openly, and this term seems to put limitations on that freedom. Just my perspective.

Spot on! Thank you.

Hey Danny,

I agree with what you're saying. We could simply say "leader" since a leader is already expressing his thoughts that inspire people to action and even deeper thought. So a "thought leader" is not that different from a regular "leader." In my opinion, the term is just a fad and will fade away.

You say people don't NEED to be led to the Thought River to drink...but some people seem to want that.

They want to be shown how to do everything - how to use the tools, what to say, how to say it.

They want the next guru to stand on a stage and tell them how to be happy, successful, rich, or all of the above.

And because some people want that, selling snake oil is a multimillion dollar industry.

I do agree that a lot of us are not looking for the next big "thought leader" to wow us with their wisdom and show us all the answers. But the more time I spend online, the more I think that a lot of us are not the norm.

Like most things turned into a catch phrase, it seems to come down to marketing. Case in point, Wikipedia has Joel Kurtzman (editor-in-chief of multiple magazines) as the man who coined the phrase.

I am certain there is a better way to describe people who are the first to vocalize revolutionary ideas but it probably won't sound as sexy. In fact as a designer I was always taught, there is no such thing as new ideas, just modifications of old ones.

When it comes down to the real meat and potatoes of what you're saying, I agree and believe it is in the same boat as the term "expert". Assigned so frequently that it has a similar smell to a used car salesman telling you "she's a beauty".

I am gulping from the river now.....Holy cow Danny this is so dead on, but the funny thing is, well I guess it is not funny, most of our companies are run this way. And we wonder why our "thought leaders" at companies have trouble activating their employees. Well it is because their assumption is they have to lead our thoughts.....

Hi, Danny. As you may recall, Twitter has determined that we are similar. Knowing that they couldn't possibly be mistaken and have sophisticated algorithms to determine such things, we are dissimilar in the way we consider the prhase "thought leader." I think it is an excellent, although perhaps over used, phrase to describe someone who is frequently and intentionally on the leading edge of thought on a particular topic.

True thought leaders have great value to the human endeavor.