Where are the thought followers?
Go to any company and they’ll tell you they need to be doing more “thought leadership.” I cringe when I hear this. The message behind the message is that they really want a whitepaper or marketing program or something that sales can dump off on prospects. I’ve never met a prospect that thinks of this as thought leadership. If that’s really what people want, let’s just call it clearer and/or more marketing materials. I don’t know about you, but I’ve never run into any materials a company has created and thought, “wow, now that’s thought leadership.” Instead, I usually think, “Stop dumping on me.”
Everyone can’t lead
I’ve met some people who thought-lead but not many. Not everyone can or should thought-lead. And not all thought leaders always lead. I know a few thought-leaders who are pretty damn good thought participants and thought followers, too. That’s part of what makes them great thought leaders.
If a company wants to be a thought leader, they need to create some kick ass products that lead by example. They need to surprise me. Create a culture that shows me something new. Develop legendary support. Everything they do needs to make me think.
Oftentimes early adopter customers are called thought leaders when really they’re just companies who take the risk of giving it a shot. We need those people but that doesn’t mean they’re thought leaders, they’re leading by example.
Thought participation
I think companies should start saying, “we need great thought participation.” They should start by participating not by trying to be the expert. We’re not stupid, we know who most of the experts are. Even if you think you could be one, start by joining the conversations and adding value, first.
How cool would it be to hear a company say, “we’re not a thought leader but we do have active thought programs. For example, check out this team: Mary is proactively responding to someone who seems to need help. Tim is monitoring the web for issues that our customers might have and making sure everyone here knows what they are. Martha is working on a product that is going to thrill our customers above and beyond anything they could have imagined. Doug just created something innovative that will help everyone better understand how to more effectively use our stuff.”
Next time you hear someone say, “thought leadership,” call them to the mat and invite them to start following or participating, first.
Things people have said about this post
Hmmm. I didn’t recall that conversations had leaders or followers or if they did, that it mattered in the long-run, just that the effort moved forward.
I actually do think it’s a good point you raise. Just adding a different perspective.
Don Burke of the CIA said last week at the Enterprise 2.0 conference ‘middle management is about making the trains run on time’. To mix metaphors, too many cooks in the kitchen (ie too many ‘thoughtleaders) can play havoc on internal processes. Confused middle managers = broken workflow processes.
Somehow this always seems to imbue external communications as well…coherent participation, often with a healthy dose of consensus thinking, works wonders on the validity and believability of outbound messaging for companies of all sizes.
Imposing an emperor as ‘thoughtleader’ with a few associated ‘yes men’ drones can be a great way to stifle creativity in everyone else and constipate productivity… participation is key….
Yes — “thought leaders” seem to be a dime a dozen. I prefer to use another metaphor — be a “rut jumper”. It is too easy to be stuck in our thinking, to follow the rut, so to speak. “Rut jumper” doesn’t have the same pizzaz as “thought leader”, but I believe it is much easier to challenge yourself, daily, to not be a slave to the ruts that our thinking so easily follows, as opposed to waking up and saying “today I will be a “thought leader”. Even better than going solo, is to encourage rut jumping all around you, walk between the ruts with your colleagues, and find some new roads to travel.
Paula, maybe he meant that conversations should have thought participants thought moderators and thought administrators. Though in the big picture, some will lead, some will follow and then some will stand on the sideline and just watch as it goes by.
Maybe what we also need is thought leaders who start looking at their roles differently. Instead of spewing “divine knowledge” from on high, maybe what we need are thought leaders who, in the Socratic tradition, frame and guide the discussion. This more effecively leverages the knowledge of all participants and (hopefully) results in new/better ideas, that are fully vetted and ready for prime time.
Alot of these new technologies have given more people a voice and made thought participation more viable. In a way it’s similar to the role pamphleteering played in the 19th century. What we need is the equivalent of the town square where we can readily exchange and respond to these. I’m not convinced that part has been sorted out yet.
From a company perspective, I think in today’s world, thought leadership is a dated term that assumes one corporation can truly lead the dialogue. You used the term ‘thought participation,’ which is more apt. Kim Feraday (other responder) has it right. I also use the term ‘thought direction,’ implying the ability to not just participate in the conversation but to bring it into different topical areas…and maybe to lead the conversation…for awhile. But to imply that one company can unambiguously claim a crown of thought leadership is bordering on arrogant. Sure, it might be possible for a startup with a big innovation and even larger pipes. But if it’s possible, it is fleeting…and for so many reasons, e.g., company’s ongoing performance, performance of respective products, market direction and competitive forces, macro-economic forces, the will and voice of ‘the people,’ ever-increasing pace of change, etc. Realistically, the crown can go to a few, but to one?
Yes, “thought leadership” is an overused term and I agree completely with need for “thought followers”, but what I’ve found to be typically missing is the “lead”ing in “thought leadership”. As you state, too often thought leadership translates into a whitepaper or a marketing program. What is often missing is the leadership necessary to bring that thought to life. Coming up with new ideas is easy. Nurturing them to reality is the challenge.