‘Thought leader’ is an earned title

Why Thought Leaders Need To Be Judicious About Using The Descriptor Until It’s Definitely Time

As a writer and communications consultant specializing in working with technology thought leaders, I get some version of the below approximately once a month:

“We are looking to establish ourselves as thought leaders in the [technology niche] space. We are hoping to achieve that by the end of this quarter. We’d also like two placements in TechCrunch and to appear on the front page of Google News.”

(Query exaggerated for dramatic effect).

Thought leadership is an effective form of marketing that is related to, but slightly distinct from, content marketing. Its uses extend from lead generation through to positioning the authoring party as a premium provider. But there is a faulty premise underlying the above.

The purpose of this blog post is to unpack it.

True Thought Leaders Are Not Self-Appointed

If you can get past whatever connotations you may have about the term, think, for a moment, about somebody you consider to be a thought leader.

Perhaps it’s a pivotal figure in the tech world — such as Bill Gates — whose prognostics you have come across as a soundbite in a Netflix documentary.

Maybe it’s somebody influential you’ve seen quoted in the media. Alternatively, you may have come across an op-ed in the New York Times that is doing the rounds on LinkedIn.

Hold those images in your mind for a moment.

Now think about (again) a LinkedIn post from a startup founder who declares himself (or herself) a “thought leader on innovation.” Or an email newsletter that proclaims itself to be thought leadership. Perhaps you’re at a networking event and a technologist — but one you’ve never heard of before — introduces himself as a “thought leader on the future of cloud computing.”

I’m guessing that you noticed some differences in terms of how you conceived, in your mind, of both these groups. Pause and think what those are for a moment. Now see whether the perceptions you automatically arrived at differ from what I suggest they’re likely to be.

For the first group, you may have silently affirmed the authority of the thought leaders — in the sense that mentally you didn’t rise to challenge the title that they proclaimed.

The latter examples, by contrast, may well have aroused in you feelings of skepticism and jadedness. “ Not another LinkedIn thought leader!” you may have explained to yourself.

But what are the differences between the two sets of examples? Why did I feel that way?

Let’s dig into a few:

• It’s not easy to become an expert that is quoted in a Netflix documentary (yes, even if you’re listed in an established experts’ directory.) By contrast, it’s not particularly difficult to set up a LinkedIn profile, or website, that declares oneself to be a thought leader.
• Thought leaders who are household names — like Bill Gates — typically don’t need to introduce themselves as thought leaders. Their reputation -quite literally — precedes them and declaring their thought leadership would, in many cases, simply be redundant. When people are at pains to depict themselves in those words through constant repetition, it tends to have a counterproductive effect and leads audiences to wonder if “the ‘thought leader’ doth protest too much.”
• In the latter set of examples, the thought leader’s standing is being externally validated. By being invited to contribute commentary to a documentary. By being offered lucrative real estate in the New York Times. By being invited to offer commentary to other top tier media. Introducing yourself as the thought leader doesn’t leverage any external validation. Most likely, it will be perceived instead as a claim. Perhaps a vacuous one.

The Good News: You Can Start Your Journey Now

The above is not intended to suggest that it is forbidden for thought leaders to declare themselves to be thought leaders. Or to suggest that every self-reference to thought leadership is going to backfire and result in charges of charlatanism (or perceptions of the same).

Rather the point is that — when subjected to the cold, hard light of public perception — there’s a very simple litmus test that readers or viewers can use to differentiate who they perceive to be “true” thought leaders from who they might mark out as wannabees. And that’s whether anybody else is affirming the speaker’s standing as a thought leader.

That social affirmation can take many forms.

It can involve being named as a thought leader by a respected and trusted author with a reputation to defend (consider, for instance, the “40 Under 40” style awards). It could be the glowing introduction from a well-known event MC. Or it could take the form of one’s (repeat) invitation to appear on a television program.

The important point is that the thought leader’s standing is being validated by a party that is itself well-perceived. The effect of these endorsements can be collective. But they’re naturally more powerful when they arise from an external source.

As a general principle, self-references to one’s standing as a “thought leader” should be carried out judiciously until one is unquestionably worthy of the title. That’s because ultimately, whether one’s thoughts are considered leading is decided in the court of public opinion.

Until arriving at that point, thought leaders in development should make every effort to share influential ideas and thoughts that can inspire and change viewpoints whatever their industry. This is the simple (but arduous) way through which one goes from being an unknown presenter on a stage to an expert contributor to prime time television programs.

The business of becoming a thought leader is hard graft. It usually involves a combination of perseverance, having something interesting to say (or many things), and connecting with the right audiences at the right time. But doing so to a fixed timeline is at best a very difficult thing to achieve.

Ultimately one’s success depends upon public perception. As any PR practitioner will tell you, despite one’s best efforts, that tends to be a very difficult thing to guarantee.