3 ms·

The entire concept of "thought leadership" as something that one can strive for is bunk. You're a thought leader because you are really. fucking. good. at somet

by tomc1985 10y ago

The entire concept of "thought leadership" as something that one can strive for is bunk. You're a thought leader because you are really. fucking. good. at something and you're sharing it with the world. (As in, your ideas spread so you don't need advocates to spread them for you...) People who are not at that status and want to "thought leadership" need to step back and review their goals... The world needs no more lipsticked pigs. Thought leadership on anything but its own merits, where people come to you, is invalid.

eschuman 10y ago
Allow me to try and phrase this in a positive and hopefully realistic way. Don't focus on any one exec as much as all of your people. Many startups that I've covered (not all, but many) have several people who are truly insightful. THOSE are your thought-leaders. It might be the CEO but is more likely to be someone deep in the trenches. The problem is when companies want to position one specific exec as a thought-leader and he/she simply isn't one. Either that or they want to keep the interesting insights to themselves. That's when you get trouble.
- tomc1985 10y ago
  Fair enough; as long as everyone is included in the set of potential thought leaders then the process can be properly meritocratic.
GuiA 10y ago
> You're a thought leader because you are really. fucking. good. at something and you're sharing it This is wishful thinking. In my time in Silicon Valley I've witnessed such "thought leaders" get prestigious speaking engagements, being quoted in the press, etc, but very often not being exceptional at anything. In fact the effort it takes to be really great at something barely overlaps the effort it takes to be a public figure (at extremely high levels, e.g. Elon Musk, obviously this doesn't hold, but these people are the exception). The way they do it is with a small seed of something they can claim ("i helped invent X" - if X is small enough and far enough in time no one will care), and from there they move upwards and build on it. "I invented X, let me give a talk". "I invented X and gave a talk at Y, let me be an advisor". "I invented X, gave a talk at Y, and was an advisor for Z...". Same principle as that guy who traded a potato for something else for something else... and ended up with a house. I've worked with such a clown- he was completely useless. But he got interviews on CNN, WSJ, etc so the CEO didn't want to piss him off by firing him and he got "promoted" to advisor after a while. He's off to a way more prestigious thing now, presumably because no one ever wants to get on his bad side because he's "so well connected" (if only people knew what all of his connections really think of him). So yeah, it's sad for us nerds, but it's very easy to cheat at this game - and any time you spend doing actually meaningful work is time you don't spend promoting yourself, which puts you at a disadvantage.

eschuman 10y ago

Allow me to try and phrase this in a positive and hopefully realistic way. Don't focus on any one exec as much as all of your people. Many startups that I've covered (not all, but many) have several people who are truly insightful. THOSE are your thought-leaders. It might be the CEO but is more likely to be someone deep in the trenches. The problem is when companies want to position one specific exec as a thought-leader and he/she simply isn't one. Either that or they want to keep the interesting insights to themselves. That's when you get trouble.

tomc1985 10y ago
Fair enough; as long as everyone is included in the set of potential thought leaders then the process can be properly meritocratic.

GuiA 10y ago

> You're a thought leader because you are really. fucking. good. at something and you're sharing it This is wishful thinking. In my time in Silicon Valley I've witnessed such "thought leaders" get prestigious speaking engagements, being quoted in the press, etc, but very often not being exceptional at anything. In fact the effort it takes to be really great at something barely overlaps the effort it takes to be a public figure (at extremely high levels, e.g. Elon Musk, obviously this doesn't hold, but these people are the exception). The way they do it is with a small seed of something they can claim ("i helped invent X" - if X is small enough and far enough in time no one will care), and from there they move upwards and build on it. "I invented X, let me give a talk". "I invented X and gave a talk at Y, let me be an advisor". "I invented X, gave a talk at Y, and was an advisor for Z...". Same principle as that guy who traded a potato for something else for something else... and ended up with a house. I've worked with such a clown- he was completely useless. But he got interviews on CNN, WSJ, etc so the CEO didn't want to piss him off by firing him and he got "promoted" to advisor after a while. He's off to a way more prestigious thing now, presumably because no one ever wants to get on his bad side because he's "so well connected" (if only people knew what all of his connections really think of him). So yeah, it's sad for us nerds, but it's very easy to cheat at this game - and any time you spend doing actually meaningful work is time you don't spend promoting yourself, which puts you at a disadvantage.