Thought Leaders. Thought and Leaders. In [your industry here]

Tim Manners has a nice post on "thought leaders" in Marketing, along with an interesting survey on how industry folk regard the concept and find themselves reflected in the description.

Wait. I just called his post *nice* and the survey *interesting* didn't I? I lied. I think (hah!) his post is more interesting than the data in the survey. The data tells us what we likely could have guessed; that most are conflicted about whether they really are blazing trails or following the herd. Most numbers fall marginally on the "Sure, we're regarded well" side of things, but it's no landslide when you consider the part-time Sages:

1. Do you think of yourself as a marketing-industry thought-leader?
Yes 45.6%
No 10.8%
Sometimes 43.7%

2. Do you think of your employer as a marketing-industry thought-leader?

Yes 42.6%
No 29.7%
Sometimes 27.7%

"Sometimes." Maybe that could be paraphrased as "When the time is 'right'."

Tim starts his post out with a quote, from Hedy Lukas of Kimberly-Clark: "We're challenging our agencies to challenge us and stay fresh and not be just execution partners, but also to be thought leaders with us." He adds, refreshingly:

However, based on a reader survey (link), it is safe to say that "thought leadership" is ill-defined at best and non-existent at worst in the marketing business. We've seldom seen so many meandering, cliché-ridden attempts at a definition.

Well, Tim. That's the conundrum of "difference," which is, in turn, the core of what Thought Leadership is about. Well, that and Courage and Humility. I think we've all concepted the "campaign of the century" after being exalted to go forth and amaze. When we get back, all flushed and hyper and proud, the client blurts out: "When I said 'something different,' I didn't mean that different." Sometimes, maybe most times, it would be the agency principals saying that. It is, after all, their job to "keep" clients like Hedy Lukas and Kimberly-Clark. As one of those restless-legged principals I know I've been on both sides of that equation and the urges are hard to fight. But not totally impossible. I'll step off for now, since this from the archives redelivers my thoughts best of all right now.

Take it easy. You're making us look bad.

"We have to walk before we can run."

Overheard that nugget being used to flog a really smart person today.

Bullshit.

Infants have to walk before they run. But they only run if their parents let them; only if those parents remember that falling and getting a boo-boo is part of growth and ambition.

But "walk before we can run" gets used by 45-year olds overseeing 30-year olds all working for 75-year old companies. Not too many diapers in those boardrooms. Just plenty of "wubbies."

No, "We" don't run because those who can grant permission--encourage the running--prefer to walk. Walking is a higher percentage endeavor in their eyes. A lower exertion one, too. Running is not their ambition, exposure makes them anxious. Horizons make them squint.

Problem is, people are hard-wired to run. And to admire the fleet of foot. And to follow them. In business and evolution, running is a primary adaptation that allowed man to climb to the top of the heap. Running ahead too far has it's dangers certainly, but those are issues of direction and purpose, not speed--running just to run, to feel or look busy, not to get somewhere. Too bad Darwin proves the "walk before we run" business people wrong. Too bad, for all of us, that what "walk before we run" people really usually mean is: I prefer camouflage to speed. And average over ambition.

Run. As soon as you can walk. You'll encounter more numerous useful experiences. You won't get eaten as easily. And you'll like who you become.