Thought leadership is a phrase that elevates content production to the level of expertise without requiring the expertise. Hellbeing on what the phrase is actually doing and what real authority looks like instead.
Estimated reading time: 7 minutes
“Thought Leadership” Is Not a Thing. Say What You Mean.
Thought leadership is a phrase used to describe content produced by someone who has things to say and would like to be taken seriously for saying them. The phrase exists because “I have opinions and I would like an audience for them” sounds like what it is, whereas “thought leadership” sounds like something you would put on a strategic roadmap. The phrase does the work of elevating the activity without doing the work of actually elevating it. That is most of what corporate language does and thought leadership is simply an unusually transparent example.
What Thought Leaders Are Actually Producing
A thought leader is someone who produces content in their area of expertise with the goal of being recognized as an authority. The content takes the form of LinkedIn posts, articles, keynote talks, podcast appearances, and the occasional carousel with five insights and a call to action. The insights are usually things the audience already knows, stated with enough confidence to feel like confirmation of something important rather than a reminder of something obvious.
The LinkedIn post where someone cried and called it a lesson is thought leadership. The fifteen-slide carousel about the five things every founder needs to know is thought leadership. The conference talk that opens with a provocative question and answers it with a framework the speaker developed and named after themselves is thought leadership. All of these things can be fine. None of them are leading thoughts. They are producing content in the hope that the audience will return the social credential of taking the producer seriously.
The Part That Gets Circular
Thought leadership requires being recognized as a thought leader. Being recognized as a thought leader requires producing thought leadership. The credential and the content produce each other in a loop that has very little to do with whether the thoughts being led are actually worth following. The person with the most followers is not necessarily the person with the most useful ideas. They are the person who has been most effective at producing content that reads as authoritative to people who are looking for something that reads as authoritative.
This is why corporate jargon and thought leadership belong in the same category. Both are systems of language that function as performance of competence rather than demonstration of it.
The Alternative
Have something to say and say it. Know something specific and useful and share it in plain language that makes its utility immediately clear. Be right about things often enough that people seek you out when they need to be right about similar things. This is what actual authority looks like and it does not require the phrase thought leadership to describe it. It just requires being genuinely useful to the people you are trying to be useful to, which is harder than producing content and considerably less common.
More at Infernal Insights.
Frequently Asked Questions
Thought leadership is a content strategy built around establishing authority in a specific domain through consistent publishing. It works when the content is genuinely useful and specific to a real audience. It does not work when it is generic, jargon-heavy, or optimized for appearing authoritative rather than actually being useful.
Be specific and be right. Share what you actually know in plain language that makes its utility immediately clear. Say things that are true and useful even when they are uncomfortable. Build a record of being correct about things over time. Real authority does not need the phrase thought leadership to describe it.
LinkedIn rewards content that performs professional authority rather than demonstrates it. It can be useful for distribution and visibility if your content is genuinely specific and useful. It is not a substitute for actual expertise and it tends to reward the performance of expertise more than the substance of it.