Thought Leader? Really?

Is it just my imagination, or has Thought Leader lost its edge? It seems that every time the front page opens, we’re bombarded with individual’s views of how much is wrong with our country, and in that respect, there is little to distinguish it from the daily news [both newspaper and television]. During the course of last year, this site was one of my first and favourite stops for good reading, but now I struggle to even open the site without specific cause to do so, merely to avoid the onslaught of pessimism and camouflaged insults that permeate the pages. Judging from the first comment on this recent TL post, it seems I’m not the only one who feels this way.

“Thought Leader” is a truly great name. It conjures up images of inspiring writing, simply overflowing with innovative ideas and contributing towards leadership development amongst its readership. In fact, the Wikipedia entry for “thought leader” says this term is “used to describe a futurist or person who is recognized among their peers and mentors for innovative ideas and demonstrates the confidence to promote or share those ideas as actionable distilled insights.”

Don’t get me wrong, I’ll gladly admit that most of the contributors on TL are highly skilled writers with an excellent knowledge of their subject matter - hence they are most probably considered leaders in their field. And as a social commentary forum, I greatly respect what Matthew, Vincent and company have built here. It’s just sad to see that this social media leader now largely consists primarily of para-journalism and critical political commentary... and too often doesn't continue from there with the thought leadership that its name promises.

At my last count there were 112 signed-up bloggers. With so many contributors, its obvious that new posts fly through the front page faster than you can say “Mail & Guardian”. And what is the prevalent message being put out there? Well, I’m not too sure, because the consistent flow of bitter anger is drowning out even the real thought leaders amongst the arsenal of contributors.

[As an aside, if Vincent’s target of 1,000 contributors ever realises, it will be even more difficult to hear anything amongst all the noise. Perhaps allowing users to “follow” or “block” specific contributors [as used on Twitter] would help keep content relevant to readers individually?]

Surely thought leadership requires the exhibition of at least some of the following characteristics: innovation; constructive writing; inspirational thinking; instigating positive action; either describing or demonstrating leadership qualities; and encouraging readers to make a difference and change the world. In his post referenced above, Vincent even describes the characteristics required of contributors as being the ability to “provide high-quality critical commentary on his or her field of expertise and provide leadership in terms of starting important conversations.”

Okay, perhaps I’m wrong here. I actually hope I am. In the last paragraph of this TL post, Grant Walliser makes a fair argument that Thought Leader is indeed serving its purpose. I’m sorry to say that I still can’t agree with him. Do yourself a favour and just look at the posts on the front page at any given time, and ask yourself whether they are constructive, negative or irrelevant. Sure, this is a subjective assessment, but the best I could come up with was about half of the posts being constructive in any way at any given moment.

Most people would probably believe that the site as it currently stands is social media in all its splendour. I agree that it cannot be censored to weed out the negative commentary, nor can restrictive guidelines be used to ensure a warm and fuzzy tone, as that would defeat the purpose.

However, one thing I would challenge all involved to ask is why you do it. Are you just using it as a platform to vent your own thoughts, regardless of any consequences whatsoever and without thought to the thousands of influential and influence-able people that read these posts?

Or are you truly aiming to be thought leaders in whatever sphere you write about, to understand the world and environment we live in [yes, the good and the bad] and to put forth constructive ideas and solutions that generate real excitement and perhaps, just maybe, instigate change?

Is this really SA thought leadership at its best? Think about it.