The Identity vs. The Practice

I have a weird hang-up in that “thought leadership” as a phrase is fine, but I bristle a little whenever someone refers themselves as a “thought leader.” That never seems genuine to me.

We’re talking about the difference between an identity and a practice.

• A practice is something you do

• An identity is something you are

I also think it might be about focus:

• “Thought leadership” is industry-focused; it’s focused on others, on those that consume the content, and improving their situations

• “Thought leader” (self-proclaimed, at least) is individual-focused; it’s focused on the source, and improving that person’s situation

I think it fundamentally comes down to whether or not someone can bestow that title on themselves, which I’m not sure that they can. The concept of “leading thought” is outwardly focused, and can only be perceived by someone other than yourself.

Put another way, you are a “thought leader” only in someone else’s eyes, never your own.

Also, I feel like the title of “thought leader” is only earned, never claimed. You become the identity by doing the practice well. To call yourself a thought leader is to… short-circuit that process?

I read a post on Threads the other day that got me thinking (give me some grace on this – it’s uses an emotionally and judgment-loaded example):

I have so many friends, who I legit adore, who have done Ozempic. They’ve done it for 3-6 months, lost 30-40 pounds, with zero exercise…and now suddenly they’re posting in yoga pants and giving fitness advice. I’m extremely entertained by this. Again, they are beautiful & I love them, but that’s not authentic.

What this person is saying is that the identity of “fitness person” is something that’s “earned” through hard work, not drugs. They view taking weight loss drugs as “less authentic,” and don’t believe someone should “claim” this title. The implication is that the identity somehow requires suffering. It requires pain. The identity is a proxy for hard work.

(Predictably, the comments/responses were…spirited.)

I’ve put a lot of thought into this, and what this post says is: the destination is not the accomplishment. The accomplishment is not what we should celebrate. The accomplishment is really the journey that it took to get there.

When someone wins an Olympic gold medal in the 100m dash, are we celebrating that piece of metal? Are we celebrating the 10 seconds that it technically took them to win it? No, we’re celebrating the lifetime to dedication and sacrifice it took them to win it.

Does this follow for thought leadership? Do we look at the title that we bestow on someone as a reward for their career of work?

Now, I’m trying to avoid the word “arrogance” here, but I do feel like people who self-claim the title are devaluing it. To quote the philosopher Syndrome:

“When everybody is Super, no one will be.”

I also doubt that self-claiming the title will ever be objectively perceived in a positive light. I know that people make vaunted claims all the time – especially on LinkedIn – but there are shades of gray: things like “Change Agent” or “Marketing Rockstar” seem very innocent to me, compared to “Thought Leader.”

To me, at least, it never sounds anything other than completely artificial. It’s like not showing your work. Instead of arbitrarily claiming the identity, you should just show your work.

I hope it’s clear that there is no objective test of thought leadership. No one can measure it. There’s no line you cross where you become this thing and achieve the title like some badge in a video game. There’s no external authority for it.

You cross that line very slowly and incrementally, only in retrospect, and kind of like a vampire – other people can see you, but you can never see yourself. If you cast a reflection, then maybe you’re not what you think you are?