If one is called a thought leader, should one take it as a complement even while fancying oneself as a nitty-gritty technocrat? That description is intriguing and worth exploring. In the minimum, there are two aspects to thought leadership: (1) generating ideas that change the way others behave or view a situation; and (2) communicating these ideas successfully.
On thought or idea creation, F Czerniawska has observed in 2007 that a conducive environment for idea creation is essentially about a culture that allows as many individuals as possible to innovate. Thus, Google offices are laid out with laid-back furniture, delectable food and indoor games and magazines that make a “creative culture” and encourage brainstorming and innovation, with propitious outcomes. However, such a culture change cannot be a realistic, short-term or passive goal in established bureaucracies, though the “open office” concept is now becoming prevalent. An active strategy is called for to create a culture which encourages the generation of ideas.
Addressing thought leadership, R Ryde in 2007 put forward the concept of “thinking channels”. Humans use few ways to view and analyse a problem, automatically restricting the ideas created. Take deficit thinking. It is perhaps the most common and hard to break: finding faults and weaknesses is often associated with intelligence or rigour. So, colleagues immediately see problems with an idea. This prevents ideas being suggested. Second is common sense thinking: solutions use general or inexpert knowledge, particularly prevalent in areas that have few specialists in their field or high turnover of staff. Third is equity thinking: using consistency between groups as an over-riding principle. This reduces ideas to the lowest common denominator. And fourth is binary thinking: presenting decisions as a choice between two extremes, using it as a strategic tool to force an agreement, ignoring alternatives that could realise the benefits from other options.
Considering alternative approaches is essential to creating innovative ideas. First is strength-based thinking: what is working well? Where has progress been made? Second is insight thinking: it relies on the insights of informed and experienced practitioners which may not generate brand new solutions but, rather, proven solutions from past experience. Third is 360-degree thinking: it views problems from different angles rather than focusing on the views of one particular group. Fourth is re-integrated thinking: it asks how we can integrate the benefits of different options.
Ryde concludes the obvious: the best way to influence the culture of an organisation is through senior managers leading by example. Infosys is an obvious example. “The long shadow of leadership” should supplement traditional thought channels with more creative ones. Then the organisation will follow, thus moving forward the overall idea generation culture. Czerniawska highlights that the road map to follow should be based on internal knowledge management processes. Thus the experiences across a large organisation would be aggregated to identify problems that persistently need solving, data to be analysed and solutions that could be generalised.
A growing demand for a strong evidence base would follow, with more emphasis on robust quantitative analysis rather than mere viewpoints and case studies. To enable this requires time and resources. In turn, it is important that leaders demonstrate a commitment to idea creation — giving staff the time required to generate the products and recognising those achievements. A primitive bureaucracy, on the other hand, avoids the recognition or use of analysis and allocates little resources to it. This is a poor choice for a bureaucracy to make.
How should such obstacles be avoided? At the outset, I highlighted effective communication. In a bureaucracy, those with the most influence are both short on time and bombarded with information. So, how could ideas from below get heard? Czerniawska suggests some ways. First is timing and salience: an idea must offer an actionable solution to a problem that is currently on a senior manager’s or policy-maker’s agenda. Second is that it must be a new idea: re-packaging old ones will not suffice. Third, an idea must be supported by evidence: while case studies help, mature ideas need significant analysis and evidence. Fourth is regular face-to-face discussion: it enables thought leaders to identify what senior leaders’ major problems and priorities are, and to follow it up with new ideas as alternative solutions.
What are the pitfalls to be avoided? In 2009, J Owen pointed to some of them. First pitfall is providing “problem-free solutions”: the use of latest fashionable ideas without addressing the concern or solving the problem. Second is providing “problem-free analysis”: presenting technical analysis without considering which parts contribute to the solution. Third is confusing symptoms with the problem itself: solutions should be targeted at underlying problems rather than the symptoms.
Thus, I understand that the inexact science of thought leadership boils down to these essential aspects: first, creating ideas and successfully communicating them to others. A culture conducive to idea creation can be stimulated through leaders adopting new approaches to solving problems supplemented by structured knowledge management processes. Second, the key to successfully reaching ideas to influential senior leaders is to understand their priorities and then convey new ideas to them. For this, alternative channels need to be forged to reach senior leaders. Third, thought leadership involves taking some risk, moving away from a risk-averse bureaucratic stance. In 2008, M Goldsmith and M McLeod pointed out that it takes repeated exposure, apart from time and effort, to get recognition as a thought leader. I agree with them.
References:
Goldsmith, M & McLeod, M (2008) “Thought Leadership” Leadership Excellence, Vol 25, Issue 2, p12-13
Owen, J (2009) “How to lead: what you actually need to do to manage lead and succeed” (2nd Edition), Pearson Prentice Hall
Ryde, R (2007) “Thought leadership — moving hearts and minds”, Palgrave Macmillan
All views expressed are exclusively those of the author
