The Kmiec Ramblings - Latest Comments in Do Thought Leaders Need To Be Practioners?

Re: Do Thought Leaders Need To Be Practioners?

→ JOSH CARRICO ← — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 17:05:44 -0000

I agree with you 110% and we also see/saw this within SEO/SEM

Re: Do Thought Leaders Need To Be Practioners?

Michael C. Wagner — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 15:39:14 -0000

Great question and resulting exchange.

The teacher in me believes I can take nearly any subject and make it exciting and practical without a lot of practitioner experience.

And, the opportunist in me recognizes there aren't always very high thresholds for claiming expertise; anyone can, for example, claim to be a "social media expert", or so it seems these days.

But the "do I write this guy a check for a speech and/or consulting" judge inside me says, "I'll write the check for the communicator who is also a practitioner".

I've spent more than a few years practicing what I speak/write about, Performance Branding. Clients seem to respect and value that fact as much as my ability to teach and entertain when called upon to do so.

Again, thanks for stirring the pot!

Keep creating...a brand worth raving about,
Mike

Re: Do Thought Leaders Need To Be Practioners?

barryhurd — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 14:41:41 -0000

I join this a bit late, but throw in my spare change.

Thought leaders are hard to define in any space, especially one that touches across large entities. I have several international clients, as well as several "competitors" that have utilized my skills.

Since I do audit and competitive intelligence work with a social media focus, it is very easy to realize that I sign non-disclosure agreements on a daily basis. In some cases I don't find out anything. In other cases I find twenty million dollar client lists online (ouch.)

On the flipside- I contribute a lot of insight on my blog, which a lot of PR and University folk stop by and even use for coursework (the first request I received for coursework quotation made me feel like an uber-geek)

On the other hand, there are A LOT of those imposters out there who know how to game a system for simple numbers... who cares if you have 50k followers? (Laughingly, I tried keeping my follower count under 1000 for the longest time because of the methodology I had for using it)

On a client basis, it is also hard to define what makes or breaks the model of being proficient/expert with social media. I routinely audit companies that have been "suckered" by top firms or who have done something technically simple, but incredibly costly. In some cases the "expert" did such a good job building a relationship and greasing the gears that the client was "happy" even though the results were non-existent.

Some examples:

A top ten clothing retailer who paid $100k for a Facebook app that had 72 retail users.
A top ten home builder who had paid over $500k in Google PPC, but was never provided an ROI / conversion column six month into the campaign
A top one-hundred traffic site that had accidentally added "no index" to it robots.txt file (ouch)

I come back and then readdress the question: "Does a thought leader need to be a practitioner?"

Yes. Absolutely.

Otherwise the "thought leader" is a salesperson, not a thought leader. There are SO MANY people spitting out random thoughts here and there, that 1 person out of 1000 will be correct about the future. Does this make them right? a thought leader? a guru? No... it just makes them lucky.

We could compare the same idea to all the stock market wackos who claim they predicted X years in advance. If 95% of your predictions and thoughts are incorrect, the other 5% is just normal luck (not insight or thought leading)

In your comparison to baseball, there may be a difference in theory of hitting the ball and actually swinging at it- but a thought-leader is more comparable to the superstar on the team, instead of the superstar coach.

If we apply ideas of general management to social media, every corporate director could claim they have "social media expertise" - you can read more about my thoughts on defining social media expertise on this article I wrote back in March http://ow.ly/iw7Y

Re: Do Thought Leaders Need To Be Practioners?

Norbert Mayer-Wittmann — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 11:51:59 -0000

I've decided to entertain the idea that perhaps "social media" might refer to a SUBSET of the world-wide web (rather than including all of it).

That doesn't mean it's my opinion, but rather that I'd like your feedback on whether / how that might be the case:

http://conversative.net/blo...

Here's a little thought experiment (to get the juices flowing): just because a website in Germany or Russia or China is not on a list of "social media" sites maintained by some rating agency and or statistical number-crunching service doesn't make those sites any more / less social. If you would not like to interact with 300 million people in China, then that is simply YOUR decision to ignore them -- but they are probably using the web much in the same way as you or I use it: to interact in a SOCIAL manner.

But that's just IMHO -- and I welcome any + all different opinions (and I'm happy that Adam also celebrates the multitude of different opinions... much in the spirit of Voltaire [see http://en.wikipedia.org/wik... ;] ).

:) nmw

Re: Do Thought Leaders Need To Be Practioners?

adamkmiec — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 11:27:34 -0000

Very well stated. I appreciate the depth you went into here. Awesome stuff. I think "Fiery Irish Rose" really nailed it here: http://www.fieryirishrose.c...

The people she throws out as thought leaders are the ones I respect.

Re: Do Thought Leaders Need To Be Practioners?

Norbert Mayer-Wittmann — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 11:16:10 -0000

Yes, I checked that out.

The way I see it, that includes the entire world wide web.

Certainly some software facilitates interaction more than other software, but even just following a link can be a form of interaction (I'll admit that that's a little extreme, but the point is: without a clear definition of what social media is supposed to refer to, people cannot say very much -- or much that might be considered meaningful -- ABOUT it)

Re: Do Thought Leaders Need To Be Practioners?

marketingsavant — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 10:52:42 -0000

Hey Adam,

As someone who makes a living in the practice of helping firms develop and execute thought leadership, I picked up on the back & forth between you and @schneidermike as it was going on (one the fundamentals that thought leaders practice is to stay "tuned in" to what's going on) out there...

I have to say that I was taken aback by the "thought leader does not have to be a practitioner" quote. In essence, they do have to be a practitioner, but it doesn't mean that they have to have done everything on which they posit a point of view.

For example, McKinsey may produce a wonderful whitepaper about the coming opportunities & challenges of working in Russia. While they may not have clients doing so, and they may not have a direct 'body of work' with Russia, one can simply look to their body of work in globalization as part of their practice and ascertain their qualifications to be a thought leader, so to speak, on Russia.

The other example are coaches. You have great coaches in many sports and professional disciplines who are not, by the nature of their job, practitioners at what they're thought leading on. However, they have unique insight, a point of view, a philosophy and the ability to teach (educating the market/customers/constituents is also a fundamental for thought leadership). While they may have been practicioners at one time, they were often not the best.

As it relates to Chris Brogan and CRM social media. Perhaps, Chris is not a CRM guru by trade, however, as a marketer, technologist and business leader, (and social media notable, at the very least) his blend of work, though not directly related to the discreet discipline of CRM, could quite readily qualify him as a thought leader int the CRM and social media spaces.

Further, thought leadership is attained through audience validation. An audience (customers, prospects, fans, donors, whatever) "bestows" the "title" of thought leader on an individual. A thought leader to one person or group isn't necessarily a thought leader to a different person or group. Someone may be the thought leader in an industry, their town or in their association, but may not be considered so in another context.

By all of the criteria by which we measure thought leaders (this is a sample: http://www.marketingsavant...., Chris has the majority of the qualifications.

Re: Do Thought Leaders Need To Be Practioners?

Sonya — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 10:50:12 -0000

Leaders of any kind do not have to be practitioners, good at what they do, or have your best interests at heart. History (political and business) is rife with leaders who should never have been followed. Leaders are good at leading, even if it's down the rosy garden path. However, I want street cred. If I follow someone, I want him/her to be a practitioner, good at it, and have the community's best interests at heart. So, I would say, the best thought leaders are practitioners.

Re: Do Thought Leaders Need To Be Practioners?

mncahill — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 10:39:15 -0000

Norbert: Try this for a definition: http://www.allthingscahill....

Re: Do Thought Leaders Need To Be Practioners?

Norbert Mayer-Wittmann — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 10:28:33 -0000

I think the funniest part about "On Waldon Pond" (by Henry David Thoreau) is the part where he mentions that he's going to town for the day to get a mattress and some nails -- now that's a practitioner!

Even better is if you practice what you preach -- which, I guess, Thoreau did for most of the rest of the time. I just thought it was ironic for him to refute his basic theory by buying into the very symbol Adam Smith used to describe the capitalist system Thoreau's book was criticizing: the nail itself, the quintessential symbolic fruit of the division of labor.

I agree: All talk, no walk is useless.

And I have yet to find ANYONE who can even DEFINE "social media". (see e.g. http://conversative.net/blo... ;)

:) nmw

Re: Do Thought Leaders Need To Be Practioners?

mncahill — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 10:12:30 -0000

Chris has obviously done the work, and been a continual boundary stretcher in many areas...

I think we're getting lost in semantics here. The point is simple. While you may be very bright and may actually stumble onto some very interesting ideas for a particular niche, it is narcissistic in the extreme for anyone to think that they are a "thought leader," expert, guru, etc. if they have not actually done the work.

Hence it is an affront to those of us who have been building online communities, social media, etc. since the dawn of the Internet to see someone sign up for Facebook and immediately assume they are a "Social Maven" or whatever they throw into their profile.

We're in the age of Micro-celebrity, and right now there's a battle to carve out space as an online personality within an array of niches. It's going to be up to us to figure out who is the real deal, and who is just a passing blast of hot air.

Re: Do Thought Leaders Need To Be Practioners?

Chris Brogan — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 10:08:33 -0000

But there are plenty of people doing. I've launched blogs and trained corps how to engage and given guidance that made action move forward, and I've done all levels of the engagement.

To decide from external views who's done what is the same as assuming that since someone worked at an agency that handled big accounts they personally have knowledge and experience. You can bring the coffee to the big dogs at an agency and still claim such.

N'est pas?

Re: Do Thought Leaders Need To Be Practioners?

adamkmiec — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 09:54:05 -0000

I think we will evolve, change, and get there! It has to.

Re: Do Thought Leaders Need To Be Practioners?

adamkmiec — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 09:53:35 -0000

"Sadly though, some preachers have such huge followings that somehow their follow count translates into trust." that quote NAILS it. It's my problem with the industry right now.

Re: Do Thought Leaders Need To Be Practioners?

adamkmiec — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 09:50:05 -0000

Yes, that's what I'm saying. A thought leader should be able to guide me around the pitfalls, but I gotta tell you that's tough to do if you've never actually done it.

Re: Do Thought Leaders Need To Be Practioners?

tnapper — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 09:47:41 -0000

That's where I think the difference is. People that really "do" well and can thought lead are very rare. I still say that they are different people. I want a thought leader to question what I'm doing so that I can be better. Someone who is great at their craft is someone who I admire and someone I compare my own work to see where it is falling short in its craft.

Re: Do Thought Leaders Need To Be Practioners?

Adam Stewart — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 09:40:42 -0000

I'm repeating here, but there are way too many people spinning their wheels, regurgitating the same theories and social media buzzwords without creating the case studies and work to prove any of those theories. They are instead just saying the same thing over and over again, building on theories they have never executed. You learn by doing and executing. And not just executing in social media. You learn by marketing strategy, and determining how social media fits in as a tactic.

From a creative marketing standpoint, there are too many playbooks, guides, etc. out there. If you stick to the playbook all the time, every engagement ends up being the same.

Re: Do Thought Leaders Need To Be Practioners?

Name — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 08:48:18 -0000

I agree: All talk, no walk is useless.

And I have yet to find ANYONE who can even DEFINE "social media". (see e.g. http://conversative.net/blo... ;)

:) nmw

Re: Do Thought Leaders Need To Be Practioners?

adamkmiec — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 08:21:34 -0000

Tom-

I agree that sometimes the best teachers are not the best "doers" - but I think thought leaders are different than teachers. To me a thought leader is someone like Steven Levitt. He's not only one of the brightest economists out there, he can teach really well (as evidenced by his TED presentation), and he's a hell of a thought leader (aka Freakanomics).

Adam

Re: Do Thought Leaders Need To Be Practioners?

tnapper — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 08:01:59 -0000

Thought leaders are like college professors. You wouldn't go to Harvard to hire your hypothetical lawyer. You would ask friends who the best lawyer was for your case. Just as in our business there are people who think about our space but aren't the people doing the work. The separation between thought leader and do'er is healthy. It can be the same person but if 80% of your job is making it work for your one client then you don't have time to step back and see where the rest of the world is flowing. Conversely someone who is working at 30,000 feet sometimes cannot see the tiny changes currently happening on the ground.

Re: Do Thought Leaders Need To Be Practioners?

Jamie Favreau — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 04:11:42 -0000

Very valid point.

I am studying PR and the Social web. Am I an expert, by no means, but I am getting to know what works and what does not in this day and age.

I know there is a difference between CRM and Social Media interactions. I mean you do business with who you know, like a trust. This can only be measured over time and the relationships! So we are all learning how to use this technology and programs which are being produced to change the way we don business.

You should have some knowledge if you are an "EXPERT" but you also have to know what field you are in. IF the lines get blurred then there is a problem.

CRM is separate from Social Media. They may want to engage the consumer but they don't really mean you are both unless your job description says so.

Re: Do Thought Leaders Need To Be Practioners?

Shawn Freeman — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 01:38:20 -0000

In most situations, my instinct is to side with experience. Traditionally, experience leads to better decisions. Said another way, experience lends credibility to a theory.

However, lack of experience isn't always a liability. More than once, I've seen someone who worked for me come up with a successful idea simply because they were unencumbered by years of practice. In essence, their ignorance allowed them to see the situation differently and find a unique way of solving the issue.

Ultimately, I'd be wary of someone that only "talks the talk," without having "walked the walk," but never close your mind to unique ideas, regardless of the source. You never know who is going to come up with the next big idea.

Re: Do Thought Leaders Need To Be Practioners?

tdhurst — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 00:51:56 -0000

Agreed. Theory, philosophy and opinions don't mean a whole lot if you have zero experience actually putting your ideas (or having someone else use them) to work.

The current social media thought leaders are just the geeks who got here first, nothing more.

Re: Do Thought Leaders Need To Be Practioners?

Abdul Salaam — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 00:44:46 -0000

Adam, well said. I've often thought about this. One thing that works well in the social media fish bowl is the spreading of ideas. Unfortunately, there can be a lack of credibility as it is much easier to talk than do the heavy lifting. Moving from philosophy to action is hard and requires participation between two parties. As a result, more ideas than implementation. Hopefully, we'll get there..

Re: Do Thought Leaders Need To Be Practioners?

alanbleiweiss — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 00:38:12 -0000

Adam, I'm of the "Practice what you preach, or get out of the way" school. I can't tell you how many times in the course of my life in countless areas of expertise I've run circles around preachers who don't practice. It's nauseating.

When I'm discussing methodology with peers, if they tell me "But so and so says...", the very first thing I say is - that's all good and fine - can you show me one case study that proves out their theory? I never ever get a case study.

Sadly though, some preachers have such huge followings that somehow their follow count translates into trust.

I call that pathetic.