Fishburn Hedges

25.08.2010 | (1 comment)

There is a classic Economist commercial (produced by our parent AMV BBDO) which features a business traveller turning left boarding a long haul flight and finding, to his horror, that he is seated right next to Henry Kissinger. The petrified-looking man realises his conversation may not be up to an eight hour flight next to the great man. The implication is clear: you should have read the Economist. Maybe that’s why too many organisations are so nervous about thought leadership.

“Thought leadership” is now a classic tool of good corporate communications: it helps you engage stakeholders, it differentiates you, it gives you profile, it can and should enhance your reputation. It demonstrates you have a corporate hinterland, that you are curious about the world around you. You have experience and expertise, and are willing to share it.

But it seems to some companies a big ask: putting your head above the parapet; risking upsetting customers, or clients, or shareholders, or politicians; distracting from the day job. Maybe it’s the phrase “thought leadership”; leadership in thinking is a bit arrogant, a tad cocky. Actually it really should be called “thought sharing”. The result may be leadership, but the real point is simply to engage.

Thought leadership requires two things: that you have an opinion on issues; and that you are prepared to communicate them. 

Any self-respecting organisation should have a private view on a whole host of issues that affect their business, both directly and indirectly. From corporation tax to climate change. The challenge is to turn this into a public point of view.

In this era of crowdsurfing, everyone has a valid contribution, even multinational corporations.  And in this era of David Cameron’s Big Society, the private sector has an increasingly public role to play. There are gaps to be filled, and a conversation to join. The reason to join can be either that you realise it is in the enlightened self-interest of your organisation to influence the issues that affect the environment in which you operate; or because you care about the future of the world in which you live. Long term as well as short. Ideally, it’s both.     

I have found over the years that as people get more senior, and more expert, they are less and less happy talking beyond their comfort zone. There’s an increasing fear of challenge, of exposure or intellectual embarrassment. Of having to chat intelligently to Henry Kissinger.

This is a shame. If every senior executive feels like that, no-one has anyone to fear. I had my Henry Kissinger moment a while ago. Thanks to Tomorrow’s Company, I found myself at a dinner seated next to Al Gore. I should not have worried. Strangely, he was not interested in my views on climate change, carbon sequestration and the Florida voting system. But I knew just enough to ask him about them. 

I think that Economist ad is wrong.

There are two lessons:  first, that over-confident guy at Davos is probably not Henry Kissinger and just as nervous as you.

Second, to join the discussion, you do not need all the answers, just a willingness to ask the right questions and have a point of view.  

And if that guy at Davos does turn out to be Henry, just lob in the odd provocative question, and you’re away.  

 
John Williams
Senior Adviser and co-founder, Fishburn Hedges

JeffPeel on 05.09.2010

Good article. Perhaps the ad should also have suggested that to avoid intellectual embarrassment it sometimes helps to hire some people who can ask the provocative questions.

Jeff Peel
http://oxfordeconomics.wordpress.com/

Jeff Peel