The Sharp Axe of Authority and Wisdom for Thought Leaders

Posted on September 6, 2009 by Dana VanDen Heuvel

: Image via Wikipedia

“Authority without wisdom is like a heavy ax without an edge, fitter to bruise than polish.”
– Anne Bradstreet

In tracking some of the discussions on thought leadership over the last week, one of the topics that got a bit of play was the play on whether thought leaders are made or born (from nature or nurtured, or whatever the metaphor of choice is for you). While I don’t know that we’ve fully settled the issue, or that we will, or that it needs to be (I, for one, am a fan of good academic debate), the point that I think was missed is all this discussion is very much an issue of the “genius of the AND vs. the tyranny of the OR.” The issue, for thought leaders, of nature vs. nurture is really not an issue at all, as it won’t likely be one or the other by rather both, or the AND.

The leading quote in this post from Anne Bradstreet put this in perspective for me this morning. (at least, from my perspective, this all made sense).

In thought leadership, we’re seeking to attain a position of authority. We desire to be received in the market as experts, gurus, go-to people and so on. In fact, Global Fluency trades in the space of “authority leadership marketing” which I think is a great way of expressing thought leadership, but like thought leadership, more explanation is in order. For, as Bradstreet’s tell quote instructs us, one without the other is but a blunt instrument. Authority can be attained through a number of means and it can happen at an “early” stage. For example, a “first mover” in a market may be considered the authority because they’re leading the charge on a particular issue. To put this in the context of the “nature vs. nurture” discussion, authority is something that can happen at the “nature” stage of a company.

Wisdom, on the other hand, is something that most scholars and teachers would agree is earned over time and not something that can be directly assumed at birth or out of the gate or by being first to market. It simply takes time to acquire wisdom through experience. Thus, we can say that wisdom is something that comes through nurturing and is not immediately visible within an individual or a company.

While there’s not a direct correlation that one can make between “nature vs. nurture” and “authority and wisdom”, the one thing that I do believe is that in order to be a thought leader it’s more about the AND, that is, having adequate measures of both, than it is the OR, having one or the other in greater measure.

As I see it, thought leadership requires an organization to possess both authority (or the seedling of authority) and be pursuing the path to wisdom (however they go about it) in order to consider thought leadership a worthy pursuit, lest their ideas and point of view would not be worth polishing for publication.

Perhaps the quote from the PR Cog post taking up the subject sums the AND of the thought leadership equation best:

The skillset must exist in the person to be sufficiently cultivated throughout their lifetime that they can lead when the time is right. But they must also have the innate drive to continually self-improve so they know where and how to lead their people.

The Sharp Axe of Authority and Wisdom for Thought Leaders

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

toddlohenry

YOU ROCK!!!
http://twitter.com/elizabethsosnow Elizabeth Sosnow

Hi Dana:

What a great perspective. I love your point about “and.” As I've pondered the question over the last week, I've always come back to an answer with an “asterisk.” That's because, as you observe above, you likely need both authority and wisdom to be truly successful as a thought leader.

But the reason I haven't put up my own post on the subject (besides the fact I was enjoying the Labor Day holiday a little too much), is that the question in some ways fails to address the incandescence of a truly great thought leader.

Put another way, I believe that authority and wisdom are 95% of the battle. But the last 5% is that compelling charisma that lights up a conversation or an idea or a room. Whenever I get a chance to work with someone like that, I always feel a bit like I'm getting to watch my own private magic show.

That may not happen every day, but it's fantastic when it does.

Elizabeth Sosnow
BlissPR
http://twitter.com/danavan Dana VanDen Heuvel

Elizabeth,

You're right on and I concur. In fact, I often feel as though there's “more to the story” when I speak about thought leadership because we so often talk about it, as in blog posts, in “2 dimensional” terms yet there are many dimensions to the concept.

I would put a question back to you on the 'charisma' aspect. How do you transfer that last 5% to the “organizational charisma”? Is that an issue or is it assumed the the charisma from the idea and the individual will transfer to the organization?
http://twitter.com/elizabethsosnow Elizabeth Sosnow

Wow, a tough and timely question. Dachis Group continues to pound away at their “social business design” approach, and no organization can probably afford to rely on the charisma of one or two thought leaders and/or rainmakers. Yet, I think to date, that's largely been the standard.

Will that change? Can that change? Maybe. I guess the answer partly relies on leadership evolution and training. Do you think a new era of communication will spur different kinds of thought leaders to bloom? Or do you think that traditional hierarchy will keep the “thought upstarts” in their place?
http://twitter.com/elizabethsosnow Elizabeth Sosnow

Hi Dana:

What a great perspective. I love your point about “and.” As I've pondered the question over the last week, I've always come back to an answer with an “asterisk.” That's because, as you observe above, you likely need both authority and wisdom to be truly successful as a thought leader.

But the reason I haven't put up my own post on the subject (besides the fact I was enjoying the Labor Day holiday a little too much), is that the question in some ways fails to address the incandescence of a truly great thought leader.

Put another way, I believe that authority and wisdom are 95% of the battle. But the last 5% is that compelling charisma that lights up a conversation or an idea or a room. Whenever I get a chance to work with someone like that, I always feel a bit like I'm getting to watch my own private magic show.

That may not happen every day, but it's fantastic when it does.

Elizabeth Sosnow
BlissPR
http://twitter.com/danavan Dana VanDen Heuvel

Elizabeth,

You're right on and I concur. In fact, I often feel as though there's “more to the story” when I speak about thought leadership because we so often talk about it, as in blog posts, in “2 dimensional” terms yet there are many dimensions to the concept.

I would put a question back to you on the 'charisma' aspect. How do you transfer that last 5% to the “organizational charisma”? Is that an issue or is it assumed the the charisma from the idea and the individual will transfer to the organization?
http://twitter.com/elizabethsosnow Elizabeth Sosnow

Wow, a tough and timely question. Dachis Group continues to pound away at their “social business design” approach, and no organization can probably afford to rely on the charisma of one or two thought leaders and/or rainmakers. Yet, I think to date, that's largely been the standard.

Will that change? Can that change? Maybe. I guess the answer partly relies on leadership evolution and training. Do you think a new era of communication will spur different kinds of thought leaders to bloom? Or do you think that traditional hierarchy will keep the “thought upstarts” in their place?