Recently, I’ve seen people arguing that thought leadership needs to be *controversial*.
Otherwise, they say, it’s not thought leadership.
You’re just repeating what others say.
And that doesn’t strike me as right.
The search for new knowledge doesn’t require controversy.
Thought leadership can come in many forms. Here’s just a few types of thought leadership:
😠 Design a better model
🎢 Solve problems that were previously unsolvable
🔭 Make the invisible visible
😲 Change people’s opinions
📢 Call attention to an unnoticed danger
Sure, each of these can be presented in a way that creates controversy.
After all, we can turn on television and find people debating almost any topic with passion.
But I don’t think all ideas have to be controversial.
You can present an idea in a way that gets people to say, “ok, that’s interesting. Tell me more.”
But that’s just my opinion. Maybe I’m an optimist.
Does thought leadership need to be controversial?
Tell me what you think — or tell me off!