Most executive thought leadership fails for one simple reason: few leaders are bold enough to say something meaningful, even if it proves controversial.

That is the argument from Allison Carter, editorial director of PR Daily and Ragan.com, who edits two trade publications and reviews dozens of submissions each week. Her verdict: the majority say the same thing.

"AI isn't taking jobs, it's transforming them. AI is making communications more important than ever. Human skills matter now more than ever," Carter writes, summarizing the flood of pitches landing in her inbox.

None of these sentiments are wrong, she notes. But almost no one would argue with them. The industry has already bought into these ideas. They sound like thought leadership but are really just statements of the obvious.

SMEs are not thought leaders

Without a stance worth defending in the face of opposition, Carter argues, an executive can never be a thought leader. At best, they can be a subject matter expert — a valuable role, but not one that positions a leader at the vanguard of their industry.

"Thought leaders are the ones who are curious enough and secure enough to risk being wrong," she writes.

Boldness does not require recklessness. Carter cautions that a brash, political, off-the-cuff style — think Elon Musk — may work for some leaders with some audiences, but it will inevitably alienate others. For most executives, shooting from the hip is the wrong approach.

Instead, she points to leaders who offer measured, relevant thought leadership that still declares a firm opinion — one that could be proven wrong in the future.

The Zuckerberg model

Mark Zuckerberg's recent Wall Street Journal op-ed is a case in point. In it, he lays out a vision of an AI-driven future "based on individual empowerment as the source of prosperity, invention as the primary purpose of superintelligence, and balance of power as the foundation of safety."

Zuckerberg paints an optimistic picture of AI use, one that avoids dwelling on job loss or weapons of mass destruction. He advocates for an AI system where power is held by many companies and distributed not just at the enterprise level but to everyone.

These positions put him at sharp odds with many in the AI field, both inside the industry and outside observers studying it. Carter acknowledges the piece serves Meta's long-term ambitions — the company missed the initial wave of AI hype and offers its LLM services largely as open-source products available to consumers. Yet she argues the op-ed is not merely a Meta manifesto. It functions as broader thought leadership about how the world should work, declaring his intentions to consumers and businesses alike.

The Dimon model

Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase CEO, has become a household name over his banking CEO peers largely through his willingness to be thoughtful yet definitive, Carter writes.

He has crossed the line before — a profanity-laced rant about return-to-office policies that even he thought went too far. But he is better known for his measured annual shareholder letters, which go beyond the state of the business into the state of the nation.

In his most recent missive, Dimon wrote: "I believe we have gotten a little too soft. Working hard, having ambition, demonstrating self-responsibility and loving your nation (particularly this nation) are wonderful qualities. We need to rededicate ourselves to these values. Proper civic engagement should better reflect President Kennedy's statement, 'Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.'"

The letter contains plenty of financial and economic data too. But Carter argues Dimon's willingness to step outside his direct lane is what makes him stand out and rise above his peers.

The takeaway for communicators

Carter concedes that Zuckerberg and Dimon are outliers — household names running some of the most powerful companies on the planet. Most executives are not in that position.

She chose them anyway, for a specific reason. Both have made mistakes. Both have been ridiculed for their thought leadership. And both keep coming back, making statements they know might not be well-received and standing by them anyway.

"That's what it takes to be a thought leader," she writes.

If executives are not ready for that risk, that is acceptable, Carter says. But communicators have a job to do: guide their leaders toward understanding what true thought leadership is — and what is just noise.

Source: Ragan Communications (https://www.ragan.com/why-your-thought-leadership-keeps-failing/) / Source: wsj.com (https://www.wsj.com/opinion/the-ai-future-is-for-everyone-a0c24e20?mod=hp_opin_pos_2)