Thought Leadership? What about "Thought Partnership"?

[stephenmann]

Ah "thought leadership." It's one of those phrases that we've all probably bandied-about at some point in time. But do we really want and need thought leadership? Yup, it's a silly question — of course we do BUT why do we have a somewhat unhealthy focus on "thought" and "leadership"?

I'm not being funny about thought leadership, my point is just like those people that stop to correct the statement "great minds think alike" to "great minds think differently." Or not enough of us stopping to realize that innovation isn't just being creative (or *coughs* "thinking outside the box") — I'm sure many businesses have failed despite having more than their fair share of great ideas.

I'm not saying I have the answers … but here are some shower-inspired thoughts.

"Thought partnership"?

Why does everyone (and every company) seem to need to be a thought leader? It always makes me chuckle when I see it included in Twitter profiles amongst the other hyperbole. Why can't they call themselves "thought partners" say? "Probably because it doesn't sound as sexy" I hear you cry. (At this point I realized that I should Google "thought partnership" as it's hard to have a genuinely unique thought and, guess what, it's already out there but I wasn't smart enough to see it.)

So think about it for a moment. Think about those times where others have really helped you or your company. Think about consultants, IT service management (ITSM) or otherwise, as an example. Which consultants provided the best business outcomes — those that offered thought leadership or those that offered thought partnership based on everything they have learnt to date? I'd guess it would be the latter (and obviously consultants could and should be providing both).

Thought partners and thought leaders both have their place but, using this simple and somewhat churlish example, surely we need far more thought partners than we do thought leaders …

Once upon a time in a village far, far away the "village thought leader" offered up a solution to ease village overpopulation — "Having extended the village too far along this side of the river we should now extend it to the other side of the river. That way we will all still be close to the only local water source and each other." It was a great idea but it had a major obstacle — the river.

But the thought leader was happy that they'd done their job, and they went back to writing poetry. And everyone else was happy until a small child asked "Are we going to be swimming to the other side of the river and back each and every day?

IMO sometimes it takes the naivety of a child to ask the most important questions.

How does "thought leadership" become a reality?

No doubt the villagers eventually worked out the best way to cross the river, whether it be by boat, bridge, or other means. But the important thing is that the desired outcome needed more than just the initial thought-leadership to become a reality.

Someone, maybe someone from a nearby village that had solved a similar problem, needed to offer up potential solutions in the context of the local problem. Not exactly "thought leadership" IMO (unless they invented boats and/or bridges) but more of a "thought partnership." And then someone still has to design and build (or buy) the boats and/or bridge(s), followed by operating and/or maintaining those boats and/or bridges. It brings me to my second point — what happens beyond the "thinking?"

Unfortunately changing "thought leadership" to "doing leadership" doesn't have the same ring to it. Maybe that's why consultants are called "consultants" and I suppose vendor "professional services" teams are in a similar position. IMO the key word that should define these parties and relationships is neither "thought" nor "leadership" but actually "partnership."

Applying this to ITSM and IT service delivery

People often think that thought leadership is about looking into a crystal ball, or joining the dots, and predicting the future. Maybe it is but IMO some IT organizations might not make it to that future without significant help with the here-and-now. If they do make it, it may be via a convoluted and arduous journey. It's a bit like a driving a car and not looking at the dashboard, sat nav, or the obstacles (mostly cars and people in my experience) in front of you while looking too far into the distance at your destination. Surely you will struggle to get to your destination safely, if at all.

My point? People working in IT still need help with the stuff they already do, encouragement and support for stuff they should probably be doing but aren't, and then awareness of future stuff (followed by how to prepare for and excel at it). They might even just want reassurances that they have similar issues to everyone else, are as (im)mature as everyone else, and have similar challenges in improving. They probably need more "thought (and doing) partnership" than they do "thought leadership."

Where do we go from here?

It's a little like what I've said previously about best practice (or good practice) — that what we really need in the ITSM-world is far more "shared practice."

So next time you're seeking external assistance with improving ITSM or IT service delivery "take a moment" after you've written down the requirement for thought leadership. Is this what you really want/need or would you be better served by a "partnership" including access to very practical good/shared practice (which can still include a roadmap to the future)?

Consider how many potential partnerships you already have — these could be existing consultants or tool vendors, but they could also be your peers or industry bodies — how many (thought) partnerships could you leverage if you really put your mind to it?

As always your thoughts and comments are encouraged.