In the corporate world, "thought leadership" is often little more than a fancy way of saying "opinion". The trouble is, too many of the people put forward as masters of thought leadership can offer neither.
Here's a little anecdote...
Several years ago, I was commissioned to write a "thought leadership" piece for the CEO of a global company, to appear in the Financial Times. His PR person had sold in the idea to the FT and the copy was due two weeks later. He was a busy man, so to solicit his thoughts I got 15 minutes to interview him in the back of his limo as he was driven to a meeting, during which time he also took a couple of phone calls. It was pretty clear that he had (a) given the topic very little thought at all and (b) had no strong opinions on it.
But a deadline is a deadline so I took what I had, did a bit of on line research, spoke to the PR person to get the "corporate position", and wrote my 800 words. The position it took was not controversial but it was distinct from that taken by some others in the same sector and well-supported by evidence. It went, via the PR, to the CEO, who said it was spot-on and approved it for publication.
Job done - or so I thought.
Then the PR had cold feet and decided that a few other senior bods in the company should see the piece before it went to the FT. Person A suggested a few changes; person B a few more. Person C disagreed with the conclusion. Person D asked why the piece was being written at all. And so on.
After numerous re-drafts, the piece that was eventually cleared to be sent to the paper bore no relation to the first version and, more importantly, no trace of the few thoughts that the CEO did have. In fact, it said nothing at all.
Unsurprisingly, the FT rejected it. But at least I still got paid