The tensions of defining and developing thought leadership within knowledge-intensive firms

This is the final version. Available on open access from Emerald via the DOI in this record.Design/methodology/approach We review the academic and practitioner literature on thought leadership to provide a rich oversight of how it is defined and can be understood by separating inputs, creation processes and outcomes. We also draw on qualitative data from 12 in-depth interviews with senior leaders of professional service firms. Purpose A major part of knowledge management for knowledge-intensive firms such as professional service firms is the increasing focus on thought leadership. Despite being a well-known term, it is poorly defined and analysed in the academic and practitioner literature. As a result, we seek to answer three questions. First, what is thought leadership? Second, what tensions exist when seeking to create thought leadership in knowledge-based organisations? Third, what further research is needed about thought leadership? We call for cross-disciplinary and academic-practitioner approaches to understanding the field of thought leadership. Findings Through analysing and building on previous understandings of the concept, we redefine thought leadership as: “Knowledge from a trusted, eminent and authoritative source that is actionable and provides valuable solutions for stakeholders.” We find and explore nine tensions that developing thought leadership creates and propose a framework for understanding how to engage with thought leadership at the industry/macro, organisational/meso and individual/micro levels. We propose a research agenda based on testing propositions derived from new theories to explain thought leadership, including leadership, reducing risk, signaling quality, and managing social networks, as well as examining the suggested ways to resolve different tensions. Originality/value We are the first to separate out thought leadership from its inputs, creation processes and outcomes. We show new organisational paradoxes within thought leadership and show how they can play out at different levels of analysis when implementing a thought leadership strategy. This work on thought leadership is set in a relatively under-explored context for knowledge management researchers, namely, knowledge-intensive professional service firms