Thursday thoughts: Thought leadership
The tax and accounting profession involves many complex, nuanced topics for discussion and education. It also struggles to keep up with technology, culture, and business methods.
Event organizers only have so much space on the agenda and budget for presenters (along with any other amenities). So, as an attendee, you have to consider carefully whether an event will provide what you need relative to your investment. That may extend well beyond the agenda itself, such as networking with colleagues; however, the agenda is the clearest expression of the priorities of the event organizers and the organization. I look at an event agenda as a statement of what the organization believes I value and need in my work as an attendee and member.
Professional conference and event agendas generally include two types of sessions:
Thought leadership These sessions involve sharing innovative ideas, forecasting industry trends, and presenting visionary concepts. Thought leaders aim to inspire and provoke new ways of thinking, often positioning themselves or their organizations as pioneers in the field. In conferences, this translates to high-level, conceptual, and sometimes promotional sessions.
Substantive topics These sessions include discussions on practical, technical, and detailed aspects of tax and accounting. Substantive topics provide attendees with concrete knowledge, regulatory updates, hands-on skills, and actionable insights that they can directly apply to their work. In conferences, this translates to technical, even wonky, sessions. (Of course, just because a session promises a technical discussion, there’s no guarantee the speaker will deliver on that promise.)
I’ve already pointed out some differences between tax and accounting conferences. Tax conferences tend heavily to feature substantive topics.
But I’m seeing events with agendas that swing too far in the other direction toward prioritizing thought leadership at the expense of substantive topics. Honestly, it gives me pause to continue supporting these events and even the organizations running them (just as much as I question supporting an organization that fails to promote progress in the exclusive pursuit of substantive education).
If you’re like me and need to allocate your travel and networking budget carefully, then this may help: I have a list of red flags that indicate an event, its organizers, and their organization may be prioritizing thought leadership too much over substantive topics:
Overemphasis on keynote speakers A lineup dominated by high-profile personalities known more for their personal brand than technical expertise can indicate a focus on inspiration over information. This might be especially true if you see many of the same names on the agenda year after year.
Vague session titles and descriptions If the agenda is filled with catchy but non-specific titles like “Reimagining the Future of Finance” without clear learning objectives, it may lack practical content.
Lack of technical sessions Few or no sessions delve into the nitty-gritty of tax codes, accounting standards, compliance regulations, or practical uses of tools and software.
Networking over learning The promotional materials highlight networking events, cocktail hours, and social activities more than educational content.
Promotional content Presentations feel like sales pitches for the speakers' books, consulting services, or companies rather than providing unbiased value.
Attendee feedback Reviews or testimonials focus on the event’s atmosphere or inspiration rather than knowledge gained or skills learned. Slick registration websites, flashy promotional videos, and the use of influencers to promote and cover the event are strong indicators.
Inequitable speaker compensation Most attendees have no information about whether and how speakers are compensated, which is problematic but also universal. But those who know, know that conferences vary widely on how they compensate speakers. Some provide full accommodation, travel, and a stipend for all speakers. Some provide limited support and no stipend to some speakers while fully compensating others. Some provide no compensation at all. As an attendee, your registration fee is an implicit vote in favor of the event’s speaker compensation policy, so you deserve to know how (un)fairly the presenters in your sessions are treated by the event. Unfair speaker compensation tends to favor high-profile and repeat personalities while discouraging new speakers.
None of these individually should be taken as an indictment of any particular event or organization. However, collectively, they may provide a helpful criteria for choosing your next conference or event.
Now for your thoughts…
What recent events have you been to, and how was the balance between substantive topics and thought leadership? Were you aware of the events' speaker compensation policies?