I sometimes think of Thought Leadership as a nasty byproduct of the failure of scientific rationalism in issues of organisational life. There is no recipe for successful leadership (as you say, it is a craft), but we're still on the long-tail of scientific rationalism so there is a need to 'perform' scientism in places where it frankly doesn't belong.

The irony is that this article is, to me at least, a kind of Thought Leadership, as is Nancy Kline's book. Steven Covey's quadrant model is enormously helpful, as is Cynefin's framework. There are some lego blocks that click together better than others, you might say.

So I suppose part of the problem is you have both 'Thought Leaders' and 'thought leaders' and there is work involved in discerning who you're working with and why, and what flattering and false assumptions you might be bringing in engaging someone with specific expertise at a high rate. The 'thought leader' also needs to borrow from the 'Thought Leader' book from time-to-time if they're to get by in a world where such discernment is still frustratingly rare.