Isn't Steve Jobs missing?

How is that methodology wacky? I think it's very much in line with the was research is currently done using the internet.

I think the glaring stand out is Jim Collins.

How can U miss John Chambers ??

Steve Jobs. Jim Collins. John Chambers. All good choices to add to the list. Actually, Jim Collins makes the authors' list at No. 70, but Jobs and Chambers are no where to be found among the top 200.

Besides Gates at 19, the next leaders--as opposed to thinkers, academics or consultants--are Jack Welch at No. 34, Richard Branson at No. 45, Michael Dell at No. 46, Andy Grove at No. 54, and Larry Bossidy at No. 60.

So why do I think this methodology is wacky?

Simple. If you're Robert Reich, former labor secretary under President Clinton, or Bill Gates, the richest man in the world, you're going to get a ton of Google and media mentions that have absolutely nothing to do with the quality or the influence of your ideas. It's all about being in the news; it's not about your contribution as a thought leader.

"It's all about being in the news; it's not about your contribution as a thought leader."

Great point, John. Daniel Boorstin wrote: "The celebrity is a person who is known for his well-knownness." And in most cases, the well-knownness is brought about by some kind of achievement; e.g. business success, a best-seller, a hit song, etc.

Henry Ford wasn't the thought leader in building inexpensive, highly dependable cars. R.E. Olds created the first mass-market auto, but he lost his financial backing. Hence, no achievement. Steve Jobs - who will admit that he did not invent the personal computer, mouse, et. al - is fond of saying that great artists "steal." I believe that Bill Gates and other business "gurus" on the list- by evidence of their path to achievement - would agree with him.

Most thought leaders were originally dismissed as crazy. And most never profited from their ideas. Yet later on, their beliefs would have a profound impact on business. Therefore, my list would have to include the late, great W. Edwards Deming.

If you have Hamel why not C.K. Prahalad. The man deserves a mention.

But doesn't the media report on what people are interested in? If the press follows you, it may be for your ideas, or it may be for your antics. Either way, you are newsworthy and therefore influential. I think that the criteria is correct, and the fact that it's not slanted primarily to the computer giants reflects the validity of the approach, considering the Google factor.

Just a general comment - please offer a newsfeed with the whole content, not just a teaser. I like your information a lot, but clicking in all the time is frustrating.

According to this list, C.K. Prahalad comes in at No. 24. Shockingly, Deming doesn't make the top 200, although fellow quality maven Joseph Juran pops up at No. 73. So much for the ranking!

Not surprising that Warren Buffett isn't there...he's an investor not an influential business guru, right? The wacky methodology missed a trick. Try those shareholder letters...