The hidden dangers of relying on one brilliant communicator — and what to do instead
Introducing the Constellation Influence strategy for scaling thought leadership in academic orgs
A working paper by Chris Pahlow
First published: March 23rd, 2025
Last updated: April 15th, 2025
Estimated reading time: 10-15 mins
Table of contents
Part 1. Summary
Traditional comms models are poorly suited to the realities of many academic organisations — where influence is already distributed, individual autonomy is high, and institutional structures are often complex and siloed.
Dominant traditional models either centralise control, rely on a single high-profile voice, or leave individuals to figure it out on their own — none of which provide the strategic alignment, support, or scalability that academic organisations need.
I believe that a new approach is needed — one that supports individual voices without losing coherence, and aligns with organisational goals without forcing uniformity.
Constellation Influence offers a practical strategy for doing just that: helping academic organisations scale their thought leadership efforts by activating trusted voices across their teams.
When implemented well, this approach doesn’t just improve visibility. It has the potential to strengthen internal culture, attract great talent to your org, give your existing staff room to grow, build trust with key stakeholders, and amplify the reach and relevance of the organisation’s research — key ingredients that can help boost your org’s impact, sustainability, and resilience.
The strategy draws on personal branding and thought leadership principles (like Daniel Priestley’s Key Person of Influence strategy), but adapts them for distributed, team-based contexts like research organisations — where influence is already decentralised and individual autonomy is high. It unfolds in seven steps:
Step 1. Create your thought leadership matrix
Step 2. Fill in the matrix with your “stars”
Step 3. Establish strategically aligned messaging
Step 4. Start sharing
Step 5. Set up infrastructure
Step 6. Build relationships with amplifying partners
Step 7. Continually learn and improve
Implementation doesn’t require a full-scale rollout from day one. Start small, support early adopters, and let momentum build over time.
I’ve developed this strategy after working with countless academic teams on everything from video and podcast campaigns to org-wide comms strategies and impact plans, and interviewing incredible research communicators from around the world on the Amplifying Research podcast.
Constellation Influence is still evolving. This working paper outlines the strategic rationale, model structure, implementation steps, and potential risks — along with a call for collaboration to refine and pilot the approach further. If this working paper resonates, let’s talk about how we can collaborate on putting it into practice and developing it further.
A couple of quick notes:
I use the term “stakeholder” throughout, as I’d like to make the ideas in this paper as clear and valuable to as many academic orgs as possible. I’m aware of the potential issues with this word, and personally I’m not a fan of it. I’m keeping track of the ongoing conversation about the language we use to talk about this, and I’m looking forward to updating this paper if/when consensus is reached around new terminology.
While I cite various thought leaders from non-academic spaces, this is not an endorsement of all their views or political positions. My aim is simply to share useful ideas that we may be able to learn from and/or adapt in academia.
Part 2. Reframing how we approach comms and engagement
Research organisations increasingly recognise the importance of visibility, credibility, and engagement — but the approaches commonly used (or inherited) come with severe risks and limitations. The result is often frustration, missed opportunities, and comms that don’t fully support institutional goals or individual aspirations.
The following are three models I see again and again — and while each has its upsides, none of them are really fit for purpose.
2a. The centralised comms model — institutional control over messaging and channels
This is the default for most large organisations, particularly universities. There’s a desire to tightly control comms. Content is supposed to pass through centralised teams who manage official channels and safeguard the brand.
In the Inside Higher Ed article “Centralization is Not the Objective”, higher ed marketing expert Rob Zinkan notes — “It’s tempting to see centralization as the panacea, particularly when resources feel constrained (‘we have to do more with less’) or when an example surfaces of someone or some unit going ‘off brand.’”
And as George Veletsianos argues in the London School of Economics’ Impact blog — “Although scholars are often encouraged to promote their research online, institutional recognition of networked scholarship often appears to be as much about control and surveillance, as about integrating public scholarship into academic criteria for success. The capacity of networked activities to reach large audiences, particularly if they are in some way controversial, is an uncomfortable reality for institutions in an age of carefully-controlled branding.“ He goes on to add that much of the engagement, outreach, and networked scholarship that does occur is despite not because of institutional support — “My conversations with many scholars lead me to believe that the general feeling is that many of these valued activities would not have occurred had institutions been more involved.”
I’ve worked in the higher ed sector for many years, and I highly doubt that anyone in a position of power is deliberately trying to frustrate academics and block effective and efficient engagement. I’ve found that comms and marketing teams are most often made up of dedicated, hardworking professionals. But the resourcing and processes are rarely designed to support the kind of agile, individual-led comms that the academic world requires. Academics and professional staff who want to share insights, respond to timely events, or test ideas in public spaces often find themselves bogged down by approvals and bottlenecks.
I’ve been interviewing amazing research communicators from around the world in the Amplifying Research podcast since early 2024, and the challenges that can spring from a centralised approach to comms has come up a number of times.
As Dr Jennifer Beckett (Senior Lecturer in Media and Communications at the University of Melbourne) notes in episode 24: “Universities go, ‘We want all this impact, we want all this public engagement’ — and then they don’t really understand how to do it... Often the media team is really small. They end up focusing on the really big stories, and the other cool stuff slides.”
Even in the best of cases, this centralised approach may not resonate well with audiences. As science communication expert Dr Julius Wesche from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology outlines in episode 26: “People connect better with individuals than with institutions — especially on platforms like LinkedIn. If researchers want their work to have impact, they need visibility, and social media offers that in a way institutional channels often don’t.”
As personal branding expert Chris Do puts it: “Corporate brands do not get a lot of engagement. Corporate brands usually put out very generic content. Super generic content. Usually, a team has a strategy, there’s the marketing department, HR, legal, that’s where everything goes to die in terms of creativity... There’s too many masters to make happy, and they just water it down until everyone’s happy. Which means, no one’s happy…If we do everything the same as corporate brands, then we’ll get exactly the same result, which is: no one gives an F, no one cares.”
2b. The unstructured individual model — everyone doing their own thing, without strategy or support
In practice, this is what actually happens throughout much of the academic world.
On one hand, researchers are individually incentivised to build their own profiles — through papers, speaking gigs, media engagement, and social platforms. But these efforts are rarely informed by any kind of shared strategy, structure, or alignment with institutional goals.
As Dr Simona Carbone describes in episode 6, this individualisation can be painfully apparent even when it comes to internal comms and engagement. She outlines a common occurrence in team meetings: “The students were using it as the opportunity to say what it is that they had been doing, like it was an assessment of themselves. And I had to communicate... it's not about you in this instance, it's about the team and it's about the project. How is the global project progressing forward and what are you each contributing to that big project moving forward?”
On the other hand, because institutional comms processes are often slow, under-resourced, or overly rigid, many researchers simply circumvent the system. Over the years, I’ve seen countless examples of rogue websites, DIY logos, videos and other media collateral that don’t meet brand guidelines, and siloed social media accounts launched in quiet defiance — not because people are trying to do damage, but because they’re just trying to get something done.
In these cases, the institution loses coherence, and the researcher loses out on support. As Dr Jennifer Beckett warns: “It can be a problem if the person has no understanding of the university brand or proper media training... They can do some amazing work, but they can also do a bit of damage.”
2c. The flagship expert model — one highly visible individual carries the public-facing identity of the org
This model is shaped by the growing dominance of personal brands and the public’s appetite for authentic, human connection. Thought leaders in the space like Chris Do, Seth Godin, and Alex Hormozi discuss the benefits, challenges, and nuances of individual-driven influence, and Daniel Priestley’s Key Person of Influence (KPI) framework provides a powerful structure for building visibility around a single figure.
Many research organisations — either by design or by default — lean heavily on this model. Visibility is built around one “hero” academic: a high-profile director, a charismatic communicator, or a senior figure with a strong media presence.
And while this can be highly effective for individuals, it comes with serious limitations for organisations:
It creates a single point of failure. If that person leaves, gets sick, or faces reputational issues, momentum can disappear overnight.
Scalability is limited. One voice, no matter how compelling, can’t speak to all stakeholder groups.
It becomes a bottleneck for others who want to contribute meaningfully.
As Prof Phillip Dawson put it in episode 3 of the podcast: “I think a lot of centres have that person who set the centre up... it’s an entity that pursues that person’s research interests. But that can crowd others out... If the centre director is like, ‘I am everything,’ how is there a role for junior academics to develop their own piece of the mission?”
Dr Jennifer Beckett agrees, saying that folks who focus on building their own personal brands can “end up taking up a lot of space, which doesn’t leave as much room for ECRs or others coming up behind them.”
So what do we need instead?
Given the limitations of these models, we need an approach that combines the authenticity and agility of personal branding with the strategic alignment of organisational priorities. One that supports individual voices without silencing or controlling them. One that helps research organisations scale influence, not just spotlight it.
That’s what Constellation Influence is designed to do.
Part 3. Introducing Constellation Influence
Constellation Influence is a strategy for harmonising individual voices within an organisation to build collective visibility and credibility.
It has the potential to work for many types of organisations, but may be particularly well suited to orgs where influence already exists in distributed ways — as it commonly is in academia.
In “Good Strategy, Bad Strategy”, Richard Rumelt, professor emeritus at the UCLA Anderson School of Management, writes — “In any organization there is always a managed tension between the need for decentralized autonomous action and the need for centralized direction and coordination.” The Constellation Influence strategy is all about navigating this tension.
It aims to balance individual expression and academic freedom with institutional alignment, and aims to amplify an organisation’s thought leadership by equipping a range of internal champions with the tools, messaging, and infrastructure needed to establish their authority in a way that is strategically aligned and mutually beneficial for both the individual and the organisation.
As Heather Crookes writes in the London School of Economics’ Impact blog — “University departments have a faculty of potential influencers – many of whom have been hidden behind paywalls for too long. Appropriate support, incentives and freedom could enable the institution to build corporate reputation, competitiveness in a tough marketplace and – importantly – give powerful publics such as policymakers and the media access to research findings that have the potential to make an enormous contribution to society and understanding.“
Therefore, the metaphor in this model is intentional: like stars in a constellation, each contributor shines individually — but together, they form a bigger and more meaningful picture. The academy is already dominated by “star” or “hero” researchers. So let’s give research orgs a chance to effectively harness all that solar energy, and give more EMCRs a chance to shine brighter while we’re doing it!
The approach builds on the strengths of Daniel Priestley’s Key Person of Influence (KPI) strategy, while addressing some of its limitations in this context.
Two key benefits:
Addresses the risk of a single point of failure through diversification – by developing multiple internal champions, the organisation becomes more resilient and adaptable.
And Enable greater scale and targeted influence – rather than a single voice attempting to cover an entire niche, multiple voices can engage different stakeholder groups within the organisation’s defined niche, leading to both broader reach overall and the comms/engagement initiatives that can be better tailored to specific stakeholder groups.
Part 4. How it works
Step 1. Create your thought leadership matrix
Start by creating your thought leadership matrix —
On one axis: List your prioritised stakeholder personas.
On the other: List your organisation’s current and potential focus areas — both areas your team already has expertise in, as well as areas that stakeholders value but where you might currently have gaps. It’s usually helpful to break these down into clear sub-areas or themes.
Mapping where stakeholder interests intersect with your organisation’s focus areas will help you identify your priority topics. These are the most valuable themes for your comms, engagement, and content creation, because they resonate strongly with your stakeholders and align closely with your organisation’s strategy.
Step 2. Fill in the matrix with your “stars”
From there, identify team members who are well-placed to lead comms and engagement, then map them to your priority topics. Don’t worry about assigning someone to every priority topic right away. It’s fine — even advantageous — to start small and build over time.
The right kind of folks might already have a strong public profile, or they may be keen to build more comms and engagement experience. Look for a mix of subject matter expertise, alignment with your organisation’s mission, and willingness to participate. You’re looking for matches that are a win/win/win — great for your “star”, great for your organisation, and great for the audience!
You might notice some gaps — priority topics that are strategically important but where you currently don’t have a clear "star" to lead. These gaps could be specific to comms and engagement (you have expertise, but lack someone to lead comms), or broader gaps (your organisation lacks expertise or capacity altogether). This is valuable information for your organisation’s strategic planning, highlighting areas where you might want to build new capability, invest in training, or recruit new expertise.
Step 3. Establish strategically aligned messaging:
With your “stars” mapped to priority topics, we need to find the sweet spot between their domain expertise and personal voice, and your organisation’s broader goals and identity. Provide scaffolding — tailored key messages, stakeholder insights, tone-of-voice guidance, and strategic narratives — that can be refined collectively over time. These resources can also be embedded into the tools you introduce later to streamline the content creation process. The aim isn’t uniformity, but coherence: a constellation of distinct voices, all aligned around a shared direction.
Step 4. Start sharing:
Your champions begin sharing insights via the platforms that best match the intersection of their strengths and preferences and the needs/preferences of their target personas. Encourage experimentation and peer learning. Initiatives like masterminds and communities of practice can be great ways for them to support and learn from each other.
Step 5. Set up infrastructure:
As your stars gain confidence, supercharge their efforts with practical tools, processes, and routines designed to reduce friction and sustain participation. This might include editorial calendars, AI-assisted drafting templates, or lightweight review processes. (In the ideal world, this support would include dedicated time in their work week.) The right infrastructure can turn good intentions into repeatable, scalable influence.
Step 6. Build relationships with amplifying partners:
Encourage your champions to connect with people and networks who can amplify their voice — other thought leaders, media contacts, or even representatives of the stakeholder personas their targeting.These relationships can help increase reach and bolster credibility.
Step 7. Continually learn and improve:
Treat this as an evolving strategy. Hold regular check-ins to reflect on what’s working, where people are getting stuck, and how to adapt. And conduct quarterly reviews to ensure the priority topics and personas your champions are targeting are still aligned with your org’s goals.
Part 5. Putting Constellation Influence into practice
But what about all the folks who would rather eat glass than be in the spotlight?
Trying to turn every team member into a Key Person of Influence is neither realistic nor desirable. A successful rollout focuses on identifying and empowering those for whom this strategy is a mutually beneficial opportunity—people who are:
Keen to build their personal profile for their own professional growth.
Aligned with the organisation’s mission and happy to contribute to its thought leadership presence.
Even at maximum implementation, only a small fraction of the team will be actively engaged in this strategy. However, we also don’t want to exclude people who might be interested. The key is balancing exclusivity with accessibility — making it something valuable and sought-after, rather than an obligation or an open-for-all initiative.
Creating demand rather than forcing participation
We can take inspiration from Daniel Priestley’s Oversubscribed model, which suggests that exclusivity drives engagement. Rather than asking everyone to take part, create a limited, high-value opportunity that people must express interest in before joining. This makes participation feel desirable and avoids resistance from those who aren’t naturally inclined toward thought leadership.
Similarly, Simon Sinek’s Law of Diffusion of Innovation reminds us that not everyone adopts new ideas at the same pace. Instead of trying to roll this out to the entire organisation at once, we should focus on:
Early adopters – people who are eager, aligned, and ready to participate.
The next wave of contributors – once early adopters gain traction, others will be inspired to join.
A gradual expansion – growing participation organically rather than forcing it.
This type of organic growth aligns with what Seth Godin describes in Tribes — movements don’t start by convincing the masses but by engaging a small, passionate group that draws others in over time. It’s also consistent with research discussed in Todd Kashdan’s The Art of Insubordination, which suggests that tipping points in behaviour change occur when a small percentage of a group adopts a new behaviour, making it easier for the rest to follow.
A practical approach to implementation
Here’s how leaders can implement the Constellation Influence strategy across their organisation or team:
Create a selective application process – Instead of assigning thought leadership work, invite expressions of interest from those who see the value in it.
Start small and let demand build – A limited cohort of engaged participants will create momentum, making others want to join later.
Support without obligation – Make learning resources and mentorship available to those who show interest, even if they aren’t part of the formal program.
Showcase impact – Highlight success stories from early participants to demonstrate the value of involvement.
This strategic, phased rollout ensures that the right people are driving thought leadership while keeping the door open for others who become interested over time.
Pairing Constellation Influence with another tried-and-true strategy
So far, we’ve been focusing on distributed communications — empowering individuals to post from their own LinkedIn accounts, give talks, or have one-on-one conversations with key stakeholders. But what if your organisation already has a central platform with a loyal audience? Maybe it’s an Instagram account, a newsletter, a YouTube channel, a podcast, or maybe your org hosts regular event that attract lots of people.
That’s where a complementary strategy comes in — one I’m calling Centralised Influence Incubation. This approach is particularly powerful for organisations that already have a well-established public-facing figure (like a director or content lead) and a centralised platform/event that’s generating good results. As entrepreneur (and very successful content creator) Alex Hormozi says: “Once your audience associates your brand (like a logo or tagline) with something of value, they'll start seeing both as similar.”
I think Monash University’s BehaviourWorks Australia provides a stand out example of this approach. At the 2025 Melbourne International Comedy Festival, they staged Laughter Lab — a sold out research engagement event that attracted more than 200 members of the “the general public”. While their content curator, Geoff Paine, was front and centre as the event’s MC, the event didn’t focus solely on him. Throughout the night, he brought out other BehaviourWorks team members as well as the head of their partner org Shannon Behaviour Change to co-present different segments with him — giving them valuable exposure as well as an opportunity to build their confidence and presenting skills.
This approach mirrors what you see on extremely popular YouTube channels like Linus Tech Tips or MKBHD, where a central figure introduces new talent to their audience. People might initially come to these channels for Linus Sebastian or Marques Brownlee, but you only need to look at the comments section to see people’s growing appreciation for the other personalities that the main stars gradually introduce. And once an audience is introduced to these new stars, it’s entirely possible for this influence to continue building outside of the initial platform. For instance, many of the more junior presenters on Linus Tech Tips have developed very large followings on their own social media accounts.
Examples like this show that this kind of centralised influence incubation can flow naturally into the kind of distributed comms/engagement that Constellation Influence is all about.
This complimentary strategy won’t be right for every org. As I mentioned earlier in this paper, personal connections are increasingly preferenced over centralised comms. But for orgs that do already have access to a strong central comms platform, Centralised Influence Incubation can act as an accelerant — growing your bench of credible voices, while maintaining coherence and trust with your audience.
Risks and mitigation
Inconsistent messaging across multiple voices →
Mitigated using a shared content matrix, clear brand guidelines, and regular review sessions to align messaging.
Concerns that individual voices will be subsumed by the organisational brand →
Emphasise that personal authenticity is a feature of the strategy, not a bug. A big part of step 2 should be looking for natural overlaps between your stars’ voices and your org’s brand identity.
Potential for participation to drop off because there’s so little time/resourcing etc →
Support champions with structured workflows, AI tools, dedicated time within their work week for thought leadership, and recognition of their contributions to t org’s reputation. Acknowledge and reward their contributions as strategic work — not side projects.
Perceptions that the efforts of champions is egotistical or “not real work” →
This is a deeper cultural challenge that is unlikely to be solved by tools and processes alone. But if culture starts at the top, then gradual progress may come from naming this tension, supporting champions with peer communities, and ensuring that org leaders frame the initiative not as ego but as a strategic contribution to your organisation’s goals.
Part 6. Let’s take this from working paper to working model
Constellation Influence isn't just a theoretical framework — it's a practical response to challenges I've seen repeatedly across the academy. But like any evolving model, it gets stronger through testing, feedback, and collaboration.
I'm looking to partner with forward-thinking research leaders who:
Recognise the limitations of traditional comms approaches
Value both individual voice and institutional coherence
Are ready to experiment with a more distributed approach to thought leadership
Let’s work together to refine this model into something that might just transform how research organisations approach comms and engagement — creating space for more voices to shine while strengthening, rather than diluting, institutional identity.