Geschäftsstrategie & Wachstum speakers
Strategen, Ökonomen und Unternehmer, die Organisationen dabei helfen, Chancen zu erkennen und mit Überzeugung umzusetzen
Speakers Associates represents 320 speakers on Geschäftsstrategie & Wachstum, including Kemal Apaydin, Arnt Eriksen, Michael Lyon, Peter Fisk, Neri Karra Sillaman, Mark Ritson, Olivier Sibony, Itai Green, Tom Goodwin und Rita McGrath.
Most large organisations know their old sources of advantage are eroding faster than their innovation pipelines can replace them. The pressure is to act like a challenger again, in a structure that was built to defend share. That gap, between strategic intent and operating reality, is where most transformation programmes stall.
Most founder and scale-up content is told by people whose biggest exit was a Series C round. Senior leaders who want a credible voice on building a category-creating consumer brand, surviving years of investor and retailer rejection, and selling to a global strategic for a number that moves the parent company’s results, have a very small shortlist. Authenticity and self-belief sound like soft topics until a founder has to convince a buyer at QVC, on camera, that the product actually works.
Most consumer technology ideas die in the gap between a working prototype and a business that can scale. The pressure comes from all sides at once: capital runs thin, distribution stalls, investors pass, and the founder has to decide what to keep building and what to cut. The organisations that want to back, buy, or learn from founders at that stage need an honest account of what the decisions actually look like from inside the company.
Most organisations can describe what they want to build. Very few can get a physical, manufacturable product out of a sketch, through engineering, and into customers’ hands at scale without the idea collapsing along the way. The gap between design intent and what actually leaves the factory is where category-defining products are won or lost.
Established organisations invest heavily in optimising what already works, and that focus becomes the liability when the market shifts. The leaders most at risk are not those who ignore change but those who see it clearly and still cannot mobilise their organisation to act before the window closes. The gap between recognising disruption and profiting from it is rarely a knowledge problem; it is a strategic and cultural one.
Most organisations treat customer experience as a service function that reacts to complaints, surveys and churn. The work that drives loyalty, retention and pricing power happens earlier, in the design of the journey itself, and most leadership teams do not own it. The gap between stated customer-centricity and the operating model that would deliver it is where revenue quietly leaks.
Most large organisations talk about innovation and reward predictability. Leaders end up sponsoring two operating systems that pull in opposite directions, and one quietly wins. The real problem is not generating ideas, it is building a company that can hold competing priorities (efficiency and experimentation, control and creativity) without collapsing one into the other.
Downtowns are competing for residents, employers and investment against suburbs, other cities and the option of remote work. The decisions that determine whether they win, where streets go, how wide they are, what is built at ground level, are made one project at a time by people who rarely see them as a single strategy. The cost of getting that wrong shows up later in vacancy rates, carbon footprints, public health budgets and the talent that quietly leaves.
Most consumer businesses now carry two pressures that pull in opposite directions: deliver short-cycle commercial growth, and rebuild the operating model around sustainability and digital. Boards say they want both. Operating teams find the trade-offs land on their desks with no senior playbook. The gap between ambition set at the top and decisions taken in the P&L is where most transformations stall.
Most leadership teams know the pace of change has shifted, but their planning cycles, capital decisions, and org charts still assume a slower world. The cost of that mismatch is invisible until a competitor moves first, a category re-prices, or a technology curve bends. Boards need an outside voice that can name what is actually accelerating in their industry, separate signal from noise, and put a sharper time horizon on decisions already on the table.
Most executive teams have run AI pilots. Few have moved AI into the operating core, where it changes margins, headcount and customer experience at scale. The gap between experimentation and operational advantage is where competitive position is being decided right now, and most leadership teams cannot see clearly across it.
Most commercial advantage decays the moment competitors copy it. Leaders are told to innovate, then watched as their best ideas are replicated by larger rivals with deeper pockets within a year. The harder question is how an organisation builds something competitors cannot copy even when they try, and why that requires a stack of decisions, not a single clever idea.