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.
Leaders routinely attribute corporate success or failure to strategy, talent, and execution. The evidence is less flattering: a company’s operating country and regulatory environment explain more of its performance than most boards account for. As geopolitical fragmentation reshapes trade flows, investment conditions, and competitive advantage, organisations lack a disciplined framework for reading the macro-terrain – and adjusting their location and market decisions before rivals do.
China is no longer a back-office manufacturing story. It is now the source of consumer behaviours, retail formats and platform economics that arrive in Western markets two or three years later, and most boards still treat it as a market they sell into rather than a market they learn from. The cost is missed product cycles, marketing assumptions that no longer match the consumer, and a digital playbook designed for a slower internet.
Most founders are sold a single narrative about building a company. The reality, that 97% of ventures fail and that the survivors carry costs nobody talks about openly, sits beneath the surface of every board meeting and every funding round. Senior teams need someone who has stood inside more than a hundred of those rooms and can name what actually decides the outcome.
Most large organisations have funded AI programmes and run pilots. Most of those pilots never reach production. The gap is not technical capability. It is the absence of an outcome architecture that connects experimentation to structural change. Meanwhile, boards are approving AI investment without the governance frameworks to manage the risks that sit inside AI agents and automated decision-making systems.
Most companies say they want innovation. Few are structured for it. Engineering, marketing and operations all compete to define how problems get solved. The resulting culture either rewards inventive thinking or quietly punishes it.
Most leadership teams have formally committed to AI and data as strategic priorities. The harder problem is what comes next. Boards and executive committees that cannot interrogate vendor claims, distinguish genuine capability from hype, or set coherent data governance policy become dependent on specialists whose priorities may not align with theirs. Strategic intent without strategic fluency produces expensive, poorly governed technology programmes – and the gap is widening faster than internal capability is growing.
Boards approve sustainability strategies and then reject the capital commitments they require. The obstacle is not ambition – it is the absence of a commercial language for clean technology that investors, CFOs, and governments will accept. Until the energy transition can be framed as a profitable investment rather than a cost, most decisions stall at the same point.
Boards are making consequential decisions – on investment, supply chains, market exposure, and partnerships – in a geopolitical environment that no longer follows the rules they were trained to read. The separation between geopolitics and business strategy, always convenient, is now actively dangerous. Organisations that treat great-power competition as background noise are not being cautious; they are being blind.
Large incumbents know their operating model is the problem. They have scale, cash, and talent, and still cannot reliably produce new businesses from inside the existing structure. The harder question is organisational: what shape does a mature company need to take so that new ideas survive contact with the core, and who has actually built it.
Most organisations facing pressure to change already know what to do differently – they’ve read the reports and attended the conferences. The real problem is that past success has made the status quo feel like strategy. The expertise that built a business becomes the ceiling on what leaders can imagine for it.
Complex B2B deals stall because buyers cannot process the information they already have. More content, more stakeholders and more options make consensus harder, not easier, and conventional relationship selling has stopped clearing the path. The question for commercial leaders is what their sales and marketing function has to do differently when the constraint is no longer access to the buyer, but the buyer’s ability to decide.
Most incumbents still treat digital as a function, not a structural reset of how the business competes. Boards then find themselves asking a chair or CEO to run two operating models at once, one built for the company they inherited, one built for the company the market now demands. Governance, leadership style, and commercial instinct all have to move at the same time, and few leaders have done it at scale.