Innovación y disrupción
Oradores que analizan cómo se transforman las industrias y cómo las organizaciones pueden liderar el cambio en lugar de seguirlo
Speakers Associates represents 390 speakers on Innovación y disrupción, including Kemal Apaydin, Michael Lyon, Peter Fisk, Neri Karra Sillaman, Mark Stevenson, Nilofer Merchant, Itai Green, Lucy Bullivant, Rita McGrath y Katja Schipperheijn.
Most leadership teams have stopped trying to fix the generational friction in their workforce and started managing around it. The dominant frame, four or five distinct generations with incompatible values, has produced training programmes that confirm stereotypes rather than reduce conflict. The result is a culture problem that gets named every year and resolved by none of them.
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 organisations treat innovation as a technology question and culture as a brand question. The two functions report separately, fund separately, and rarely produce anything a customer can actually use. The leaders who build durable advantage are the ones who can run cultural intuition and product engineering as a single discipline.
Large organisations want the speed and originality of a founder-led startup, but the operating system inside them rewards the opposite behaviours. Boards approve innovation budgets and then watch promising pilots stall in legal, brand and procurement reviews. The harder question is how to design a venture inside a corporate parent so that it survives long enough to learn something useful.
The organisations leaders were trained to run are not the organisations they are now being asked to lead. Employees, customers, regulators and activists all expect participation, transparency and speed that the command-and-control playbook cannot deliver. The leaders who thrive in this environment are not the ones with the loudest brand or the biggest advertising budget; they are the ones who understand how influence actually flows in a hyperconnected system, and who can build the models that work with that grain rather than against it.
Boards are being asked to make consequential bets on generative AI without a stable read on what the technology can actually do, what it cannot, and what its deployment will mean for the workforce. Most executive briefings collapse into either hype or alarm. Leaders need a sober technical interpreter who can separate marketing from mechanism, and tell them which decisions matter now.
Leaders are being asked to make consequential bets on quantum, AI, and biotech without the tools to separate genuine scientific progress from marketing. Boards over-index on confident vendors and under-index on the slower, harder question of what the science can actually do. The cost of getting this wrong is years of misallocated capital and credibility lost when claims fail to land.
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.
Most products and brand experiences are designed for the eye alone. Buyers see them, ignore them, and forget them within a day. The commercial cost is not aesthetic, it is attention, recall, and willingness to pay a premium for what otherwise becomes a commodity.
Connected products generate more value as data than as objects, and most organisations have not worked out who owns that data, who monetises it, or what their business looks like when a competitor figures it out first. Boards know the shift is happening. Few have a defensible position on what to do about it.