Desenvolvimento Executivo speakers
Coaches, estrategas e profissionais que aperfeiçoam o pensamento, decisão e operação dos líderes sénior
Speakers Associates represents 291 speakers on Desenvolvimento Executivo, including Joy Poole, Steven D'Souza, Mark Ritson, Olivier Sibony, Andy Bass, Marina Ibrahim, Sarah Furness, Jennifer Willey, Jeremy Blain e Ruth Gotian.
Sustainability commitments now sit in every annual report. Translating them into capital decisions, supplier rules and lobbying positions is a different problem entirely. Boards that fail this translation face investor scrutiny, regulatory exposure and reputational damage from a workforce and customer base that no longer accepts the gap between narrative and operating reality.
Senior leaders are asked to make composed decisions in conditions where information is incomplete and the cost of a wrong call is high. Most of the language available to them on resilience comes from wellness culture, not from operational command. The gap between the two is what this work fills.
Inclusion programmes have lost the room. Senior leaders still believe in the principle, but the language has become politicised, the training has become performative, and the people doing the daily work of managing teams are no longer sure what they are supposed to do differently on Monday morning. The gap is no longer one of intent. It is one of practice.
Strategy demands commitment, and commitment is what kills companies when the future does not arrive as forecast. Boards reward bold bets; the same bets concentrate risk in ways the planning cycle hides. The hard question is not which strategy to pick, but how to commit to one direction while keeping the option to be wrong.
New leaders fail in their first ninety days more often than at any other point in their career, and the cost is paid by the team, the strategy, and the board that hired them. The same pattern repeats further up: senior teams face decisions where pattern recognition and systems thinking matter more than functional expertise, and most have never been taught either. Organisations need a repeatable way to accelerate leaders into new roles and to sharpen how their top team thinks.
Boards and executive teams know they need to act on AI, but most are stuck between vendor pitches, pilot fatigue and a regulatory picture that keeps moving. The harder question is not whether to invest, but which decisions belong in the boardroom, which belong with the operators, and how to govern the technology without stalling it. Few advisors have sat on all three sides of that table: building the technology, running it at scale, and writing the policy that shapes its limits.
Senior leaders are being asked to hold composure, build credibility, and make inclusive decisions under conditions that punish hesitation and reward signalling. Most leadership development still teaches frameworks, not the inner discipline that makes those frameworks survive contact with pressure. The gap shows up in how leaders behave when values cost them something.
Most senior teams have absorbed every available framework for leadership. None of those frameworks change how they listen, or how they bring a room of expert voices into a coherent decision. The capacity that matters most at the top is closer to conducting an orchestra than to running an analysis.
Most boards now have an AI position on paper. Very few have a confident view of what their organisation should actually do with the technology, on what timeline, and at what cost to existing structures. The gap between AI as a slide in the strategy deck and AI as a real operating capability is where senior teams quietly stall.
Senior teams know how to perform when conditions are stable. The harder question is what holds a team together when conditions degrade, decisions have to be made on partial information, and the leader is as tired as the people they are leading. That is the gap between leadership theory and leadership in practice.
People speak in front of colleagues, clients and boards every day and most do it badly. Composure breaks under pressure, messages land flat, and the gap between what someone knows and what they can convey costs the organisation credibility. Leadership programmes rarely address this directly, treating presence as a personality trait rather than a trainable behaviour.
A senior leader can have the strategy right and still lose the room. When the stakes are highest, the difference between a board that aligns and one that fragments often comes down to who is holding the microphone. Most organisations underinvest in that interface, then wonder why their summits, town halls and investor days fail to land.