Inovação e disrupção
Oradores que exploram como as indústrias se transformam e como as organizações podem liderar a mudança em vez de a acompanhar
Speakers Associates represents 390 speakers on Inovação e disrupção, including Kemal Apaydin, Michael Lyon, Peter Fisk, Neri Karra Sillaman, Mark Stevenson, Nilofer Merchant, Itai Green, Lucy Bullivant, Rita McGrath e Katja Schipperheijn.
The gap between technology adoption and competitive advantage is widening, most organisations are rich in tools and poor in strategic clarity. Innovation programmes proliferate while the underlying strategy remains ambiguous. The investments that should be reshaping competitive position instead generate activity, cost, and noise.
The carbon committed when a building is constructed can exceed its operational footprint over thirty years. Yet most sustainability programmes treat construction materials as outside their mandate. As Scope 3 accounting extends to embodied emissions, the gap between climate commitments and procurement decisions becomes visible – and costly to ignore.
Most large organisations admire start-ups and fail to learn from them. The instincts that produce growth in a small team get diluted by process the moment a company tries to scale, and boards rarely hear the founder view in language they can act on. The harder question is what executive teams should actually copy, and what they should leave alone.
Most large organisations have run AI pilots. Far fewer have moved them into operating reality. The gap is not the technology, it is the absence of an internal innovation discipline that translates promising experiments into measurable change inside a workforce that is, in many cases, quietly resisting it.
Most organisations say innovation is a priority. Most also have little to show for the resources they have poured into it. The problem is rarely a shortage of ideas. It is that the innovation industry itself – the workshops, the frameworks, the consultants – has trained leaders to perform innovation rather than practise it. Distinguishing between the two is harder than it sounds, and the cost of getting it wrong is institutional.
Most AI deployments produce pilots, not capability. Tools land in the organisation faster than people can absorb them, and leaders default to vendor narratives because they lack a vocabulary for the human variables that decide whether productivity actually moves. The bottleneck is rarely the model. It is the gap between what AI can do and how the workforce learns to think with it.
In knowledge-intensive organisations, the costliest failures rarely come from incompetence. They come from people sitting on information their leaders needed to hear. The question is what leaders actually do, daily, that determines whether employees raise concerns early or stay quiet until the problem is unrecoverable.
Most brands can no longer rely on advertising spend to sustain commercial growth. Consumer purchasing decisions are now driven by taste, values, and cultural affiliation, forces that sit outside the traditional marketing brief. Organisations built for reach-and-frequency marketing have no structural model for converting cultural relevance into revenue.
Most organisations are now deploying AI and IoT faster than they are building the governance, culture and decision rights that decide whether those deployments will work. The technology gap is closing; the leadership-and-ethics gap is widening. Audiences want a speaker who has written the technical manuals and also spent years inside the rooms where large companies argue about whether to proceed.
Most organisations have pilots running, copilots deployed, and a roadmap deck. Few have a clear answer to what their managers and frontline teams should actually do differently when AI is sitting next to them. The gap between AI capability and human capability is now the binding constraint on commercial value.
The political and economic risk profile of the Americas shifts faster than most organisational strategy cycles can absorb. A market that looks stable in January can be structurally different by Q3 – government reversal, currency shock, or trade agreement collapse can arrive without warning. Automation is now compressing that timeline further: the same workforce that faces geopolitical disruption is simultaneously facing structural displacement from AI, and most organisations are treating these as separate problems when they are the same one.
Most organisations face a contradiction they have not solved. Boards now demand faster innovation and faster AI adoption than the structures, talent and risk appetite below them were ever built to handle. Without the language to name that tension, leadership teams produce noise, burnout and bold-sounding decisions that quietly damage the business.