Planeamento de Cenários e Previsão Estratégica speakers
Oradores que ajudam as organizações a antecipar a incerteza, validar pressupostos e planear múltiplos futuros possíveis
Speakers Associates represents 255 speakers on Planeamento de Cenários e Previsão Estratégica, including Kemal Apaydin, Peter Fisk, Mark Stevenson, Olivier Sibony, Thimon de Jong, Lucy Bullivant, Rita McGrath, Katja Schipperheijn, Graeme Codrington e Dean van Leeuwen.
Boards now plan inside a global order they no longer recognise. Sanctions regimes shift quarterly, alliances fracture, and the assumptions that underpinned thirty years of capital allocation no longer hold. Most leadership teams need a longer historical frame and a credible read on where the next decade is heading, not another monthly briefing on the cycle.
A quarter of the workforce now belongs to a generation that older leaders consistently describe as the hardest to read. Employers cannot retain them, marketers cannot reach them, and the standard explanations of what they want keep contradicting each other. Inside organisations, that gap is now a strategic problem: attrition, brand erosion, and decisions about culture made on assumptions no one in the room has tested.
Boards are being asked to approve AI strategies they cannot evaluate. The architects of frontier systems openly say they do not fully understand what their models can do, yet executives are expected to deploy, govern and disclose around them. The shortfall is not technical literacy. It is a working theory of where the technology is heading and what that means for capital, headcount and liability.
Most strategy decisions now have to be made before the facts are in. Boards are asked to commit capital, talent and partnerships under conditions where the basis of competitive advantage is shifting underneath them. The hard question is no longer what the strategy is. It is how to commit, how to stage investment, and how to keep the organisation moving while the answer is still forming.
Boards and executive teams are being asked to price political risk that now moves faster than their planning cycles. Wars, sanctions, information operations and shifting alliances are no longer background noise. They reshape supply chains, capital flows and reputational exposure inside a single quarter, and most leadership teams lack a direct line to people who have sat in the room when those decisions were taken.
Leaders are told to plan for an accelerating future, but the public commentary on technology cycles, energy systems and innovation is dominated by consensus thinking. That makes long-range capital decisions easier to defend internally and harder to get right. The harder task is reading where supply, technology and politics are actually heading, before the conventional view catches up.
The postwar rules that protected trade, capital and cross-border operations are no longer holding. Boards are being asked to take positions on sanctions, export controls, China exposure and energy security without the diplomatic literacy the last generation could assume. The cost of getting the geopolitical read wrong now shows up in the P&L within a quarter.
Sovereign debt is at historic levels in the world’s largest economies, and central bank independence is under sustained political pressure. Boards and finance leaders must set long-range strategy without a reliable model of how monetary tightening, fiscal overreach, and geopolitical fragmentation compound each other. The institutional architecture that contained the last major financial crisis is now itself under stress.
Command-and-control structures are failing under conditions of permanent volatility, yet most executive teams still default to them under pressure. Senior leaders are being asked to authorise decisions at a speed and scale their hierarchies were never built for. The real question is no longer how to push change through the organisation, but how to lead one that has to coordinate without being controlled.
Most leadership development spending produces no measurable improvement in how organisations are actually led. Executives leave programmes energised but return to systems that reward the same behaviours, protect the same power structures, and ignore the same evidence. The cost is not just wasted budget – it shows up in attrition, disengagement, and, increasingly, in the physical health of workforces.
Sustainability commitments now routinely outrun the geopolitical and macroeconomic conditions required to deliver them. Most boards that set climate or development targets lack a framework for the global economic forces that will determine whether those targets hold. The gap between what organisations have pledged and what the international system can realistically support is among the most consequential strategic risks leaders face.
Boards have signed climate commitments and capital plans that depend on infrastructure that does not yet exist at scale. The gap between net zero ambition, regional grid reality, and shareholder return is widening, and most leadership teams have no economic framework that connects energy, digital, and mobility decisions into a single capital story. The question is no longer whether to decarbonise. It is what to build, in what order, with whom, and on whose roadmap.