Behavioural Economics
Speakers who decode how humans truly make decisions — and why rational choice theory rarely holds
Most CMOs cannot trace marketing spend to commercial outcomes. Budgets flow toward activity – content, channels, campaigns – without a strategy that connects them to growth. Marketing’s credibility problem in the boardroom is largely a competence problem in the marketing department.
Most B2B businesses sell something genuinely different, then describe it in language that sounds like everyone else. Sameness feels safe, but it quietly erodes pricing power and gives buyers no real reason to choose. The harder task is finding the difference a company already holds and making a market actually feel it.
Capital allocation decisions sit at the centre of every senior leadership agenda. Yet the boards and committees making them are rarely staffed by finance specialists. The frameworks they inherit were built decades ago, and the assumptions inside them still shape how institutions measure investment risk today.
Most B2B scale-ups know their product is good. They cannot explain, in language a buyer remembers, why anyone should choose them over a cheaper or larger competitor. The result is sales cycles that stall, marketing spend that fails to compound, and leadership teams arguing about positioning every quarter.
Sales and marketing teams spend billions every year on messages that fail to move buyers. The reason is structural. Most purchasing decisions happen in parts of the brain that traditional research cannot reach. Customer surveys and intuition-based campaigns keep producing the same disappointing returns.
Most organisations are better at deploying AI than at using it. The workflows, decision habits, and cultural defaults of the existing organisation stay intact long after the new tools arrive. That gap between technical implementation and behavioral adoption is where most transformation investment is quietly lost.
Most organisations are spending heavily on AI without a clear view of which decisions the technology is actually supposed to improve. Models get shipped, dashboards proliferate, and senior leaders still cannot tell whether any of it is changing the quality of the choices the business makes. The missing layer is not more data or better algorithms, it is a disciplined way to connect AI outputs to the decisions a company is trying to get right.
Uncertainty is now the steady state, and most leadership teams are still managing it as a temporary disruption. Composure, judgement and the willingness to commit are degrading under that load, and the cost shows up in slower decisions, narrower thinking and quiet disengagement. The question is no longer how to remove uncertainty from the operating environment, but how to make the people running the business measurably better at working inside it.
Leadership systems built for one era are now managing a workforce shaped by another. Across the organisation, people are leaving roles or disengaging inside them because the structures around them no longer match how they want to work. The retention and engagement cost of that mismatch is rising faster than most organisations are willing to acknowledge.
Engagement programmes keep failing because the people they target do not believe their own future is theirs to build. Internal mobility, retention, and discretionary effort stall when individuals have written themselves out of their own potential before any policy intervention reaches them. Confidence, money beliefs, and habit are the unaddressed substrate beneath most people strategies.
Most inclusion work in firms is built on good intentions and weak evidence. Leaders spend heavily on training, charters, and targets, then cannot show which actions moved hiring, promotion, or retention. The gap between stated commitment and measurable progression is where credibility, talent, and money quietly leak away.
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.