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.
Boards approve strategies that look rigorous on the deck and fail in the market. The same executives, looking at the same evidence, reach different conclusions on different days, and nobody notices. Most decision processes are built to confirm what senior leaders already believe, not to surface where their judgment is wrong.
Leaders are making strategic decisions based on assumptions about human behaviour that are already out of date. Trust has shifted structurally – away from institutions, toward the personal and the peer-based. Generational expectations have changed, technology is being adopted in ways organisations did not anticipate, and mental health is now a leadership variable, not an HR one. Most organisations are still using frameworks built for a world that preceded all of this.
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.
Marketing budgets are getting bigger while the proof that any of it works is getting weaker. Viewability metrics inherited from a decade ago tell buyers an ad was technically on screen; they say nothing about whether a human noticed it. The gap between paid impressions and commercial outcome is now the single largest unmanaged risk on the marketing P&L.
Boards and executive teams now make decisions about AI, data, and digital infrastructure that touch every part of the business. The technical case is well rehearsed. The harder questions, what these systems do to customer trust, to employee agency, to the meaning of the work, get pushed to ethics committees or deferred indefinitely. Leaders need a way to think clearly about technology that is neither uncritical adoption nor reflexive fear.
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.
Smart, experienced leaders make decisions under pressure that they would never defend with time to think. It rarely arrives as one dramatic failure. Judgement drifts quietly, one reasonable-seeming compromise at a time, until trust erodes and the cost is irreversible. Organisations build guardrails for finance, safety, and compliance, and almost none for the thinking that drives every one of those decisions.
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.