Behavioural Economics speakers
Speakers who decode how humans truly make decisions — and why rational choice theory rarely holds
Speakers Associates represents 67 speakers on Behavioural Economics, including Mark Ritson, Olivier Sibony, Thimon de Jong, Chris Endersby & Mickey Wilson, Stephen Foerster, Dr Karen Nelson-Field PhD, Timandra Harkness, Mickey Wilson, Patrick Renvoise and Paul Gibbons.
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.
Marketing decisions are still made on what customers say they want, not what they actually do. The gap between stated preference and behaviour is where most campaign budgets quietly underperform. Closing it requires evidence from psychology and field testing, not another round of focus groups.
Organisations invest heavily in what they communicate – the argument, the offer, the framing – and almost nothing in the conditions that determine whether it lands. The decision is often made before the message arrives. Most commercial and leadership teams have no systematic approach to the moments that precede persuasion, which means even well-constructed communication is routinely working against itself.
Capital allocation decisions are being made against asset prices that look detached from fundamentals, with housing, equities, and credit cycles moving on stories as much as on numbers. Boards need a way to read those stories before they break, and a framework for separating durable signal from collective belief. The judgement call is pricing risk when standard models keep mispricing it.
Customer behaviour rarely follows the logic that marketing plans assume. Small points of friction quietly suppress conversion, loyalty, and adoption while leadership chases bigger strategic levers. The harder question is which behavioural mechanics actually move buyers, and which spend is theatre.
Senior teams routinely have to set rules, contracts and incentives for parties who know things they will not share and whose interests do not fully align with the firm’s. Auctions, supplier contracts, sales compensation, internal capital allocation and partnership governance all fail in the same way: the rules reward the wrong behaviour because they were designed without a model of how informed agents will actually game them. The question is not how to motivate people. It is how to design the rules so that telling the truth and acting in the firm’s interest become the rational choice.
The best growth opportunity in most organisations sits in the gap between what customers say they want and how they actually decide. Logical optimisation; better product, bigger budget, more data, consistently fails to close that gap. Organisations without a framework for working with perception, context, and human psychology will keep solving the wrong problem.
Customers and employees rarely behave the way strategy decks predict. Brand teams optimise messages, pricing models test cleanly, CX programmes look complete on paper, and the actual revenue, retention and engagement numbers still drift. The gap is the human one, and most commercial functions have no disciplined way to close it.
Most organisations optimise for the next twelve months. Most investors optimise for the next quarter. The discipline of allocating capital, attention and structure so that value compounds over decades is a capability few senior teams have built, and one that increasingly separates the businesses that endure from those that do not.
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.
Senior leaders are under pressure to make high-stakes decisions in conditions where the available information is abundant, contested, and heavily distorted by media cycles and cognitive shortcuts. Yet the tools required to reason well under uncertainty – probability, causal inference, evidence evaluation – are rarely taught and even more rarely applied systematically inside organisations. The result is that even experienced executives and boards make decisions shaped more by availability bias, narrative pull, and institutional momentum than by the evidence in front of them.
Customers do not behave the way product, marketing and strategy decks assume they will. They misread information, default to inertia, and disengage at exactly the moments organisations most need them to act. Closing that gap between what behaviour the business model requires and what cognition actually delivers is the work.