Business Strategy & Growth
Strategists, economists and entrepreneurs who help organisations identify opportunity and execute with conviction
Most leadership models still rely on hierarchy, oversight, and approval layers that quietly slow every decision an organisation makes. The cost shows up everywhere: in deal cycles, in execution speed, in the cultural drag that no engagement survey explains. The harder problem for senior leaders is that trust is treated as a soft outcome of culture, when in practice it is the single variable that determines how fast and how cheaply work actually gets done.
The forty-year operating model is over. Boards built strategies, supply chains, and growth assumptions around open markets, China access, and a single global capital pool, and that world has fractured into rival blocs with their own rules. Leaders now need a working theory of competitiveness that survives sanctions, industrial policy, and bloc-level alignment, not a set of slides about uncertainty.
Most organisations still equate growth with acquisition: more headcount, more budget, more tools, more data. The constraint is rarely the resource pool. It is the leadership instinct to chase what is missing instead of redeploying what is already in the building. Teams stall waiting for permission and capital while the answers sit unused on adjacent desks.
Most marketing budgets are run as a performance machine that can be measured, with brand work tolerated as overhead. When growth slows, the brand half is cut first and the performance half stops working. Leaders need to defend why both layers exist, on grounds a CFO will accept.
Innovation inside large organisations rarely fails for lack of ideas. It fails because there is no shared method for finding the right ones, no way to repeat the process, and no language that connects a creative breakthrough to the operating plan. Most companies still treat innovation as a personality trait of a few teams rather than a capability the whole business can build.
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.
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.
Most senior leaders run businesses someone else built. The instincts that close a hard deal or pull a team out of a missed quarter get diluted as organisations scale. Senior teams need a credible operator who has built from nothing and has the documented exits to prove it.
Most large organisations have an innovation function. Few have an innovation discipline. Pilots multiply, vanguard projects get presented at the offsite, and the operating business looks the same a year later. The hard question for the leadership team is no longer whether to innovate; it is what to industrialise, what to retire, and where the next source of growth actually comes from.
Most companies say they value culture, trust and people, then run the business on quarterly metrics that punish all three. The result is innovation programmes that stall, talent strategies that miss whole categories of high performers, and competitive advantages that erode faster than leaders expected. The hard question is what actually produces durable growth when product cycles compress and capital is impatient.
Most organisations add management controls as they scale, treating process and approval layers as the logical price of accountability. The result is that high performers – the people organisations most need – are also the most constrained by the system they work inside. Replacing that logic with something more effective is the problem few leadership teams have seriously confronted, let alone solved.