Business Strategy & Growth speakers
Strategists, economists and entrepreneurs who help organisations identify opportunity and execute with conviction
Speakers Associates represents 320 speakers on Business Strategy & Growth, including Kemal Apaydin, Arnt Eriksen, Michael Lyon, Peter Fisk, Neri Karra Sillaman, Mark Ritson, Olivier Sibony, Itai Green, Tom Goodwin and Rita McGrath.
Most large digital and AI investments stall before they deliver. The technology is rarely the reason. The operating model and leadership decisions move slower than the tools, and that mismatch is where most programmes quietly slide off the agenda.
Regulation and activist coalitions now shape more corporate outcomes than many of the competitive moves around which strategy frameworks are built. The forces that decide whether a factory gets built or a product reaches a shelf often sit outside the market. Leaders who only know how to compete lose ground to those who can read and shape the political environment around the business.
Most consumer businesses can describe their strategy. Far fewer can execute one that takes them from a category curiosity to a category leader. The gap is rarely about ideas. It is about portfolio discipline, the right partnerships, and a leadership team that can hold focus while the business multiplies in size.
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.
Most organisations build new propositions inside structures designed to keep existing businesses running. Then they wonder why their innovation programmes produce decks and pilots, but very few new customers. The mismatch is rarely diagnosed at the level where it can be fixed.
Digital transformation programmes routinely fail not from lack of investment but from lack of decision sequence. Most organisations cannot articulate which five or six choices determine whether a transformation delivers or stalls. Without that clarity, investment in platforms and AI becomes activity without architecture.
Most large organisations have an inclusion policy and a procurement function that barely speak to each other. Programmes designed to bring underrepresented founders into the supply chain stall because the operational mechanics, sourcing, qualification, contract size, payment terms, do not move with the rhetoric. The result is intent without throughput, and a small number of diverse suppliers cycling through the same RFPs.
Most innovation programmes stall in the gap between idea generation and operational adoption. Stakeholders are consulted late, ownership stays with a small central team, and the resulting initiatives lose energy before they touch the customer. The harder question is how to design an innovation process that the people responsible for executing it actually feel they built.
Consumer trust is not declining because products are worse. Organisations are deploying AI and persuasive technology faster than they understand its effect on human behaviour. The commercial cost shows up as rising disengagement, eroding brand loyalty and deepening consumer scepticism.
Most large organisations now run innovation budgets that no longer match the returns they once produced. R and D spend rises, pilot projects multiply, and the gap between cost and commercial output widens. Leaders need a way to generate breakthrough growth with fewer resources, in conditions where capital, talent, and time are all under pressure.
Most strategic planning assumes a single, most-likely future. Organisations that fail mid-execution are often those with the best plans – built on one scenario rather than a map of probable outcomes. When conditions shift, teams that have modelled uncertainty act; those that have not, freeze.
Most large organisations talk about simplicity and ship complexity. Product roadmaps grow, customer journeys fragment, internal processes accumulate, and the original argument for the business gets lost. The problem is rarely a shortage of ideas. It is the absence of a discipline for removing the wrong ones.