Business Strategy & Growth
Strategists, economists and entrepreneurs who help organisations identify opportunity and execute with conviction
Most leadership teams still make their biggest calls inside a small room of senior people who broadly agree with each other. The cost is slow decisions, narrow options, and innovation programmes that surface the same ideas the company already has. The harder question is how to widen the input set, employees, customers, partners, networks, without losing speed or accountability.
Brand investment is one of the first lines questioned when growth slows, yet the organisations that pull back hardest are usually the ones whose customers cannot tell them apart from a competitor. Service businesses face this most acutely. The experience is the product, and inconsistency between what marketing promises and what operations delivers shows up directly in retention, pricing power and referral.
Most large organisations have funded AI programmes and run pilots. Most of those pilots never reach production. The gap is not technical capability. It is the absence of an outcome architecture that connects experimentation to structural change. Meanwhile, boards are approving AI investment without the governance frameworks to manage the risks that sit inside AI agents and automated decision-making systems.
Western leadership teams keep treating China as a market problem when it is a partnership problem. Joint ventures stall, strategic alliances thin out, and trust breaks down faster than the contracts can fix. The question is no longer whether to engage, but how to lead a team that does not share your defaults.
Most large organisations still run on a set of assumptions that stopped being reliable somewhere between the financial crisis and the collapse of globalisation as a default setting. Leadership teams know the old playbook is failing, but the boards, incentive systems, and time horizons that shaped them are still in the room. The question senior leaders are stuck on is not whether to change, but how to change at the pace of disruption without losing the discipline that built the company in the first place.
Most organisations have innovation strategies but no infrastructure to make creative thinking a daily operational reality. New ideas either fail to surface or fail to survive contact with corporate process. Leaders who want sustained competitive advantage face a specific and under-solved problem: how to make creativity a repeatable capability embedded across the organisation rather than the output of a single team or an annual offsite.
Most large organisations are still built for a world that no longer exists. Strategic plans run on multi-year cycles. Org charts assume stable competitive advantage. Yet incumbents in consumer goods, banking, retail and luxury are losing ground to faster competitors while their leadership teams debate process.
Most large organisations talk about innovation as culture and end up funding pilots that never reach the P&L. The gap is not ideas, it is process: how a bank, telco or pharma company moves a creative concept through the same operational rigour it applies to risk, finance and supply. Without a repeatable method, innovation stays personality-led and stops when the sponsor leaves.
Growth outside mature markets rarely fails for lack of capital. It fails because boards underwrite the plan on a spreadsheet and then hit a labour base, a supplier network, and a political context no model captured. The gap between strategy decks and what actually scales across Africa, South Asia, and Latin America is where most ambitious expansion plans quietly stall.
Most large organisations are not built to find their next source of growth. They reward people for delivering the plan, not for spotting the opportunity that sits outside it. So the people closest to customers and markets stay quiet, the safe bets win, and the business defends its core while newer rivals take the ground it should have taken first.
Most sales organisations still treat brand, content, and pipeline as separate functions managed by separate teams. The result is paid acquisition that gets more expensive every quarter and a sales force that depends on it. The harder question is what a commercial operating model looks like when the content engine is the lead engine.