Cybersecurity
Experts who help organisations understand digital threats, protect critical systems, and build genuine resilience
Brands keep losing time and money on social platforms they do not understand. Most marketing teams cannot explain why one TikTok travels and another dies, and they have no working view of the safety and reputational risk that comes with putting a brand in front of a younger audience. The result is either timid content that nobody watches, or noisy content that creates problems nobody saw coming.
Most organisations still treat cyber as an IT department problem. The attack surface has moved: it now runs through the personal devices, social profiles, and travel patterns of senior leaders, and through the open-source data their organisations leak every day. Boards need someone who can show them what an adversary actually sees, not another briefing on compliance.
Technology decisions no longer sit inside the technology function. The next decade of corporate strategy will be shaped by state power, capital flows and public backlash as much as by product roadmaps, and leadership teams are being asked to read all of these at once. Most boards can price a competitor. Far fewer can price a government, a regulator and a public mood moving against them at the same time.
Boards are now accountable for AI decisions they do not fully understand. Regulators, customers, and employees expect defensible governance, but most companies still treat ethics as a slide at the end of the deck. The gap between AI ambition and AI accountability is where reputational, legal, and operational risk now compounds fastest.
Most cybersecurity decisions inside large organisations are still made by people who have never thought like an attacker. That gap, between the defender’s checklist and the attacker’s actual workflow, is where breaches happen. Boards need a credible interpreter of how adversaries reason, not another vendor reading from a slide.
Most boards have approved a digital strategy and an AI roadmap. Few can say with confidence what their company would look like if either succeeded. The gap between announced ambition and operating substance is widening, and the leaders most exposed are the ones who treated digital and AI as IT projects rather than as questions about how the business itself runs.
Cyber risk has moved out of the IT function and onto the board agenda, but most boards still cannot say what their cyber exposure is in financial terms. At the same time, the organisations they lead are competing against decentralised networks that do not behave like firms. Both problems require leaders who can think in terms of networks rather than hierarchies.
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 boards now have an AI strategy on paper and almost no honest read on which parts of it are real. The signals coming out of Silicon Valley are loud, contradictory, and shaped by people with money to raise. Leaders need someone who has watched this exact pattern repeat through the PC, the internet, the cloud, and now generative AI, and who will say plainly which bets are durable and which are theatre.
Most digital transformation programmes stall in the gap between strategy decks and operating reality. The harder question is sovereignty: who controls the code, the infrastructure, the talent pipeline, and the standards your business now depends on. Boards rarely have a credible internal voice that can speak to both the technology stack and the policy machinery around it.
Boards are being asked to make defensible decisions about exposure they cannot fully see: criminal networks embedded in supply chains, cyber intrusion routed through state actors, sanctions risk that shifts faster than legal opinion. The old separation between security, geopolitics and commercial strategy no longer holds. Leaders need a coherent picture of how these systems actually interact, written by someone who has spent decades inside them.
Boards are being asked to price political risk into decisions they used to treat as commercial. Sanctions exposure, defence spending shifts, transatlantic friction and the unwinding of cheap globalisation now sit on the same agenda as capital allocation and operating strategy. Most leadership teams lack a reliable read on how policy decisions in Washington, Berlin and Brussels will land in their P and L.