Cybersecurity
Experts who help organisations understand digital threats, protect critical systems, and build genuine resilience
Speakers Associates represents 64 speakers on Cybersecurity, including Limor Ziv, Harriet Farlow, Saakshar Duggal, Marc Saltzman, Theresa Payton, Jim Sciutto, Susi O’Neill, Georgia Harrison, Nina Schick and Sol Rashidi.
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 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.
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.
Boards are being asked to commit capital and credibility to AI before anyone has a settled view of what the technology will and will not do. The reflex is either to over-promise or to wait. Both positions are expensive, and neither produces the judgment a senior team needs to set policy on adoption, risk, and public trust.
Adversaries no longer wait for war to act against companies and governments. Sabotage, disinformation, infiltration and economic coercion arrive below the threshold of conflict, where corporate response plans were never designed to operate. Boards are being asked to manage state-level subversion with commercial tools.
When an AI system causes harm, most organisations cannot say who is accountable for it. Agentic AI sharpens the problem, because software now takes actions no one explicitly authorised. The legal and governance structures most companies rely on were built for tools that wait to be told what to do.
Leadership events convene senior executives at significant cost. The conversations they produce rarely justify it. When a moderator lacks genuine knowledge of the subject – AI adoption, fintech disruption, geopolitical risk – executives default to rehearsed positions. The insight the event was supposed to surface never arrives.
Online abuse has moved from a personal hazard to a workplace one. Senior women, Black colleagues, and other targeted groups now carry a digital safety burden their employers do not see in the engagement survey. The unresolved question for people leaders is how to treat online harm as a duty of care rather than a personal coping problem, and how to do that in a corporate climate where inclusion language is under pressure.
Most boards have signed off on AI strategies they cannot fully explain to their own people. The gap is not technical, it is translational: senior teams need a clear read on what the technology can already do, what is still hype, and which decisions cannot wait. Without that clarity, AI investment becomes a portfolio of pilots rather than a source of advantage.
Most enterprise AI programmes are stuck between an executive mandate to deploy and an operating reality that cannot absorb the change. Boards want commercial returns. Workforces want to know what happens to them. Risk and compliance want to know how the model decides. The leaders running these programmes need someone who has actually shipped AI inside large companies, not someone describing the journey from outside.
Most AI investment is sitting between the slide deck and the operating model. Leaders have approved the strategy, but the people meant to use the tools are confused, sceptical, or quietly opting out. Closing that gap is a communications and adoption problem before it is a technology one, and very few organisations are treating it that way.