Future of Work speakers
Voices shaping how organisations adapt to automation, hybrid models and shifting expectations of work
Speakers Associates represents 228 speakers on Future of Work, including Zavier Coyne, Thimon de Jong, Rahaf Harfoush, Nilofer Merchant, Russell Beck, Jeremy Blain, Katja Schipperheijn, Graeme Codrington, Philippe Aghion and Lauren Ducrey.
Most organisations talk about gender equity in leadership but cannot explain why their pipeline of women founders, operators and senior commercial leaders remains thin. The harder question is structural: who has access to capital, customers, and the networks that compound into business ownership. Without that, inclusion programmes produce optics rather than economic shift.
AI is absorbing the work middle management was paid to do. Reporting, coordination, status tracking, summarisation, performance feedback: all of it is moving into systems. Leaders can see the org chart will not survive in its current shape. Few have a working model for what replaces it, or for where human capability concentrates once execution is automated.
Boards have committed to AI before they have decided what it is for. Pilots multiply, vendors crowd the agenda, and the gap between what the technology can do and what the organisation should do with it widens. Leaders need a credible read on which shifts matter, on what timeline, and which ones are noise.
Most organisations talk about innovation as a culture and talk about diversity as a value. Few connect the two operationally. The people inside the business with the most original ideas are often the least equipped to protect them, commercialise them, or be seen as entrepreneurs by the people allocating capital and authority.
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.
Senior leaders are being asked to hold composure, judgement and crew confidence under conditions they were never trained for. Most leadership development was built for stable command, not for prolonged disruption, generational friction inside the team, and decisions made on incomplete information. The gap shows up in how a leadership team behaves on the third bad week, not the first.
Most organisations have run AI pilots. Very few have converted them into operating performance. The gap is no longer about technical capability; it is about strategy, governance, sourcing decisions, and the readiness of the people who have to use the systems every day.
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 organisations announce a position on inclusion long before they have a working theory of how to embed it. Internal champions then have to convert generic commitments into hiring decisions, promotion patterns and product choices, often in front of a workforce that has heard the rhetoric before. The hard task is making inclusion visible as operating discipline, not statement.
Most leadership teams plan for a future that resembles the recent past. Then AI, climate volatility, and geopolitical fracture arrive at once, and the plan does not survive the first quarter. The question is no longer how to predict the next disruption, but how to build an organisation whose reflexes are tuned to operate when prediction fails.
Boards are operating inside a security and trade order that no longer behaves as it did. Sanctions regimes, supply exposure, and great-power friction now sit on the executive agenda, yet most leadership teams have no first-hand reference for how governments actually decide under that pressure. The gap between corporate scenario decks and the rooms where these decisions get made has rarely been wider.
Most large companies have an innovation programme that produces activity but not commercial outcomes. Pilots multiply, hackathons run, idea portals fill up, and the operating model still rewards what worked last year. The harder question is how to make innovation a managed discipline that allocates real capital to the right problems, not a creativity theatre that the executive committee tolerates.