Innovation & Disruption
Speakers who examine how industries are reshaped — and how organisations can lead rather than follow change
Speakers Associates represents 390 speakers on Innovation & Disruption, including Kemal Apaydin, Michael Lyon, Peter Fisk, Neri Karra Sillaman, Mark Stevenson, Nilofer Merchant, Itai Green, Lucy Bullivant, Rita McGrath and Katja Schipperheijn.
Most large organisations cannot reach the under-30 buyer with the brand machinery they already own. Internal marketing teams are structured for paid media, not for creators, and senior leaders rarely have a credible read on how Gen Z actually decides what to buy, work for, or trust. The result is real revenue exposure dressed up as a content problem.
Every major food business generates surplus. Most treat it as a disposal problem and price it accordingly. The result is a supply chain designed to waste, measured by metrics that make the waste invisible – until ESG reporting, procurement scrutiny, and reputational risk make it expensive.
Most organisations plan in three-to-five year cycles. The structural forces that actually reshape industries – demographic reordering, geopolitical power shifts, long-cycle economic transitions – operate on twenty-year timescales. The gap between those two horizons is where strategic miscalculation accumulates silently until it becomes a crisis.
Most organisations treat creativity as a culture problem, then complain that nothing ships. The harder question is operational: how do creative teams stay productive at scale, and how do leaders translate abstract ideas into experiences that actually move people. That gap, between intent and execution, is where most innovation programmes lose the thread.
Most organisations have a sustainability strategy. Far fewer have made sustainability the structural logic of their business model. The pressure from investors, regulators, and employees is real, but it is producing reporting, not reinvention. The gap between stated commitment and genuine commercial transformation is where ambition runs out.
Most strategy decisions now have to be made before the facts are in. Boards are asked to commit capital, talent and partnerships under conditions where the basis of competitive advantage is shifting underneath them. The hard question is no longer what the strategy is. It is how to commit, how to stage investment, and how to keep the organisation moving while the answer is still forming.
Most organisations say innovation is a priority. Most also have little to show for the resources they have poured into it. The problem is rarely a shortage of ideas. It is that the innovation industry itself – the workshops, the frameworks, the consultants – has trained leaders to perform innovation rather than practise it. Distinguishing between the two is harder than it sounds, and the cost of getting it wrong is institutional.
Executive teams now have to talk publicly about AI in front of regulators, customers and their own workforces, and the conversations are getting harder. The technology is moving faster than the governance around it, and the room is full of people who have heard too many vendor pitches. What is needed is someone who can ask the questions a sceptical audience would ask, draw a straight answer out of a technical guest, and make the stakes legible to non-specialists in the room.
Senior teams hit a ceiling when their best people stop learning. Mastery becomes complacency, ambitious operators leave, and the organisation runs out of internal candidates for the roles that matter most. Most companies still treat development as a training budget, not as a portfolio decision about where each leader sits on a learning curve.
Most large organisations know their cultures are not built for the work they now need people to do. The frameworks of command, control, and incentive that delivered scale in the last cycle are producing fatigue, disengagement, and weak innovation in this one. The harder question for senior leaders is what to put in their place, and how to know whether the new operating model is actually working.
Most organisations talk about innovation and treat creativity as a workshop activity, not a leadership capability. The result is incremental change, fatigued teams and a culture that cannot generate new direction when the operating context shifts. The deeper question is whether creativity, inclusion and collective purpose can be designed into how a workforce actually runs, or whether they remain decorative.
Large organisations know they need to behave more like start-ups. They also know that telling people to «be more entrepreneurial» rarely changes how anyone actually works on Monday morning. The gap between intent and behaviour is where most innovation programmes quietly fail.