Risk Management speakers
Speakers who help organisations anticipate, navigate and absorb the risks that define modern commercial life
Speakers Associates represents 302 speakers on Risk Management, including Michael Lyon, Mark Stevenson, Olivier Sibony, Caroline Elliott, Limor Ziv, Harriet Farlow, Saakshar Duggal, Tina Stowell, Roger Spitz and Stephen Foerster.
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 making capital decisions inside the most disordered macroeconomic environment in a generation. Inflation has not behaved as the textbooks said it would, monetary policy is fighting itself, and structural shocks from AI to Brexit to deglobalisation are landing on top of cyclical pressure. Leaders need a reading of the economy that connects rates, prices, productivity and policy into a single coherent view they can act on.
Senior teams routinely have to set rules, contracts and incentives for parties who know things they will not share and whose interests do not fully align with the firm’s. Auctions, supplier contracts, sales compensation, internal capital allocation and partnership governance all fail in the same way: the rules reward the wrong behaviour because they were designed without a model of how informed agents will actually game them. The question is not how to motivate people. It is how to design the rules so that telling the truth and acting in the firm’s interest become the rational choice.
The operating assumptions most organisations still use for strategic planning come from a more predictable century. Leaders are running multi-year capital plans, technology roadmaps and workforce strategies against scenarios that are now changing inside the planning cycle. The real discipline is no longer long-range forecasting; it is anticipation, antifragility and agility, and most leadership teams are not yet trained to reason that way.
Boards now make decisions where the legal answer, the commercial answer, and the moral answer point in different directions. The default response is process: more codes, more training, more compliance. None of it changes how senior leaders actually decide under pressure, and none of it survives contact with a real ethical failure.
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.
Geopolitical risk is now a board-level concern, but most of the analysis reaching senior leaders comes from people who have watched power from the outside. That gap matters: understanding why states miscalculate, why alliances fracture, and why interventions fail requires more than commentary – it requires someone who has made consequential decisions inside those systems. The assumptions organisations built their global strategies on – stable Western institutions, predictable alliance structures, rules-based international order – are being tested simultaneously.
Capital is being deployed into a world where the old assumptions about growth, globalisation and state policy no longer hold. Boards and investment committees need a framework for distinguishing structural shifts from cyclical noise across emerging and developed economies. The cost of getting this read wrong, on country exposure, currency, or capital allocation, has rarely been higher.
Senior teams now make consequential decisions on incomplete data, against the clock, in front of an audience. Most leadership development still teaches deliberation, not the call. The capability gap is what to do in the ninety seconds when conditions change and the plan no longer fits.
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.
Research into emergency command shows that experienced leaders under genuine pressure rely on instinct for most of their decisions. The structured decision-making frameworks that organisations invest in are typically bypassed at the moments they are most needed. Closing that gap requires rethinking not just how leadership judgement is trained, but how it is measured and held to account.
Most strategies look sound in the boardroom and then fail the balance sheet. Growth initiatives, ESG commitments and transformation plans routinely clear approval without a credible account of how they will create value, destroy it, or reshape the capital structure. Senior leaders who cannot read that signal end up funding the wrong bets and explaining the wrong numbers.