Saul Betmead de Chasteigner

How to Get a SIT at the Board Room Table: Future-Proofing Your Board Leadership Journey As someone who's deeply invested in leadership development, I've always believed that "every leader is a reader." I have been privileged to sit on listed, professional and associations my own company's boards at a tender age. The habit of reading and continuous learning is essential for staying ahead of the curve and future-proofing one's career. In today's fast-paced world, it's crucial to stay curious, adaptable, and committed to growth. That's why I'm excited to share with you a valuable resource that's relevant for aspiring board leaders and seasoned directors alike: Taka Sande's "Roadmap to Non-Executive Directorship – The Essential Handbook." This book offers practical insights and guidance for those looking to excel in board roles, and it's a great way to earn CPD points while expanding your knowledge. Whether you're just starting out or looking to take your leadership skills to the next level, this book is a valuable addition to your library. *Get Your Copy Today!* - Purchase at the Institute of Directors Zimbabwe (IoDZ) offices: 16 Arundel Rd, Harare, +263 242 885 071 - Available on Amazon: (https://lnkd.in/dNFhmv4E ) - Visit Taka Sande's website: (https://lnkd.in/ditRSRaX.) Let's continue to prioritize lifelong learning and support one another in our leadership journeys. I encourage you to check out Taka Sande's book and share your thoughts on the importance of continuous learning in the comments below. #LifelongLearning #LeadershipDevelopment #FutureProofing #CPD #BoardLeadership

52

3 commentaires

How can we meaningfully study consumer behaviors in settings where physical and digital interactions are constantly interwoven? In this published research piece, I propose the Phygital Research Paradigm (PRP), a fluid, philosophically grounded framework tailored for hybrid environments. Rooted in four adapted philosophical pillars, it invites researchers to recalibrate their methodological compass: 🔹 Liquid Ontology – reality as a holarchic, dynamic construct shaped by object, subject, and context 🔹 Dual Axiology – ethical inquiry bridging hermeneutic and phenomenological values 🔹 Interpretivist Epistemology – knowledge creation through socially embedded consumer experiences 🔹 Multimethodology – an abductive research strategy interlinking data and theory in evolving fieldworks Together, these elements illuminate how consumers engage with brands across phygital touchpoints—nonlinearly, emotionally, and holistically. I believe the phygital research paradigm lays the foundation for richer investigations and theoretical advancement in phygital marketing and phygital consumer research. If you're interested in scholars pioneering the future of phygital, human-centric marketing, join the conversation at the upcoming American Phygital Association (APA) Summit in Paris 2026! 🔗 For more information, visit the website here : https://lnkd.in/eQFvYVkT 📚 Source – Batat, W. (2024), "The phygital research paradigm: philosophical foundations for examining consumer experiences and behaviors in hybrid physical-digital realms", Qualitative Market Research, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 357-365. #Phygital #PhygitalConsumer #MarketingTheory #MarketingInnovation

45

3 commentaires

🚀 When you’re aiming beyond the region into a global executive role, the real filter isn’t capability. It’s whether the role aligns with your strengths, proximity to power, and the politics of the function, or sets you up to fail politely. 💹 One of our clients was shortlisted from a regional director to a global head role. On paper, she was the clear choice. The feedback from key decision makers was: “You’re too aggressive. This position requires lots of collaboration, reading between the lines and iteration. You won’t win the team’s heart with a "stick" The easy response would be to dismiss it as bias. And yes, there is bias. Women are called “aggressive” where men are called “decisive.” But stopping there is too simple. At senior levels, feedback is rarely about raw competence, it’s about whether your leadership style fits the arena. Her current role was in sales, where being "aggressive" is rewarded and frankly very much needed. But a global Marcom role requires coalition-building and influence over persuasion. 🔬 Expecting the same style to work across both is like asking the best runner to compete in gymnastics; the instincts that win in one arena can backfire in another. 💡 So when you’re considering your next big move, especially at the global level, ask yourself three questions: 1. 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗲𝘅𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗲𝗲𝗱𝗯𝗮𝗰𝗸?    “Too aggressive” isn’t a verdict on you. It’s a reflection of how your style lands in that function and culture. Decode it. Ask yourself: where does this style help me win and where does it rub people the wrong way?     2. 𝗪𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗼𝗹𝗲 𝘀𝗶𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗼 𝗽𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿?    A regional role with direct proximity to HQ can hold more influence than a global title parked on the sidelines. Never confuse the prestige of a title with actual power.     3. 𝗗𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗼𝗹𝗲 𝗳𝗶𝘁 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗲𝗿, 𝗼𝗿 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗶𝘁 𝗽𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘀𝗵 𝗶𝘁?    Stretching into new muscles is growth. But if a role demands you lead every day from your weakest traits, it will drain you. A top sales leader thrives on speed and pressure, place her in R&D, where patience and iteration rule, her edge becomes a liability. The right role should expand your strengths, not erase them.     ⚖️ These are not the conversations you’ll find in leadership manuals or with coaches who’ve never carried executive weight. They require lived experience, sharp questioning, and a safe space to speak the truths few at the top can voice aloud. 🔥 Our From Hidden Talent to Visible Leader cohort is closed and oversubscribed. Because of the high demand for 1:1 coaching, we’re opening a limited number of spots for an exclusive Power Track - a customized path for women who are aiming for the very top. ⌛ 5 spots left... 👊 DM me if you want to make your next career move with precision, choosing the right role, building the right alliances, and positioning yourself for real power.

99

18 commentaires

Meeting Paradox at Company Boards The smartest boards aren’t the ones that meet most often—they’re the ones that meet with purpose. - More meetings don’t always mean better governance. Research shows: - Boards often meet more after poor performance, not before. - In strong governance environments (like Germany), too many meetings can reduce effectiveness. - In weaker governance contexts (like Indonesia), more frequent meetings do improve oversight. What matters most isn’t the number of meetings, but their focus: strategy, risk, and culture—not just routine compliance. 👉 The real question for directors isn’t “How often should we meet?” but “Are our meetings creating real strategic value?”

40

2 commentaires

I have been bewildered by the so many conflicting fairness metrics out there. So, when you are free from corporate life and management entertainment, this is what I end up with. Some people solve puzzles; as a machine learning nerd, I come up with this paper: https://lnkd.in/e_TX5BSr. Ever wondered why achieving "fair" AI feels like trying to satisfy a room full of lawyers, ethicists, AND statisticians all at once? Turns out there's actual math behind why fairness is so... unfair to achieve! I just finished a theoretical deep-dive that connects ALL major fairness measures (demographic parity, equalized opportunity, calibration, individual fairness) through a single mathematical framework using Pinsker's inequality from information theory. This is a draft, so if you find any mistake, I would greatly appreciate the feedbacks. If you find many of them and correct them then I would like to ask you as a co-author for the final paper. What we discovered: - There's a mathematical hierarchy to fairness - some criteria are fundamentally harder to achieve than others - Information theory explains WHY multiple fairness criteria can't be satisfied simultaneously (looking at you, Kleinberg impossibility results!) - We can now predict exactly how much bias remains in any "fair" system using mutual information bounds - Practical win: Direct formulas for regulatory compliance (hello, 80% rule and GDPR!) The bottom line: Instead of playing fairness whack-a-mole, we now have a unified theoretical compass that shows us the fundamental trade-offs and helps navigate them systematically. For my fellow ML practitioners: This isn't just theoretical navel-gazing. We derive concrete formulas for constraint setting, bias detection, and algorithm design that you can actually use in production systems. The best part? All those "impossible" fairness trade-offs everyone complains about? They're not bugs - they're features of information theory itself. Sometimes it helps to know you're fighting math, not just organizational politics! Who else has been frustrated by the fairness metrics maze? What's your experience navigating these trade-offs in practice?

99

30 commentaires