Why financial services leaders must connect strategy, data and accountability across the whole organisation

A financial services group can have excellent products, respected investment professionals, capable advisers and a compelling purpose, yet still disappoint the people it exists to serve. The failure often occurs between these strengths. An adviser cannot see an outstanding service problem. A member repeats information already supplied elsewhere. A product launch moves faster than operational readiness. A partnership looks persuasive in a presentation but leaves accountability unclear when something goes wrong.

These experiences expose a leadership challenge that deserves more attention: how to turn the promise of an integrated organisation into value that members can actually experience. For groups spanning insurance, investments, financial advice and healthcare administration, the answer requires more than an attractive proposition or another technology programme. It requires consistent decisions across organisational boundaries.

Emergent Africa’s view is that the next source of competitive advantage will be the ability to connect strategic intent, trusted information, capital discipline and human capability around specific member outcomes. Here, “member” includes the policyholders and clients served by different business models. Ownership structures vary, but the need to deliver on promises is universal.

Research from McKinsey, BCG, Deloitte, PwC and EY provides useful evidence on the pressures and opportunities. The argument developed here is our own: leadership teams should manage the connections between businesses with the same discipline they apply to performance within them.

1. Define member value precisely enough to manage it

Member value is an appealing phrase, but it becomes operationally useful only when leaders specify what should improve, for whom, and over what period. A growing product portfolio does not automatically improve financial security. More digital interactions do not necessarily mean easier service. Higher assets under management do not, on their own, demonstrate that clients are progressing towards their goals.

McKinsey’s Global Insurance Report 2025 identifies customer experience as a competitive differentiator and highlights opportunities arising from changing retirement needs and household structures.[1] The implication we draw is that financial services organisations should organise more deliberately around the decisions and transitions people face throughout their lives.

Consider a professional establishing a practice, taking on debt, supporting dependants and saving for retirement. Their needs cross product categories and evolve at different speeds. The practical test is whether the organisation can recognise relevant changes, offer appropriate advice and deliver dependable service without asking the individual to navigate its internal structure.

Leadership teams should therefore define a small number of outcomes that make their proposition tangible. These might include continuity of appropriate protection, timely claim resolution, understandable retirement choices and fewer repeated requests for information. Each outcome needs an accountable executive, a credible baseline and measures that reveal progress or deterioration.

Where a business has mutual or member ownership, this discipline should also help explain how financial strength, operating expenditure, investment and member benefits fit together. Purpose becomes more credible when members can understand the choices behind it.

2. Make strategy execution a collective leadership responsibility

A strategy can be clear at group level and become fragmented as it moves into separate business plans. Distribution pursues acquisition, operations pursues efficiency, technology pursues delivery milestones and finance pursues cost control. Each objective can be legitimate. The problem emerges when their interaction receives insufficient attention.

Suppose a campaign succeeds in attracting new members but overwhelms underwriting and onboarding teams. Sales performance improves while delays, rework and complaints increase. A conventional review might celebrate the campaign and treat the backlog as a separate operational matter. An integrated review asks whether the growth initiative is delivering its intended value after the cost and service consequences are included.

We propose that every major strategic priority should have an explicit outcome, an accountable sponsor, named dependencies, agreed decision rights and a method for testing benefits. “Improve the member experience” is too broad. Reducing avoidable delays in a defined journey, while maintaining appropriate risk controls, is specific enough to organise around.

Executive reviews should then concentrate on choices. Which dependency is blocking progress? Which assumption has changed? What should stop so a more important commitment can succeed? Who has authority to resolve a conflict between business units?

This also requires restraint. An organisation cannot credibly declare dozens of equally urgent priorities. Leaders demonstrate commitment by allocating capacity, resolving trade offs and withdrawing sponsorship from work that no longer supports the strategy. Accountability becomes meaningful when the responsible person has both the obligation and the authority to act.

3. Treat trusted member information as a business asset

An integrated proposition depends on a reliable understanding of the people, products, advisers and organisations involved. When these records conflict, the consequences extend beyond reporting. A member may receive inappropriate communications, an adviser may work from an incomplete picture, and a service team may spend time reconciling information instead of resolving the underlying problem.

The practical task is to agree which information must be consistent, who owns its quality and how changes are approved and shared. A single view of the member need not mean a single system. It does require clear identity matching, common definitions, traceable sources and controlled access across the relevant systems.

Start with a consequential journey. Identify the records and attributes required to complete it correctly. Then examine duplicates, missing information, conflicting values and the time taken to correct errors. Prioritise issues according to their effect on decisions and member outcomes, rather than attempting to clean every field simultaneously.

Ownership must sit with people who understand the business meaning of the information. Technology teams can provide the mechanisms, but they cannot independently decide what constitutes an active member, an appropriate adviser relationship or a valid product classification.

Integration must also respect confidentiality and appropriate boundaries. Possessing health information does not make it suitable for every commercial purpose. Leaders should define permitted uses, access and escalation arrangements before expanding sharing. The goal is sufficient, trustworthy information for a legitimate decision, with safeguards that members can reasonably expect.

4. Judge AI by the quality of the outcome

AI creates opportunities to reduce administration, support advisers and improve service. But a successful demonstration says little about whether a capability will work reliably across a complex organisation. The relevant question is whether the whole process improves after implementation, including the work required to verify outputs and handle exceptions.

McKinsey describes leading insurers taking a “domain-based approach to transformation”, redesigning areas such as distribution, underwriting and claims.[2] EY’s 2026 outlook similarly identifies data quality, security and accessibility as barriers to scaling AI.[3] Together, these findings support a disciplined approach to selecting where AI can create practical value.

Our recommendation is to select a defined business problem and assess the complete workflow. An adviser assistant, for example, should be evaluated against preparation time, factual accuracy, usefulness and appropriate handling of confidential information. Measuring the number of summaries generated would reveal activity, but little about better advice.

A service assistant should have clear limits, reliable reference material and a route to human support. Members need an effective way to challenge an answer or resolve an exceptional situation. Human oversight must be designed into the process, with enough capacity to perform it properly.

Leaders should also identify who owns performance after launch. Models, products and member circumstances change. Monitoring needs to continue, with evidence on errors, complaints, overrides and actual benefits. A capability deserves wider adoption when it improves outcomes under realistic conditions, including difficult cases, rather than only in a controlled demonstration.

5. Connect distribution, advice and product decisions

Growth depends on the relationship between the proposition, the advice process and the organisation’s ability to fulfil what has been promised. A product can be technically sound and still be difficult to explain, unsuitable for a particular need or burdensome to administer. Distribution feedback should therefore influence product decisions continuously.

BCG’s Global Wealth Report 2025 states that “organic growth is moving to the center of the performance agenda”. It also finds that less than a third of asset growth over the preceding decade came from existing advisers.[4] These are global wealth management findings, rather than a benchmark for every South African organisation, but they raise a useful leadership question about the sources of growth.

Our view is that firms should distinguish market movements, acquisitions, adviser recruitment and genuine growth from existing relationships. They should also examine whether advisers have the information, service support and time needed to understand changing client needs.

This requires care with incentives. Product penetration alone is an incomplete measure of relationship quality. Appropriate advice may result in a simpler portfolio, a change in protection or a decision to defer a purchase. Long term value depends on whether the recommendation makes sense for the individual.

Product committees should receive evidence from service failures, complaints, withdrawals and adviser feedback alongside sales results. Underwriting and actuarial teams should contribute early, helping evaluate affordability, risk and sustainability. Better coordination can make innovation more relevant while reducing the chance that growth creates avoidable problems later.

6. Give partnerships an operating model before expecting growth

Partnerships can combine specialist investment expertise, distribution reach, administration and brand credibility. They can also create uncertainty about responsibility. A client who experiences a delayed transaction is unlikely to be reassured by an explanation that the fault sits with another party in the arrangement.

A partnership therefore needs agreement on more than commercial terms. Who owns the proposition? Who communicates with the client? Who resolves conflicting instructions? Who maintains the information needed by advisers? Who can intervene when performance deteriorates?

These questions are especially important where an asset manager and a distribution partner jointly pursue growth. The investment proposition, target market, adviser education, onboarding process and service commitments must fit together. Strong investment performance cannot compensate for every failure in access, explanation or administration.

We recommend a shared performance review that separates commercial progress from client experience while examining both together. Net flows, retention, service exceptions, unresolved queries and operational readiness can reveal different aspects of performance. Measures should be agreed in advance, including how each party calculates them.

A clear escalation process is equally important. Issues crossing contractual boundaries need named decision makers and response expectations. Leaders should periodically test the arrangement using realistic scenarios, including an operational disruption or a material change in the proposition. The strength of a partnership becomes visible when circumstances demand coordinated action, not simply when conditions support easy growth.

7. Bring finance, actuarial judgement and member outcomes together

Financial sustainability provides the foundation for keeping long term promises. Member value cannot be separated from the organisation’s ability to fund benefits, manage risk and invest in future capability. Equally, short term savings can be misleading if they create higher service costs or weaken important controls later.

Capital and expenditure decisions should make these relationships explicit. An investment case needs to explain the expected benefit, the resources required, the material risks and the assumptions on which success depends. Where benefits cross business units, finance should help ensure that they are neither overlooked nor counted twice.

Actuarial insight should inform these choices early. Changes in product mix, underwriting practice, persistency or claims experience can alter the economics of an apparently successful initiative. Leadership teams need a shared interpretation of those changes and their implications for action.

Performance reviews should distinguish realised benefits from forecasts and activity measures. Completing a technology release is an achievement, but it does not prove that service costs have fallen or members are better served. Those effects require observation over an appropriate period.

Scenario analysis should also connect financial resilience with operational reality. What happens if demand rises unexpectedly, a partner fails or a major programme takes longer than planned? The purpose is to expose decisions that need preparation. A robust strategy includes options, triggers and accountable responses, so that changing conditions lead to considered action rather than repeated emergency reprioritisation.

8. Make sustainability information useful in decisions

Sustainability reporting becomes strategically valuable when it informs choices about risk, investment, products and operations. A well presented report cannot substitute for clear ownership of the underlying information or evidence that leaders use it.

PwC’s 29th Global CEO Survey reports that fewer than one in three insurance CEOs say their organisations have defined processes for incorporating climate risks and opportunities into capital allocation.[5] The finding highlights a gap between recognising a material issue and embedding it in the decisions that shape the business.

We propose that boards ask which decisions changed because of sustainability information. Did a risk assessment alter an investment assumption? Did operational exposure affect a supplier choice? Did evidence about access or affordability influence a product proposal? The answers should be specific enough to examine.

Different business activities require different measures. Investment exposures, operational emissions, workforce indicators and member outcomes should not be compressed into one undifferentiated score. Each needs an appropriate definition, an accountable owner and a clear explanation of limitations.

For groups combining financial services and healthcare administration, boundaries matter particularly. Evidence that administration improved is not automatically evidence of a clinical benefit. Claims about impact should reflect what was actually measured. Credibility grows when an organisation explains uncertainty honestly and uses the information it has to make better decisions.

9. Protect the human capacity required to deliver change

Strategies are executed by people whose attention and energy are finite. Advisers, underwriters, claims specialists, administrators and managers may be expected to maintain service while learning new systems and adopting new processes. A programme plan that ignores this workload can be technically plausible and operationally unrealistic.

Deloitte’s 2025 insurance outlook argues that AI adoption depends on workforce support and emphasises “human sustainability”. It points towards helping employees do their work with less friction and developing existing talent alongside new capabilities.[6] That is an important starting point for a broader leadership discussion about the conditions required for sustained performance.

We believe employee wellbeing belongs in execution planning. Teams need clear priorities, workable processes, competent support and time to learn. A wellbeing initiative will have limited influence if the underlying work environment continues to generate unnecessary pressure and unresolved conflict.

Executives should examine change demand alongside service demand. Which teams are supporting several programmes at once? Where do critical processes depend on a small number of experienced people? What work can be removed before new responsibilities are added?

Healthcare administration offers a useful illustration. Employees handling complex or distressing enquiries need both reliable information and access to support. Efficiency measures should recognise complexity and resolution quality. Speed alone can conceal repeat work or an unresolved member need. Sustainable performance depends on designing work so that people can exercise good judgement consistently.

10. Use governance to expose the gaps between promises and delivery

Boards can receive extensive reporting without gaining a clear view of how the organisation works across boundaries. Separate reports on strategy, technology, risk, people and finance may all be accurate while leaving critical relationships unexplained.

A more revealing board discussion connects a strategic commitment to its operational evidence. If the commitment is simpler service, directors should see whether journeys are actually becoming easier. If growth depends on a partnership, they should understand its readiness and unresolved dependencies. If transformation assumes new skills, they should see whether those skills are available.

The South African context reinforces the relevance of this approach. EY’s February 2026 assessment identifies affordability pressures, rising claims costs and demand for simpler, more transparent propositions as drivers of insurance transformation.[7] These pressures make delivery choices consequential for both commercial resilience and the people relying on cover.

Our proposed response is a focused first ninety days. Select one important member journey. Establish its current performance, trace the handovers, identify the information required and assign responsibility for the whole outcome. Include finance, risk, technology and the people doing the work.

Then remove a limited number of consequential obstacles and measure the result. Record which decisions were needed, who made them and whether the improvement lasted. Use that evidence to shape the next stage. This creates a practical route from a broad strategic ambition to a repeatable way of improving execution.

A useful safeguard is to agree the evidence before an initiative begins. If executives choose measures only after implementation, they can unintentionally favour indicators that make the work appear successful. Baselines, review periods and the treatment of exceptions should be clear from the outset. Measures should include both the intended benefit and potential adverse consequences, so that improvement in one area does not hide deterioration elsewhere.

For example, a shorter onboarding process should still produce complete records and an understandable experience. A lower administration cost should not depend on transferring avoidable work to advisers or members. A faster claims decision should retain appropriate review and a workable challenge process. These are proposed tests of implementation quality, rather than universal numerical targets.

Leaders should also invite frontline staff to explain where reported performance differs from lived experience. Averages can conceal a small group of members facing persistent difficulty. Reviewing exceptions alongside overall trends helps reveal those problems. This gives executive teams a stronger basis for deciding whether an initiative should expand, change direction or pause. It also makes accountability more credible: success rests on observed outcomes, not simply on confidence in the original plan.

The member promise must survive the whole journey

Financial services organisations earn confidence through the quality of many connected decisions. A clear explanation, an accurate record, a timely payment and a well handled exception each contribute to whether a promise feels dependable.

Leadership teams should therefore pay greater attention to what happens between products, functions, subsidiaries and partners. That is where unclear ownership, inconsistent information and conflicting priorities can undermine otherwise capable businesses.

The opportunity is to build an organisation in which strategic priorities guide daily choices, trusted data supports responsible judgement, financial discipline sustains commitments and employees have the capacity to deliver. Technology can support that ambition, but leadership must make the connections work.

Member value becomes a durable advantage when the organisation can demonstrate it through repeated experience. The decisive question for executives is whether their business delivers as coherently as it presents itself.

References

[1] McKinsey, Global Insurance Report 2025: Growth and relevance in life and beyond, 19 November 2024.
https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/financial-services/our-insights/global-insurance-report-2025-growth-and-relevance-in-life-and-beyond

[2] McKinsey, The future of AI for the insurance industry, 15 July 2025.
https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/financial-services/our-insights/the-future-of-ai-in-the-insurance-industry

[3] EY, Five priorities for insurers: converting uncertainty into opportunity, 28 January 2026.
https://www.ey.com/en_us/insights/insurance/five-priorities-for-insurers-converting-uncertainty-into-opportunity

[4] BCG, Global Wealth Report 2025: Rethinking Rules for Growth, 2025.
https://www.bcg.com/publications/2025/global-wealth-report-2025-rethinking-rules-for-growth

[5] PwC, 29th Global CEO Survey: Leading through uncertainty in the age of AI, 2026.
https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/1/issues/c-suite-insights/ceo-survey.html

[6] Deloitte, 2025 global insurance outlook: Evolving industry operating models to build the future of insurance.
https://www.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/industry/financial-services/financial-services-industry-outlooks/insurance-industry-outlook-2025.html

[7] EY South Africa, South Africa accelerates insurance transformation as global trends unlock consumer benefits, 11 February 2026.
https://www.ey.com/en_za/newsroom/2026/02/south-africa-accelerates-insurance-transformation

Editorial note: Research reviewed on 6 October 2026. Global findings are identified as such. Practical recommendations and illustrative scenarios express Emergent Africa’s opinion and are not presented as findings about any named organisation.