The third gathering of our Private Equity Supper Club brought together eight senior operating and value creation leaders at the Ambassadors Clubhouse in London. The conversation was off the record, invitation-only, and – as with every edition of the series – deliberately free of agenda. What emerged over the course of the evening was a frank, consistent picture of where private equity value creation is heading, and where the real pressure points lie.
These are the themes that shaped the discussion.
The AI leadership gap is not a technology problem
The most consistent thread of the evening was not about AI tools or platforms. It was about the people needed to deploy them effectively.
Operating partners are grappling with a structural challenge: how do you find a transformation leader who can both define an AI strategy and credibly oversee the technical implementation – the data pipelines, the model development, the systems integration? These are two distinct skill sets, and the executive market has not yet produced many individuals who genuinely span both.
We do not have deep networks of AI Operating Partners to draw on, and neither does anyone else. The profile simply does not exist in meaningful supply. And yet the demand for someone to fill that role is growing rapidly, particularly in the context of post-deal value creation.
Continuity across the deal lifecycle remains unsolved
A recurring source of frustration was the lack of continuity between pre-deal diligence, value creation planning, and execution. AI makes this more acute. The decisions made in the early stages of a hold period, on strategy, on tooling, on team, have consequences that compound quickly.
Operating partners want executives who can carry conviction from one phase to the next: someone who can take that first confident step on AI strategy, hand off the build, and then continue to own the outcomes. That person is not easy to find, and not always easy to retain.
Value creation plans need to move faster
There was broad agreement that VCPs are being treated as more fixed than the environment warrants. If a value creation plan is not being reassessed at least every six months, it is likely already misaligned with current conditions.
The macro environment – energy costs, margin pressure, shifting capital allocation priorities – is changing faster than the typical planning cycle. Operating groups have continued to move away from broad, centrally-led advisory structures toward smaller, more targeted teams with specific expertise and clear mandates.
AI investment is being reframed as a revenue risk question
The framing around AI investment is shifting. Where the conversation used to centre on cost and efficiency, it is increasingly being driven by competitive risk. The question is no longer “what does this cost us now?” but “what do we lose if we don’t move?”
That said, PE’s requirement for measurable, traceable outcomes creates genuine tension. Abstract AI strategies and broad transformation programmes are not finding favour. What is working is a tightly scoped approach: identify a specific use case, prove the value, and build from there. Pricing and commercial analysis were cited as strong early applications, where AI’s ability to aggregate and process large volumes of data rapidly delivers clear time-to-insight advantages, even where human oversight remains essential.
Talent attraction in non-tech asset classes is a live challenge
Physical and industrial businesses occupy an increasingly attractive position in PE portfolios, offering resilience that purely digital models cannot match. The challenge is that the transformation leaders best placed to drive AI-enabled value creation in these environments have rarely built their careers there. Those with hands-on experience of building AI products and scaling data capability have largely come up through VC-backed, software-first businesses. Attracting them into traditional PE asset classes requires a cultural and positioning shift that most portcos have not yet made.
The group’s view was that this is a solvable problem, but not one that resolves itself. It requires deliberate effort at both fund and portco level to build credibility with the talent that can actually deliver.
What this means for leadership hiring
The picture that emerged from the evening is one of an asset class in active transition. The operating models are changing. The planning cycles are shortening. The talent requirements are becoming more specific, not less. And the leadership profiles that deliver value in this environment, across AI strategy, technical credibility, and commercial rigour, are in short supply.
Finding and placing those leaders, quickly and with precision, is where we spend our time. The speed at which we move is not accidental. It is the result of years spent building and maintaining relationships with the technology and transformation executives who matter, so that when the requirement is critical, the network is already warm.
If the themes from this evening resonate with challenges you are navigating, we would welcome the conversation.
Contact us to speak with Sam or Will to learn more.