As disruption becomes the new norm, we were curious about what the faces of that disruption looks like right now. Is it a fully realised concept in media coverage, or has it become a way for brands and leaders to position themselves, rather than being or driving disruption?
DISRUPT: (verb dis·rupt \dis-ˈrəpt\) to cause (something) to be unable to continue in the normal way; to interrupt the normal progress or activity of (something)
‘The face of disruption’ takes a look at who the disruptors are across ANZ and Asia, the common themes, those who hold a ‘celebrity like’ status and what observations can be made as these leaders are seen to evangelise change and drive results.
Since edition one, we’ve also updated our benchmark analysis of CEO profiles and media trends of Australia and New Zealand’s top 150 companies and examine the shifts as well as newcomers to the group.
This is the “wpengine” admin user that our staff uses to gain access to your admin area to provide support and troubleshooting. It can only be accessed by a button in our secure log that auto generates a password and dumps that password after the staff member has logged in. We have taken extreme measures to ensure that our own user is not going to be misused to harm any of our clients sites.
Isentia’s second edition of its Leadership
Index has revealed two distinct styles of leadership in Australian business – conservatives
and disruptors. The report revealed the top 25 CEOs and top five disruptive
leaders in Australia, identifying their differing characteristics and the roles
they play in modern business.
As well as updating its analysis of CEOs
in Australia and New Zealand’s top 150 companies, Isentia explored the characteristics
of Australian leadership through the lens of disruption. The top 150 companies
were derived from a combined list of the ASX50, the NZX50, the 2018 IBIS World
Top 500 companies published by The
Australian Financial Review and Deloitte’s Top 200 data in New Zealand.
Isentia’s Chief Insights Officer, Khali
Sakkas, says observations around the behaviour and portrayal of disruptive
leaders are key in understanding modern businesses.
“Often in business we focus on measuring
performance solely with financial metrics. However, this approach fails to
recognise the impact of leadership trends and values,” Sakkas says. “We included
a study of disruptive figures because in the current business climate, every
single industry is seeing disruption, whether from technology developments or heightened
customer expectations.
“Assessing disruptive personalities adds
another layer of insight into the leadership of Australian business. No single
individual featured in both the top 25 CEOs and the top five disruptive
leaders. What we’re noticing is two distinct styles of leadership.
“Traditional CEOs are typically required
to be risk averse, answering to shareholders and board members. On the other
hand, the new generation of disruptors are usually undertaking a potential risk,
yet their creativity can have a huge payoff.”
Disruptive leaders
To identify disruptive leaders, Isentia
used its extensive media database to search for varying forms of the word
“disrupt” in combination with leaders’ names. The most mentioned disruptors
were global business leaders with celebrity status including Tesla’s Elon Musk
and Amazon’s Jeff Bezos. Positive characteristics of this group included
“ambitious” and “charismatic” while “erratic” and “impulsive” were listed as
negative attributes. A significant 46 per cent of coverage regarding these individuals
focused on their personal life, wealth and behaviour.
Coverage of Australian disruptors was
often focused on business being disrupted, rather than the individual
responsible for the change. Personalities were positioned as decisive and
innovative leaders, with minimal negative attributes. The number one disruptive
leader was Telstra CEO Andy Penn, who has led the telecommunications giant
through a pivotal transformative period from mid-2018. With the rollout of the
NBN, Telstra has required strong leadership to navigate the substantial changes
to its business.
Penn exhibits the three most common
traits of a disruptive leader: the ability to provide guidance in the face of
circumstances outside of the business’ control, a focus on keeping technology
front-of-mind in decision-making, and an aptitude for agile, flexible and
forward-thinking ideas.
The top 25 CEOS
Isentia analysed more than 50,000 media
items aired or published between 1 October and 31 December 2018 to provide an
understanding of Australia and New Zealand’s top 150 companies. As in the first
Leadership Index released in November, the CEO profiles and media trends of
these businesses were assessed to reveal the top 25 CEOs. The three main
factors that were evaluated were public perception, employee approval and
financial performance.
Of the 150 companies assessed, the top
50 alone were mentioned in more than 700,000 media items. However, on average,
the top CEOs were only present in nine per cent of their company’s coverage. BHP
CEO, Andrew Mackenzie, retained his position as the number one leader in the final
quarter of 2018.
Looking forward
The Isentia Leadership Index is designed
to provide a benchmark to compare leadership profiles over time, highlighting
key trends and figures as they shift each year.
“Broadening our report to include a
study of disruption has really enriched our understanding of Australian
leadership. It will be interesting to see which style of leadership becomes
more prevalent in the coming years, as we continue to undertake our Leadership
Index. Suggestions for other research topics are always welcome,” Sakkas says.
-ENDS-
For more information, please contact:
Sophie Willis Howorth Communications sophie@howorth.com.au 0458 111 948
"
["post_title"]=>
string(56) "Isentia Leadership Index reveals two distinct CEO styles"
["post_excerpt"]=>
string(97) "Isentia’s second edition of its Leadership Index has revealed two distinct styles of leadership"
["post_status"]=>
string(7) "publish"
["comment_status"]=>
string(6) "closed"
["ping_status"]=>
string(4) "open"
["post_password"]=>
string(0) ""
["post_name"]=>
string(56) "isentia-leadership-index-reveals-two-distinct-ceo-styles"
["to_ping"]=>
string(0) ""
["pinged"]=>
string(0) ""
["post_modified"]=>
string(19) "2019-07-17 00:28:29"
["post_modified_gmt"]=>
string(19) "2019-07-17 00:28:29"
["post_content_filtered"]=>
string(0) ""
["post_parent"]=>
int(0)
["guid"]=>
string(36) "https://isentia.wpengine.com/?p=1457"
["menu_order"]=>
int(0)
["post_type"]=>
string(4) "post"
["post_mime_type"]=>
string(0) ""
["comment_count"]=>
string(1) "0"
["filter"]=>
string(3) "raw"
}
Media Release
Isentia Leadership Index reveals two distinct CEO styles
Isentia’s second edition of its Leadership Index has revealed two distinct styles of leadership
In leadership meetings across the industry, a single question has become unavoidable: "What is our AI strategy?" Behind this question is often the unspoken hope for an "AI Easy Button": a mythical, one-click solution to our most complex measurement challenges. As someone who spends a large portion of my time designing these new frameworks, I'm infinitely more excited about the blueprints and the foundations than what colour the house is painted.
For the first time in my career, we have the tools to stop using proxies and start building what we've always wanted: true, at-scale, sophisticated measurement.The real opportunity isn't in automation, which lets the AI decide; it's in the architecture and design of systems for the AI to follow. For decades, I’ve been frustrated by proxies. I’ve watched organisations use metrics like Impressions and Share of Voice as proxies for impact and influence. Too many people have been measuring the loudness of their voice, not whether anyone was actually listening.
Much of the history of communications measurement has been a story of 'good enough' data. And in some cases, data that wasn't even good at all (*cough* AVEs).
Why a blueprint still needs an architect
But before we can harness the potential of AI, we have to be honest about the technology and tools we're working with. As anyone who's ever used a "smart" tool knows, they can be... well, confidently wrong.
The new challenge isn't just "Garbage In, Garbage Out." The new challenge is that the AI has become a high-speed, frighteningly convincing echo chamber. When a machine delivers a flawed insight, it does so with the resolute certainty of a supercomputer, laundering that flaw into a "fact."As architects, our job is to audit the blueprints and stress-test the materials before we build the house. When my team and I test these models, we're not just looking for what they do right. We're methodically hunting for where they go wrong.
Where we continue to see a critical need for human intervention and expertise:
Context Blindness: AI is a brilliant pattern-matcher, but it has limited real-world context and struggles to identify the intent of what’s being analysed. It can miss the nuance of language, the authority of a source, or whether something is fact or speculation.
Language Bias: This is my personal favourite and takes a few forms. AI is trained on text, but it isn't (yet) trained on human subtext. This can look like missed nuance for slang used by younger audiences or emerging shifts in the meaning of language. Models are ultimately impacted and biased by their training data, so this can also mean larger systemic biases are amplified and not appropriately interrogated.
Viewpoint Collapse: While AI can sometimes get locked into a perspective based on its training, it can also collapse multiple, distinct viewpoints (like a speaker's sarcastic intent vs. the literal text) into a single, flat monolith. This drastically changes the outcomes of your analysis and ultimately the understanding of your audience.
This is the methodical, behind-the-scenes work that often goes unseen, and it is the crucial due diligence needed. It’s not as flashy as writing a press release faster, but it’s the only way to build a tool you can actually trust to make a strategic decision.
New tools, same bedrock principles
This testing isn't just about finding technical bugs or funny hallucinations. We’re testing these new AI models against the foundational, hard-won principles of communications measurement that our industry has spent years formalising.
AI is an incredibly powerful new tool, but it doesn't get a free pass. It still has to follow the rules of good measurement.
Measure outcomes, not just outputs: This has always been our goal. An AI-driven approach that only counts outputs (like mentions or sentiment) 1,000 times faster is still just a faster measure of noise. It doesn't tell you if a single mind was changed or a single action was taken.
Demand transparency: A metric is useless if you can't explain how it's calculated. This is my biggest critique of the current "plug-and-play" approach to AI. If a vendor provides a proprietary 'Reputation Score' of 7.2, and they can't (or won't) tell you the formula, it's not a metric. It's marketing.
Link activity to business objectives: This is the most important rule of all. The only reason to measure is to inform a strategic decision that ladders up to a business goal. A tool that just produces data, but no clear insight linked to your specific objectives, has failed.
When we stop seeing AI as a magic box and start seeing it as a powerful, scalable engine, one that we must build and steer based on these principles, then it becomes truly transformative.
The payoff: the tools are finally catching up to our ambition
A new frontier of opportunity is here. Such as the capability to move from being reactive to being predictive, and it takes careful design to get this right. Our traditional analysis has been brilliant at explaining what has just happened. Now, as architects of these new systems, we are building and testing AI models that can scan the horizon for the faint signals that precede a major narrative shift.
We can empower movement from broadcasting and the old spray and pray approach; to precision, deliberate engagement of stakeholders and audiences. This is another area where the craft of measurement design is essential. AI gives us the power to see the micro-communities and specific, high-authority voices that actually shape opinion. The work is in designing the models that can identify them accurately.
Finally, we can (at last!) move from quantifying to qualifying at scale. For me, this is the most exciting and complex challenge. For 20 years, I’ve had to choose: a large-scale quantitative study (which missed nuance) or a small-scale qualitative review (which couldn't be scaled). As architects, we can now design frameworks that don't just give a "positive" score but confirm that a specific strategic message landed, with the right audiences, and in the intended context.
That is the opportunity. It's not magic. It's the methodical, patient engineering we've been waiting for. It’s the difference between a "plug-and-play" gimmick and a truly strategic asset. The real payoff isn't just faster reporting, it’s about fundamentally upgrading behaviours and expectations of measurement. This isn't an overnight shift. As any research leader will tell you, a new methodology takes time, testing and refinement to get right.
The future we've been waiting for
For my entire career, we’ve been strategic thinkers working with tools that could only show us the past. We were forced to be historians, meticulously analysing what had already happened to predict future behaviour. The key to using this new, complex technology effectively is; strong communication, articulation and critical human thinking. The power of any AI is unlocked by the quality of the question you ask it. It's a system that rewards clear, precise, and strategic language.
This is a massive homefield advantage for communicators, who have spent their entire careers honing the exact skills required to be the architects of this new era. The AI we are using today is the worst it will ever be. It will only get better, faster, and more capable from here. This is what's so thrilling, and it's just the beginning. This new generation of AI driven approaches doesn't replace our intuition, it amplifies it. As communicators (and researchers!) this is the moment to level up. We get to be the explorers and the strategists who connect communications directly to business, policy and societal outcomes.
We're not just building better measurement and deeper insights; we're leading a more intelligent, more responsive and more impactful profession. What an incredibly exciting time to be in this industry.
Ready to be the architect of your own measurement strategy?
To learn how to build the right KPIs and tell a compelling story with your data, register for our live webinar:
Topic: Making Communications Count: Build your KPI confidence and storytelling"
Date & time: 12 November, 11am AEDT/ 2pm NZT
Hosted by: Ngaire Crawford, Director of Insights for ANZ, Isentia.
Australia’s upcoming social media ban for minors hasn’t been primarily driven organic debate. Instead, it’s unfolded through a deliberate, tightly paced sequence of government-led communications, each phase designed to build momentum, secure legitimacy, and keep control of the public narrative.
What we’re seeing in the media data isn’t a spontaneous rise in interest, but a pattern of spikes that line up neatly with major government moments. Each one serves a purpose in a broader narrative strategy, and each reveals something about where the public conversation is heading next.
The rollout of Australia’s social media ban has followed something of a three-act script. It really began on the world stage, with Prime Minister Albanese’s UN address framing the policy as a “world-first” and earning global praise that positioned Australia as a leader rather than a legislator under pressure, a narrative heavily amplified across bulletins nationwide. Momentum built when Denmark echoed the proposal, turning the story from an Australian policy into a global movement and giving journalists a reason to return to it without new domestic detail. Subsequently, the focus shifted home, with the launch of the government’s ad campaign. Coverage has moved from delivery to confirmation, from diplomacy to daily life, embedding the message of child safety through stories designed to connect emotionally with parents before the ban takes effect.
Media coverage of the social media ban is being driven by a hierarchy of voices. At the top are the political architects, Anthony Albanese and Anika Wells, who account for 68% of all quoted commentary. Their dominance reflects a message tightly controlled from the centre, with each public appearance designed to reinforce authority and focus the debate. eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant follows as the enforcer, providing regulatory credibility and keeping the story alive through ongoing updates and meetings with tech companies.Around them, Emma Mason’s personal story gives the policy its emotional weight, while expert voices like Dr Jason Nagata and Mitch Prinstein lend scientific legitimacy. Counter-voices such as Patrick McGorry are present but faint, just 1% of total commentary. Together, these strands create a coordinated ecosystem where political leadership, regulation, expertise, and emotion work in unison to sustain a single, dominant narrative.
The next layer of coverage reveals how the story’s momentum is being sustained, not just by government messaging, but by the constellation of organisations caught in its orbit. Meta, Google, TikTok, and Snapchat remain the gravitational centre of the conversation, collectively shaping more than a thousand mentions each. They are the policy’s focal point and the media’s shorthand for what’s at stake.
Stories about ministerial meetings, enforcement challenges, and pleas for exemptions ensure these brands stay in the headlines, but on government terms, framed as subjects of regulation rather than equal participants in debate. This has also surfaced one of the key underlying questions: Will the ban actually work? There is a significant narrative thread focused on the practical challenges of enforcement, with YouTube widely quoted in the media as saying the ban is "'extremely difficult' to enforce".
With the media also reporting that the government will rely on "artificial intelligence (AI) and behavioural data to reliably infer age" rather than hard age verification, the public is left asking: If tech giants say it's unenforceable and teens are already finding ways around it, what will this law actually achieve?
The eSafety Commission anchors the enforcement narrative, while the European Commission’s support sustains the “world-first” framing abroad. As the scope of the ban widens, platforms like Roblox, Discord and Reddit have been pulled into focus, signalling how the policy, and its coverage, keeps expanding. This has forced the core question into the open: What is a "social media platform" in 2025?
Although the government’s narrative still dominates, a set of counter-stories is emerging, focusing on the policy’s real-world consequences. Central to these stories are concerns about young people losing access to vital online connections, particularly among regional or marginalised communities. Advocates for the LGBTIQA+ community and youth mental health experts like Professor Pat McGorry argue that the ban could isolate teenagers who rely on online spaces for support, and entrepreneurial opportunities. Other reporting has questioned the reliability of AI-based age verification, the volume of data collected, and the risk that well-intended rules might backfire, creating unintended consequences that contradict the policy’s goal of child safety. These counter-narratives remain smaller in scale than the dominant political messaging, but they cut through because they frame the debate around everyday impacts rather than top-down authority.
A particularly visible strand of coverage centres on the unclear definition of “social media” in the legislation. While the public typically thinks of platforms like Instagram and TikTok, the law’s wording has forced a broader debate that draws in platforms such as Roblox, Discord, and Steam. The eSafety Commissioner’s proactive enforcement measures have highlighted these regulatory ambiguities, prompting media to question whether platforms with different primary purposes should be included and whether the policy might trade one harm for another. Discord drew attention following a poorly timed data breach, which the public and media linked to potential ID theft risks. These reports show how regulators and secondary players can keep the conversation alive, highlighting risks, opening new angles, and forming alliances that complicate the policy debate. A notable example is YouTube’s effort to argue it should not be classified as a social media platform, citing the platform’s role in launching careers like Australian artist Troye Sivan as part of a broader cultural and creative ecosystem.
Together, these stories illustrate that while the government controls the main narrative, emerging counter-voices are beginning to shape the media conversation in ways that emphasise practical and social realities.
"
["post_title"]=>
string(58) "Australia’s social media ban played out in the headlines"
["post_excerpt"]=>
string(0) ""
["post_status"]=>
string(7) "publish"
["comment_status"]=>
string(4) "open"
["ping_status"]=>
string(4) "open"
["post_password"]=>
string(0) ""
["post_name"]=>
string(54) "australia-social-media-ban-played-out-in-the-headlines"
["to_ping"]=>
string(0) ""
["pinged"]=>
string(0) ""
["post_modified"]=>
string(19) "2025-10-29 21:25:40"
["post_modified_gmt"]=>
string(19) "2025-10-29 21:25:40"
["post_content_filtered"]=>
string(0) ""
["post_parent"]=>
int(0)
["guid"]=>
string(32) "https://www.isentia.com/?p=42980"
["menu_order"]=>
int(0)
["post_type"]=>
string(4) "post"
["post_mime_type"]=>
string(0) ""
["comment_count"]=>
string(1) "0"
["filter"]=>
string(3) "raw"
}
Blog
Australia’s social media ban played out in the headlines
Australia’s upcoming social media ban for minors hasn’t been primarily driven organic debate. Instead, it’s unfolded through a deliberate, tightly paced sequence of government-led communications, each phase designed to build momentum, secure legitimacy, and keep control of the public narrative. What we’re seeing in the media data isn’t a spontaneous rise in interest, but a […]
The global landscape of Muslim travel has fundamentally changed in the post-pandemic era. We are no longer talking about a niche market but about a dynamic, rapidly expanding demographic reshaping global tourism. We recently worked on a co-branded report with Have Halal, Will Travel (HHWT), which included an analysis of 1.4 million data points on mainstream and social media sources in the APAC region from 1st November 2024 - 31st August 2025 to a significant shift in modern travel. Asia has emerged as the new epicentre for travel conversations, surpassing the Middle East. As countries seek to attract this market for economic growth, especially amid declining tourism from other regions, the space has become crowded. For brands and destinations looking to capitalise on the right audiences, superficial efforts are no longer enough. Being authentic is the crucial currency in this new world.
Prashant Saxena, VP of Revenue and Insights, for the SEA region presented this report at the Have Halal, Will Travel Deep Dive session on "Brave New World" that saw PR & Comms and marketing folks from airlines, hotels and tourism boards interested to understand what the latest travel insights are and why Muslim travel is surging. We interacted with the attendees at our booth to introduce them to our media monitoring and audience intelligence capabilities.
Walking the talk: building culturally inclusive infrastructure
Destinations and brands are "walking the talk" by moving beyond marketing campaigns to tangible, on-the-ground investment. Nations are actively developing Muslim-friendly infrastructure, including airlines, hotels, and payment platforms, to cater to this influx of travelers. This does not mean providing only basic services, but rather aiming to be as culturally inclusive as possible by embedding Muslim-friendly considerations into the travel experience. This is also in part exacerbated by the decline in Chinese travellers to Southeast Asia, which has led to nations in this region attracting Muslim tourists and looking at them as the best option, seeing how much of a muslim crowd there already is domestically.
For example, Vietnam is building a comprehensive Halal tourism ecosystem with the goal of establishing Muslim-friendly zones in its capital by 2030. Similarly, the Philippines has rolled out halal-accredited establishments and essential services like healthcare and finance , while Australia is mainstreaming halal food alongside other ethical/lifestyle choices like 'vegan' and 'gluten-free'. This changes the narrative, showing a deep commitment that resonates far more powerfully than a simple welcome.
Owning the narrative by navigating traveller concerns
The necessity is for brands and tourism destinations to take control of the story, even when there are issues. The opportunity is immense, but travellers are acutely aware of challenges. Conversations around rising costs and scams have dominated online discussions, particularly in Southeast Asia. Countries like Malaysia and Turkey have seen negative sentiment due to issues with halal certification and travel scams, which erode trust at a foundational level. In Indonesia, some even link inflation to the regulatory burdens of halal certification on small businesses.
The best way for brands and tourism groups to address these concerns is to clearly explain what they are doing to fix them. Admitting there are problems shows responsibility and helps build trust by proving they listen to travelers. Technology, like apps for faith-based services, is helpful, but it is not enough on its own. They must be backed by transparent action on the ground.
The authenticity playbook: a strategic guide to aid authentic communication
Brands need to understand that in an increasingly digital world, audiences are highly alert to signals of what feels "real". The report introduces an "authenticity playbook" that outlines key cues that shape whether audiences trust and engage with content. The analysis shows that social media posts with more authenticity cues or signals have higher engagement rates.
To make the most of this, brands should create strategies that are both efficient and focus on the human qualities people care about. Communication from brands or leaders should include:
Cultural anchoring: Brands should do more than just make small gestures. They can offer useful guides for halal food, point out easy-to-find prayer spaces, and highlight truly inclusive experiences. For example, AirAsia understands its audience and operates many flights between countries with large Muslim populations. The airline makes its message clear through special deals, collaborations with influencers, and partnerships with online travel agencies to offer the best packages, while also promoting halal food and Muslim-friendly services.
Endorsement and validation: Brands should work with trusted Muslim travel influencers and, even more importantly, encourage regular travelers to share their stories and reviews. This kind of social proof is much more believable than traditional ads.
Consistent voice: Brands need to maintain a reliable, familiar tone across all communication channels. Being consistent shows they are stable and committed, which helps build a strong brand image over time.
The Muslim travel market is evolving with sophistication and purpose. Travellers today are looking for more than just halal food options. They are seeking digital detox retreats inspired by Islamic values, regenerative tourism that supports local communities, and safe spaces for solo female travelers. For destinations and brands, the path forward requires an authentic and strategic commitment. The ones that master the art of genuine connection and consistently "walk the talk" will not only capture a share of this thriving market but will also earn its most valuable asset: trust.
Interested in learning how Isentia can help? Fill in your details below to get access to our latest co-branded report on "Muslim Travel Pulse: evolving audience perception on Muslim food, travel and trade" and read more about our cues designed to measure brand authenticity.
"
["post_title"]=>
string(84) "Muslim travel in the modern era: how brands cater to serve cultures more inclusively"
["post_excerpt"]=>
string(134) "Learn the major cues or signals that help PR leaders and brands measure authenticity, to deal with reputation risks and rebuild trust."
["post_status"]=>
string(7) "publish"
["comment_status"]=>
string(4) "open"
["ping_status"]=>
string(4) "open"
["post_password"]=>
string(0) ""
["post_name"]=>
string(90) "muslim-travel-in-the-modern-era-how-brands-are-catering-to-serve-cultures-more-inclusively"
["to_ping"]=>
string(0) ""
["pinged"]=>
string(0) ""
["post_modified"]=>
string(19) "2025-11-06 04:12:01"
["post_modified_gmt"]=>
string(19) "2025-11-06 04:12:01"
["post_content_filtered"]=>
string(0) ""
["post_parent"]=>
int(0)
["guid"]=>
string(32) "https://www.isentia.com/?p=42751"
["menu_order"]=>
int(0)
["post_type"]=>
string(4) "post"
["post_mime_type"]=>
string(0) ""
["comment_count"]=>
string(1) "0"
["filter"]=>
string(3) "raw"
}
Blog
Muslim travel in the modern era: how brands cater to serve cultures more inclusively
Learn the major cues or signals that help PR leaders and brands measure authenticity, to deal with reputation risks and rebuild trust.
