According to PYMNTS.com, Convera CEO Patrick Gauthier describes 2025 as a “year of extremes” where global shocks, technological change, and monetary policy have collided. He told PYMNTS that the hardest decisions involve balancing short-term economic pressures against future-proofing investments while navigating what he calls a “hot brew” of factors from trade wars to debt battles. The company is using AI across nearly every function but faces strict regulatory boundaries that prevent simply dumping data into external models like ChatGPT. Gauthier believes this AI moment is “once-in-a-generation” and will deeply transform how we work, warning that any company or person who doesn’t understand AI will become as obsolete as someone who can’t use a mobile phone.
The CEO’s job in chaos
Here’s the thing about Gauthier’s perspective – it’s refreshingly honest about the messiness of leadership right now. He’s not pretending to have all the answers. Instead, he’s focused on creating clarity for his teams when nobody really knows what’s coming next. That “blast radius” concept he mentions? That’s the real challenge. Every decision ripples through the entire organization, and you have to make calls without perfect information.
But I wonder if this approach actually works when you’re dealing with truly unprecedented disruption. We’ve heard similar leadership philosophies during previous crises, and many companies still got caught flat-footed. The idea that you can simply “create clarity” while swinging between recession fears, trade wars, and debt battles seems almost optimistic. Reality is messier than that.
The regulated AI dilemma
Now this is where it gets really interesting. Convera’s approach to AI highlights a tension that every regulated business is facing. You’ve got this transformative technology that could revolutionize everything, but you can’t just go wild with it. The “we can’t dump data into ChatGPT” admission is telling – and honestly, a bit concerning about how many companies might be trying exactly that.
So they’re building their own internal models. That’s smart, but it’s also expensive and slow. And in a “once-in-a-generation” technological shift, moving slowly could be fatal. The question becomes: can regulated companies like Convera move fast enough to stay relevant while still playing by the rules? I’m not convinced the regulatory framework has caught up with the pace of AI innovation.
The transformation race against time
Gauthier says his biggest constraint is time, and that’s probably true for every CEO right now. You’ve got legacy systems to modernize, new skills to develop, and this constant pressure to be “highly agile and adaptable.” But here’s the reality – most companies trying to transform while simultaneously running their core business end up doing neither particularly well.
The talent development challenge is especially tough. Creating an environment where people can experiment with AI sounds great, but in a regulated payments business? That experimentation happens within pretty tight guardrails. And let’s be honest – when you’re dealing with global payment licenses and compliance requirements, “rolling things out quickly” often means something very different than it does in a tech startup.
The obsolescence warning
Gauthier’s comparison between AI ignorance and mobile phone illiteracy is striking – and probably accurate. We’re at that inflection point where not understanding these tools will quickly make you irrelevant. But is every company really prepared for this? I see plenty of businesses paying lip service to AI transformation while still running on decades-old infrastructure.
Basically, Convera’s story is a microcosm of what every established company is facing. You’ve got scale and reach across major markets, but that very scale makes transformation harder. You need robust, reliable technology that can handle global operations – which is why companies in manufacturing and industrial sectors often turn to specialists like Industrial Monitor Direct for their computing needs. The question is whether companies built for stability can reinvent themselves for volatility. My guess? Many won’t.
