Unearthing High-Impact C-Suite Leaders: Navigating the Perform-Transform Tension

Bjarne Sandager Nielsen, a seasoned C-suite leader and Advisory Board Member at Pacific International, is no stranger to the complex dynamics of executive leadership. Throughout his career, he has consistently tackled one of the most pressing dilemmas facing boardrooms today: the tension between delivering short-term performance and ensuring long-term sustainability.

In our recent conversation, Bjarne shared how this challenge arises in nearly every strategic recruitment project and emphasized the importance of identifying leaders who can excel in both areas. The key, he emphasized, is not just finding someone with the proper credentials but someone with the capacity to lead transformation while sustaining operational excellence.

Appointing C-Suite leaders is a business-critical decision that can significantly impact an organization’s trajectory. Before any search begins, he argues, companies must first ask: “What kind of transformation do we need? Are we aligned on what success looks like in the next 12 months and the next five years?”

This conversation goes beyond the typical executive search strategy. It’s about ensuring alignment, clarity, and foresight from day one. Stay tuned as we continue our series with Bjarne to explore what it truly takes to appoint leaders who can perform and drive transformation.

Margaret Jaouadi
Can you share an example where a C-suite leader successfully navigated the tension between delivering immediate performance and enabling long-term transformation?

Bjarne Sandager Nielsen
Every leader faces the delicate balancing act of achieving short-term performance while maintaining longer-term sustainability. Let me share what I think is the best example: Larry Culp’s transformation of General Electric.

First, let me clarify how I see the distinction. Metrics and outcomes, such as earnings per share, operating profit, cash flow, and delivery performance, are the primary measures of short-term performance. But when you need transformation, it’s typically because you realize your current approach to achieving results isn’t sustainable. Transformation is fundamentally about changing how you create those results.

When Larry Culp stepped into GE, he inherited a massive conglomerate that had become overly financially driven due to the influence of GE Capital. The company had lost focus on industrial performance, cycling through several CEO transitions because the results were simply unsustainable.

What Culp did was transform the way GE generated results. Instead of relying on financial engineering, which didn’t address underlying performance, he shifted the entire focus to sustainable, underlying performance. His approach was to improve the underlying performance first, and the quick results would follow. It’s really about the sequence of what you do.

However, what made his approach extraordinary was that he led from the front and walked the talk. Transformation must be driven from the top, and leaders must set the example. Instead of optimizing the conglomerate, he completely disassembled it. Rather than making minor adjustments to headquarters, he eliminated it and split GE into three independent, listed companies.

This move created a point of no return, and the organization had to follow because there was no going back.

What impressed me was his commitment to lean methodology, which he’d mastered at Danaher. He didn’t just mandate it from above; he participated as a team member in week-long Kaizen improvement sessions across different parts of the organization. Picture this: the CEO spending five full workdays in a plant, working alongside frontline employees on process improvements.

That’s leading from the front. When the organization doesn’t understand transformation, the leader needs to take them by the hand and show what it’s all about. It’s also incredibly effective at removing resistance—if someone says they don’t have time for a week-long improvement initiative, well, the CEO found the time, didn’t he?

This approach transforms the way the company achieves results. It’s not just financial engineering; it’s real results, real performance, real improvements that flow directly into the company’s outcomes. It was amazing to follow that journey and witness the earthquake it created throughout the entire organization.

Margaret Jaouadi
Have you seen this kind of approach replicated anywhere?

Bjarne Sandager Nielsen
Absolutely. I’m a true believer in lean as well, because that’s where real performance comes from. Danaher is an excellent example of this approach. It’s a conglomerate, but it doesn’t operate like a traditional conglomerate.

Instead, Danaher operates as independent companies, where the focus is crystal clear: each unit is accountable for its outcomes and results. If they don’t deliver, they can get help with frameworks and support systems. However, if that assistance still doesn’t work, it’s likely because you have the wrong leaders, and that’s also a transformation that needs to occur. You need people who can deliver the results.

A critical question every leader must ask: Is your poor performance due to doing the wrong things, or is it because you’re poor at execution? These are two completely different problems requiring different solutions.

If you’re doing the wrong things, you need people who understand how to do the right things. That might mean different tactics, different strategies, or a completely different approach. However, if it’s poor execution, you can reinforce it through better systems and processes.

The key insight is this: if you’re heading in the wrong direction, you need to change your approach fundamentally. No amount of execution improvement will fix a fundamentally flawed strategy.

Margaret Jaouadi
What are the three essential skills disruptive leaders should possess?

Bjarne Sandager Nielsen
First, you need to lead from the front. You have to show the way, not just tell people what to do, just like Larry Culp did. He didn’t just mandate lean principles; he rolled up his sleeves and participated in week-long Kaizen sessions alongside frontline workers.

Second, you must be extremely clear and direct in your communication with everyone in the organization. A lot of transformation is really about explaining the why behind what you’re doing, then empowering people to figure out the how. You need unambiguous, direct communication at all levels of the organization.

I can tell you, it was incredibly powerful when Culp went into plants and discussed with operators how their work life could be easier. He gained tremendous insights from these conversations, which he then used in discussions with management during performance reviews. This approach creates powerful ambassadors for change throughout the organization. The communication piece is critical.

Third, you need persistence and consequences. You must be persistent in driving the transformation, and there need to be real consequences when people either don’t want to follow or aren’t able to follow. Sometimes that means you need to change your team. It’s not about being harsh, it’s about being consistent with your commitment to the transformation.

Margaret Jaouadi  
When you’re assessing candidates for high-stakes roles, what indicators show they can shift between short-term action and long-term thinking?

Bjarne Sandager Nielsen  
One question I always ask when interviewing people is: “Describe what a normal day looks like for you.”

How they answer reveals a tremendous amount about their focus and approach. Are they performance-focused on outcomes, or are they more focused on how we create results? For instance, are they spending their time on lots of reviews and meetings? That typically indicates someone who’s very outcome-focused. Or are they spending some of their time participating in Kaizen sessions because they want to deploy a lean transformation journey? That shows someone focused on the underlying process of creating results.

Now, I think everyone should have a mix of both. It’s not a binary choice; it’s a continuum between these two approaches. However, how people allocate their focus reveals a great deal, and it should depend on their specific situation.

The context is crucial: How urgent is your need? If you’re about to kill the company, you need somebody who can deliver fast results while making the transition. That requires someone who can operate in both modes simultaneously.

However, if your challenge is more strategic, such as recognizing that on a three- to five-year scale, you’ll need to understand AI or big data, then it’s a different requirement. In that case, you’re looking for someone who can build up the business offering and the competencies in the organization over time. You’d likely need to look externally for that kind of capability.

The key is matching the candidate’s natural approach to your specific situation and timeline.

Margaret Jaouadi
You’ve said it’s critical to clarify the kind of transformation a company needs before launching a search. Can you share an example where that clarity, or lack thereof, made a difference? Additionally, if someone is screening candidates for the delivery of that strategy, can they still identify the disruptors?

Bjarne Sandager Nielsen
I think they can identify disruptors, but you need to understand where you believe disruption is necessary, because it’s typically not required across every aspect of your business.

Let me give you some examples. Do you need to change direction, for instance, by disrupting your technology? Then it is likely that you don’t have that knowledge in-house, and you would need to put people in place who can drive that technology transition. As a CEO or senior leader, you may not be the expert in that specific area, so you’re there to put the right people in place and then focus on continuing the business while supporting their journey.

However, suppose your company is in a life-threatening situation, often caused by execution issues such as a quality crisis and a declining customer base. In that case, you need to step in yourself. You need to ensure you have the right people to address it, but you also need to devote a significant amount of your attention to it. Again, you need to lead the way into that journey.

This approach could involve bringing in new people, but it’s also about the questions you ask, the meetings you hold, and the targets you set for the organization.

The critical piece is setting a proper diagnosis upfront, understanding what the real disease is, and identifying the actual root cause. Good figures can still mask problems if created through financial engineering. Conversely, unfavorable figures could indicate a positive trend if they reflect an improvement in underlying performance capabilities.

You need to understand: What’s the real pain point here? Where is disruption required, and what kind of disruption is necessary? If you don’t have the internal resources or capability for that specific type of disruption, then you need to find the people who do have that capability.

Without this clarity, you’ll end up hiring the wrong type of disruptor for your specific challenge.

Margaret Jaouadi  
In your experience, what differentiates a solid C-suite hire from a truly transformational one beyond what’s on a CV?

Bjarne Sandager Nielsen  
I think it comes down to where they place their focus. Again, it’s not binary, but rather about where the majority of their attention needs to be directed.

A solid C-suite performer might have, say, a 2-to-1 focus ratio between performance and longer-term transformation. Their focus is on the outcome, the results we achieve.

Whereas a truly transformational leader flips that ratio. They’re thinking more about the actions and the transformation itself, how we create the outcome. They focus on the way we create results rather than just the results themselves.

This fundamental difference in focus shapes everything: how they spend their time, what questions they ask, where they invest resources, and how they measure success. The transformational leader is constantly asking, “Is this sustainable? Are we building the right capabilities? Are we creating the right processes?” while still delivering the necessary outcomes.

Margaret Jaouadi
How can past performance indicate that a person is ready for what’s coming?

Bjarne Sandager Nielsen
Only by understanding how that past performance was created.

Past performance is past performance, right? But the critical question is: What was the context in which that performance was delivered? What were the levers they pulled to create that performance? That’s what’s important to understand.

You need to dig deeper than the results themselves. Did they achieve those results through financial engineering, cost-cutting, or market timing? Or did they build sustainable capabilities, develop people, and create systems that could deliver consistent performance over time?

The context and methodology behind the performance tell you whether they can adapt their approach to new challenges or if they’re limited to repeating what worked in a specific situation that may no longer exist.

Margaret Jaouadi  
Yes, that’s a good insight. If you could add one question to every CEO’s interview guide to uncover true transformational capability, what would it be, and why?

Bjarne Sandager Nielsen  
That’s a tricky one. I’ve given it some thought, and the question I would ask is: “Tell me what’s the result you’re most proud of, and how did you achieve it?”

There are multiple layers to this question. First, the result they’re most proud of tells you something fundamental about their values and priorities. Are they referring to a 10% profit increase? That tells you whether their mindset is metrics-based. Or are they discussing cultural transformation, growth initiatives, or capability building? Each answer reveals different aspects of their leadership orientation.

The second part, how they achieved it, is equally revealing. Their answer reveals whether they approached it through transformation or simply improved execution. It’s an open question, not a yes-or-no question, which forces them to explain their actual methodology.

Margaret Jaouadi
But don’t you think all business leaders are coached to talk about results? They’re trained to include metrics, KPIs, and deliverables.

Bjarne Sandager Nielsen
You’re right. Leaders are indeed coached to focus on results – creating results is essentially why businesses exist, and leaders are put in place to achieve them. But that’s precisely why the second part of my question is so critical: “How did you achieve that result?”

By asking it, you can differentiate between coached responses and genuine transformational thinking. The answer to the “how” question reveals something about mindset and approach.

A leader focused purely on outcomes might say, “We cut costs by 15% and restructured operations.” But a transformational leader would explain the process: “We engaged the entire organization in identifying waste, implemented lean principles, and built capabilities that continue to deliver results.”

The difference is in the depth of their answer and whether they focus on sustainable methods versus quick fixes. The “how” reveals whether they think systematically about building capabilities or just about hitting numbers.

Margaret Jaouadi
When leaders use “we” instead of “I” in their responses, what does that tell you about them?

Bjarne Sandager Nielsen
We all play a role in a team, right? Just like in a football team, each player has a different role, but it’s the team that wins, not a single player. You can easily have played a fantastic individual game, but if the team lost, well, the team lost.

Usually, when something goes wrong, it’s not because individuals have failed; it’s because the team hasn’t performed. And the same applies to success: it’s not an individual making sure you win; it’s almost always a team effort.

Of course, different people play different roles, and a CEO plays a significantly larger role than others because they can set the direction. They not only have the right, but also the obligation, to make the vision attractive so that people want to follow. So it’s a different role, but as a CEO, you can’t change things yourself.

Take Larry Culp at GE again. He showed the way, but he couldn’t do it on his own. What he essentially did was change the entire organization’s perspective, putting the customer at the center, with those who directly serve customers as the next level. That’s essentially the operators producing the goods. He placed them at the center and then built the organization outward, much like layers of an onion. The outer layer, furthest from customers, consists of supporting resources.

He led that journey, explained it, made it understandable, and walked the talk; however, it was the organization that absorbed that knowledge and applied it that ultimately delivered the results. So leaders play a different role, but success is still fundamentally a team sport.

You can connect with Bjarne Sandager Nielsen on LinkedIn or message him at bjarne.nielsen@pacific-international.com

For a confidential chat about how Pacific International can assist you with your Talent Acquisitions and Diversity challenges, please contact Manuel Preg. Or connect with one of our Executive Search Consultants specialising in your sector.