Agility in Uncertainty:
Leadership Lessons
with Alexander Lacik
Agility in Uncertainty:
Leadership Lessons
with Alexander Lacik
We speak with Alexander Lacik, former President and CEO of Pandora, about what leading through a period of sustained disruption taught him about leadership. He offers a candid perspective on authenticity, agility, foresight and the importance of building leadership teams equipped for ambiguity.
We speak with Alexander Lacik, former President and CEO of Pandora, about what leading through a period of sustained disruption taught him about leadership. He offers a candid perspective on authenticity, agility, foresight and the importance of building leadership teams equipped for ambiguity.
Alexander Lacik is the former President and CEO of Pandora, the world's largest jewellery business by volume and a business with revenues of approximately $5bn. At the helm from 2019 to 2025, he led the company's global transformation, keeping the turnaround on track through the challenges of COVID-19. He currently serves as Special Advisor to the Board at Pandora and also holds non-executive board roles with Essity and Aerbio.
Alexander previously served as CEO and CCO of Britax Childcare, a global market leader in children’s safety products. Earlier in his career, he built extensive experience in senior roles at Procter & Gamble and Reckitt, spending more than 12 years at each company.
Alexander led Pandora’s transformation against a backdrop of exceptional volatility, with the business navigating not only a major internal reset but also the external shocks of the pandemic, inflation and wider market uncertainty. In that context, leadership was not simply about setting direction, but about sustaining clarity, trust and momentum while conditions continued to shift.
In our conversation, Alexander reflects on what that period demanded of him as a leader. He offers a candid perspective on authenticity under pressure, the role of agility, and why building teams equipped for ambiguity has become essential in a world where disruption is no longer the exception, but a constant undercurrent.
Alexander Lacik is the former President and CEO of Pandora, the world's largest jewellery business by volume and a business with revenues of approximately $5bn. At the helm from 2019 to 2025, he led the company's global transformation, keeping the turnaround on track through the challenges of COVID-19. He currently serves as Special Advisor to the Board at Pandora and also holds non-executive board roles with Essity and Aerbio.
Alexander previously served as CEO and CCO of Britax Childcare, a global market leader in children’s safety products. Earlier in his career, he built extensive experience in senior roles at Procter & Gamble and Reckitt, spending more than 12 years at each company.
Alexander led Pandora’s transformation against a backdrop of exceptional volatility, with the business navigating not only a major internal reset but also the external shocks of the pandemic, inflation and wider market uncertainty. In that context, leadership was not simply about setting direction, but about sustaining clarity, trust and momentum while conditions continued to shift.
In our conversation, Alexander reflects on what that period demanded of him as a leader. He offers a candid perspective on authenticity under pressure, the role of agility, and why building teams equipped for ambiguity has become essential in a world where disruption is no longer the exception, but a constant undercurrent.
Authenticity as the Anchor
Alexander is clear that effective leadership through disruption does not begin with reinvention, but with authenticity. For him, the past five years did not fundamentally change who he was as a leader. His core principles – directness, pragmatism, accountability – remained intact:
“I don't think I have changed my way of being as a leader just because of the noise. Maybe some aspects become more accentuated [...] but you can't be somebody that you're not.
That's the first flaw of bad leadership in my mind.”
Leaders who attempt to perform a version of themselves under pressure are quickly found out, and inauthenticity erodes trust quickly.
“You're pretending to be somebody in the public space and at the core you're not. And then the people, especially the people that know you and you work intimately close to, they'll see through that.”
By contrast, consistency of character can even become a source of stability for an organisation when external conditions are uncertain. However, he is clear that authenticity does not mean rigidity. Whilst core character ought to remain constant, context demands evolution as the assumption of a “steady-state” world – where yesterday’s operating model can be relied upon tomorrow – has weakened.
“It almost becomes a principle that the new norm is always going to be changing somehow. The old truths no longer apply to the same degree which means that agility – and that’s a word we used a lot – becomes a hell of a lot more import.”
Leading through volatility, therefore, is less about changing who you are and more about adapting how you operate.
Alexander is clear that effective leadership through disruption does not begin with reinvention, but with authenticity. For him, the past five years did not fundamentally change who he was as a leader. His core principles – directness, pragmatism, accountability – remained intact:
“I don't think I have changed my way of being as a leader just because of the noise. Maybe some aspects become more accentuated [...] but you can't be somebody that you're not. That's the first flaw of bad leadership in my mind.”
Leaders who attempt to perform a version of themselves under pressure are quickly found out, and inauthenticity erodes trust quickly.
“You're pretending to be somebody in the public space and at the core you're not. And then the people, especially the people that know you and you work intimately close to, they'll see through that.”
By contrast, consistency of character can even become a source of stability for an organisation when external conditions are uncertain. However, he is clear that authenticity does not mean rigidity. Whilst core character ought to remain constant, context demands evolution as the assumption of a “steady-state” world – where yesterday’s operating model can be relied upon tomorrow – has weakened.
“It almost becomes a principle that the new norm is always going to be changing somehow. The old truths no longer apply to the same degree which means that agility – and that’s a word we used a lot – becomes a hell of a lot more import.”
Leading through volatility, therefore, is less about changing who you are and more about adapting how you operate.
Alexander is clear that effective leadership through disruption does not begin with reinvention, but with authenticity. For him, the past five years did not fundamentally change who he was as a leader. His core principles – directness, pragmatism, accountability – remained intact:
“I don't think I have changed my way of being as a leader just because of the noise. Maybe some aspects become more accentuated [...] but you can't be somebody that you're not. That's the first flaw of bad leadership in my mind.”
Leaders who attempt to perform a version of themselves under pressure are quickly found out, and inauthenticity erodes trust quickly.
“You're pretending to be somebody in the public space and at the core you're not. And then the people, especially the people that know you and you work intimately close to, they'll see through that.”
By contrast, consistency of character can even become a source of stability for an organisation when external conditions are uncertain. However, he is clear that authenticity does not mean rigidity. Whilst core character ought to remain constant, context demands evolution as the assumption of a “steady-state” world – where yesterday’s operating model can be relied upon tomorrow – has weakened.
“It almost becomes a principle that the new norm is always going to be changing somehow. The old truths no longer apply to the same degree which means that agility – and that’s a word we used a lot – becomes a hell of a lot more import.”
Leading through volatility, therefore, is less about changing who you are and more about adapting how you operate.
Agility as a Discipline, Not a Slogan
Agility as a Discipline,
Not a Slogan
In Alexander’s account, agility is not a buzzword or slogan, but a discipline of thought. Not agility in the abstract, but what he calls “mental flexibility.” In a world where precedent becomes an increasingly unreliable guide, the real discipline, he suggests, lies in returning to what once felt settled and asking, without ego, whether those decisions still hold. It means resisting the comfort of “we’ve always done it like this.”
“yes, we have a base plan [...] but when the context keeps moving around, you somehow constantly have to value it like, ‘is what we decided six months ago, is that still what we think is the baseline of how we operate?’ And I think that's probably been the biggest insight. I can see the companies that just kept doing what they did yesterday. They struggled more versus the ones that said, ‘The wind has changed. We need to adjust a little bit our sails.’ It doesn't mean you throw everything up in the air, but I think you just become a little bit more light on your feet. You're not as dogmatic anymore.”
That mindset carries operational consequence. In the case of Pandora, it prompted
re-examination of store staffing models and inventory management among other elements. Agility, in this sense, is not about constant reinvention, but recalibrating in motion while holding firm to strategic direction.
In Alexander’s account, agility is not a buzzword or slogan, but a discipline of thought. Not agility in the abstract, but what he calls “mental flexibility.” In a world where precedent becomes an increasingly unreliable guide, the real discipline, he suggests, lies in returning to what once felt settled and asking, without ego, whether those decisions still hold. It means resisting the comfort of “we’ve always done it like this.”
“yes, we have a base plan [...] but when the context keeps moving around, you somehow constantly have to value it like, ‘is what we decided six months ago, is that still what we think is the baseline of how we operate?’ And I think that's probably been the biggest insight. I can see the companies that just kept doing what they did yesterday. They struggled more versus the ones that said, ‘The wind has changed. We need to adjust a little bit our sails.’ It doesn't mean you throw everything up in the air, but I think you just become a little bit more light on your feet. You're not as dogmatic anymore.”
That mindset carries operational consequence. In the case of Pandora, it prompted re-examination of store staffing models and inventory management among other elements. Agility, in this sense, is not about constant reinvention, but recalibrating in motion while holding firm to strategic direction.
Designing the Team for Ambiguity and Foresight
Designing the Team for
Ambiguity and Foresight
If agility begins with mindset, it is sustained by the composition of the leadership team.
One of Alexander’s most candid reflections concerns the top table. For Alexander, it is essential to “ensure that I have a team around me that’s designed to deal with the context in which it’s operating [...] each situation needs its own setup.”
In stable environments, leaders can afford a wider range of change appetites and operating styles. In our current moment of continuous uncertainty, however, even a small number of change-averse executives can create friction at the very point where alignment matters most.
“I think that characteristic of people that are not willing to change, it’s going to drive a lot of conflict in the top team. If there’s conflict in that team, that’s just going to go straight down the organisation.”
This is not an argument against debate. On the contrary, Alexander is explicit that debate is essential, but it must resolve into shared direction: “you need to be conscious to have a team that’s aligned on the direction its going, and then there can be massive debates inside that.”
This has led Alexander to be more deliberate in selecting leaders who are comfortable with ambiguity: “I probably wouldn't choose people that can’t deal with ambiguity.” Those who require fixed parameters and predictable horizons may be highly effective in steady markets. In non-linear conditions, they can struggle.
The accumulation of shocks – pandemic, war, inflation, commodity swings – has also shifted Alexander’s emphasis toward foresight. Rather than relying on historical norms, he highlights the value of anticipating extreme possibilities and developing responses ahead of time. The very volatility and uncertainty that challenge businesses, he suggests, also sharpen this mindset, making it increasingly vital to organisational resilience. As Alexander reflects,
“I think this foresight, I’m not sure I would have gone there. I don’t think I’ve spent my energy on thinking about ‘what if.’ But when I had all this noise around me [...] I go through all the key variables of the business and said, ‘what if bad goes to worse?’”
If agility begins with mindset, it is sustained by the composition of the leadership team.
One of Alexander’s most candid reflections concerns the top table. For Alexander, it is essential to “ensure that I have a team around me that’s designed to deal with the context in which it’s operating [...] each situation needs its own setup.”
In stable environments, leaders can afford a wider range of change appetites and operating styles. In our current moment of continuous uncertainty, however, even a small number of change-averse executives can create friction at the very point where alignment matters most.
“I think that characteristic of people that are not willing to change, it’s going to drive a lot of conflict in the top team. If there’s conflict in that team, that’s just going to go straight down the organisation”
This is not an argument against debate. On the contrary, Alexander is explicit that debate is essential, but it must resolve into shared direction: “you need to be conscious to have a team that’s aligned on the direction its going, and then there can be massive debates inside that.”
This has led Alexander to be more deliberate in selecting leaders who are comfortable with ambiguity: “I probably wouldn't choose people that can’t deal with ambiguity.” Those who require fixed parameters and predictable horizons may be highly effective in steady markets. In non-linear conditions, they can struggle.
The accumulation of shocks – pandemic, war, inflation, commodity swings – has also shifted Alexander’s emphasis toward foresight. Rather than relying on historical norms, he highlights the value of anticipating extreme possibilities and developing responses ahead of time. The very volatility and uncertainty that challenge businesses, he suggests, also sharpen this mindset, making it increasingly vital to organisational resilience. As Alexander reflects,
“I think this foresight, I’m not sure I would have gone there. I don’t think I’ve spent my energy on thinking about ‘what if.’ But when I had all this noise around me [...] I go through all the key variables of the business and said, ‘what if bad goes to worse?’”
Leaning In: Volatility as Catalyst
Leaning In:
Volatility as Catalyst
Perhaps the most counterintuitive insight from Alexander’s experience is that volatility, while destabilising, can also create momentum. When he joined Pandora, a significant organisational rebuild was already required. The pandemic did not create the need for this transformation, but it intensified the urgency by creating “a burning platform.” As COVID-19 spread and stores closed globally, the company made the difficult decision to proceed with its major reorganisation.
In different circumstances, such a move might have been delayed. Yet the disruption itself reduced the organisation’s ability to revert to legacy behaviours. What Alexander calls the “rubber band” of structural and behavioural inertia that so often pulls change efforts back to the status quo had less opportunity to snap into place because the usual operating model itself was effectively suspended.
“reorg[anisation] typically is like stretching a rubber band. And then when you let go of it, it wants to go back to where it came from [...] That’s where you get such huge inbuilt resistance to these big, big mega changes [...]
But the bizarre thing that happened was because we sent everybody home and people still had work to do, this rubber band couldn’t back [...] So the pandemic somehow forced this org[anisational] change to be much speedier in its execution.”
What might have been incremental became accelerated. In turn, Alexander did not adapt a fundamentally different leadership persona in crisis. Rather, certain attributes – boldness and decisiveness, willingness to challenge orthodoxy, openness to recalibration – were amplified by the context.
Perhaps the most counterintuitive insight from Alexander’s experience is that volatility, while destabilising, can also create momentum. When he joined Pandora, a significant organisational rebuild was already required. The pandemic did not create the need for this transformation, but it intensified the urgency by creating “a burning platform.” As COVID-19 spread and stores closed globally, the company made the difficult decision to proceed with its major reorganisation.
In different circumstances, such a move might have been delayed. Yet the disruption itself reduced the organisation’s ability to revert to legacy behaviours. What Alexander calls the “rubber band” of structural and behavioural inertia that so often pulls change efforts back to the status quo had less opportunity to snap into place because the usual operating model itself was effectively suspended.
“reorg[anisation] typically is like stretching a rubber band. And then when you let go of it, it wants to go back to where it came from [...] That’s where you get such huge inbuilt resistance to these big, big mega changes [...]
But the bizarre thing that happened was because we sent everybody home and people still had work to do, this rubber band couldn’t back [...] So the pandemic somehow forced this org[anisational] change to be much speedier in its execution.”
What might have been incremental became accelerated. In turn, Alexander did not adapt a fundamentally different leadership persona in crisis. Rather, certain attributes – boldness and decisiveness, willingness to challenge orthodoxy, openness to recalibration – were amplified by the context.
Leadership in a World That Keeps Moving
Leadership in a World
That Keeps Moving
As 2026 continues to unfold, the conditions facing executives show little sign of simplification. The steady state may not return in the way it once existed.
The lesson from Alexander's reflections is neither to pursue constant transformation for its own sake nor to cling to comforting precedent. It is to remain anchored in authentic leadership while consciously evolving execution; to embed agility into systems and thinking; to design teams for ambiguity; and to treat foresight as a core discipline rather than a theoretical exercise.
As the wind continues to shift, the leaders who thrive will be those who know who they are and, as Alexander puts it, are prepared to adjust their sails accordingly.
As 2026 continues to unfold, the conditions facing executives show little sign of simplification. The steady state may not return in the way it once existed.
The lesson from Alexander's reflections is neither to pursue constant transformation for its own sake nor to cling to comforting precedent. It is to remain anchored in authentic leadership while consciously evolving execution; to embed agility into systems and thinking; to design teams for ambiguity; and to treat foresight as a core discipline rather than a theoretical exercise.
As the wind continues to shift, the leaders who thrive will be those who know who they are and, as Alexander puts it, are prepared to adjust their sails accordingly.