Expect the unexpected - September 2026

Expect the unexpected: From advising transformation to leading it from within

BCG Alumnus Nicolai Cummerow

After almost 14 years at BCG, most recently as Managing Director and Partner, Nicolai Cummerow joined Axel Springer as Chief Transformation Officer in 2025 and has since taken on the additional role of Chief Financial Officer.

Much of his consulting career focused on corporate finance, restructuring, and transformation. Today, he is responsible for many of those same questions from inside an organization. In our conversation, he reflects on what changes when recommendations become your own decisions, why urgency and importance are not the same thing—and why the right decision can still come at the wrong time.

Nicolai, you spent almost 14 years at BCG. What kept you learning—and what still shapes the way you work today?

The constant change played a big part. Different clients, different teams, a fast-paced environment—you were constantly learning and adapting. But the people mattered most. I had great mentors and worked with many different teams, so learning with and from others was a constant part of the job.

Two things have stayed with me in particular: The first is structured thinking. When we discuss a topic today, I will often say, “Let’s write it down. What are the options?” Putting something on paper forces you to structure the problem rather than just talk around it.

The second is adaptability. Over the course of 14 years at BCG, you work with a huge variety of people, teams, and clients. You learn to adjust quickly to different personalities and ways of working. This still helps me today, even though I now work within one organization rather than moving between clients.

What changes when you move from advising transformation to owning the outcome, and is there anything you’ve had to rethink since leaving consulting?

“The biggest difference is that you live with the consequences of your decisions.”

In consulting, we sometimes worked with clients for one or two years and felt very close to the outcome. But in an operating role, there is another dimension: You make the decision, explain it to the organization, see how it lands, and then live with its effects over time.

One thing I have come to appreciate much more is timing. As a consultant, you tend to focus on identifying the right course of action and then driving toward it. Inside a company, you realize that something can be the right move in principle and still not be the right move today. An organization may simply not be ready. Some weeks or months later, the same decision may become possible, especially when talking about organizational changes.

That time dimension has changed how I think about transformation. Analytical clarity remains important, but it is not only about what should happen. Timing and organizational readiness have become an even more important part of the equation. You have to explain a decision to your team, stand behind it, and see it through over time. That longer-term perspective is something I appreciate much more now.

I have also had to adapt how I think about teams. In my CFO role, I work with many more teams focused on the day-to-day work that keeps the business running. That is very different from consulting—and leading and motivating those teams requires a different approach as well: It is less about driving toward a deliverable and more about creating stability, recognition, and a sense of progress in the day-to-day work.

You spent much of your consulting career working on restructuring and transformation. What did those situations teach you about leading under pressure?

They gave me a very clear sense of prioritization. In restructuring situations, deadlines can be genuinely hard deadlines, including legal ones. You learn quickly to distinguish between what is important and what is truly urgent.

I still use that distinction today. Good prioritization starts with listening and understanding what actually matters. Once the priorities are clear, however, you also have to explain the reasoning behind them. Otherwise, everything begins to feel like just another ad hoc request or another round of firefighting.

Those situations also showed me how important trust is within a team. Under pressure, you need to know the people around you well enough to understand where their strengths lie and how they can support one another. That is something I continue to emphasize with my teams today.

Media is changing quickly, especially with the rise of AI. In your dual role, how do you balance financial discipline with the need to invest in new growth?

It is a fine line, and the pace at which AI is advancing makes the question even more relevant. As AI usage scales—including the associated token costs—the relative cost equation can change. In some cases, activities that appear obvious candidates for automation today may look different over time.

That changes how you think about automation decisions they are no longer one-way streets, but bets on relative cost curves that you need to revisit regularly. That is not a question for one company alone—the whole industry is rethinking its cost equation as the technology advances.

For an established business, the broader challenge is how to keep improving the efficiency of the existing operation while still investing in future growth. Ultimately, that becomes a capital-allocation question: Where do you invest, and which bets are you willing to take?

There is no single answer. Some businesses, particularly more mature or legacy businesses, will naturally be managed with a stronger focus on cost and efficiency. In other areas, you have to invest to build and scale—organically, through acquisitions or with partners. The key is to be honest about where your strengths are, and disciplined enough to allocate capital accordingly, even when that means saying no.