CFO Search: Why Committees Ask the Wrong Questions
April 1, 2026
HR in Mexico: What U.S. Companies Get Wrong
April 6, 2026
Leadership During Departure: The Carlos Sainz Lesson
Carlos Sainz's 2024: The Leader Who Delivers Their Best Work After Being Told They're Being Replaced
Ferrari told Carlos Sainz in February that Lewis Hamilton would take his seat the following year. Sainz responded by delivering two wins, nine podiums, and his most complete season as a driver.
Most professionals check out the moment they know they're out. Performance drops. Effort becomes transactional. The clock starts.
Sainz did the opposite. And that's where the signal is.
What Happened
In early 2024, Ferrari announced that seven-time World Champion Lewis Hamilton would join the team for 2025. The message for Sainz was simple: you're not our future. The conventional expectation was that Sainz would coast through 2024. A lame-duck season. Adequate effort, diminished commitment, an eye on whatever came next.
Instead: two wins. Nine podiums. His best season, after being replaced.
He then joined Williams for 2025, bringing peak form to a team in the middle of its own rebuild.
Why This Matters Beyond the Paddock
The difference isn't performance. It's where performance comes from.
Leaders who perform for the relationship. We can visualize it like this: Commitment in → performance out. Commitment out → performance drops. When the organization signals that the relationship is ending, their output degrades. This isn't cynical. It's human.
Leaders who perform because performance is the standard. They don't adjust effort. They adjust nothing. Sainz didn't race well in 2024 to try to convince Ferrari to keep him. That decision was already made. He raced well because delivering anything less would have violated his own standard.
One type performs when trusted. The other performs regardless.
Both can produce excellent results. But under departure conditions, the difference becomes visible.
The Business Parallel
Every company manages departures. Most manage them badly.
The Sidelining Pattern
The CEO decides to replace the VP and starts acting like it before saying it.
Meetings disappear. Decisions reroute. Authority fades.
The VP senses the shift. Their performance drops. The CEO uses the performance drop as justification for the replacement. The system changed first. The performance followed.
The CEO tells the board, "We had to make a change because performance declined." The truth is that the organizational behavior produced the performance decline.
The Lame-Duck Pattern
The company announces the CFO transition publicly. The departing CFO has six months remaining. The CFO still has the title. The organization has already moved on.
Nobody invests in the relationship because everyone knows it's ending. Direct reports begin routing questions to the incoming CFO. The departing CFO becomes a ghost in their own function.
Six months of leadership, with no leadership.
The Sainz Alternative
There's another way. Keep authority. Keep responsibility. Keep expectations.
What if the departing leader was given meaningful work until their last day? What if the transition was structured to extract their best contribution, not their minimal compliance?
Sainz's 2024 suggests that leaders treated with respect during departure often produce their best work during that period. Not because they're motivated by the respect. Because the organizational conditions still support performance.
The organization didn't remove the conditions for performance. So performance stayed.
The Succession Lesson
Ferrari's decision to replace Sainz with Hamilton was calibration, not judgment. Sainz wasn't fired for underperformance. He was replaced because a different profile became available.
Same driver. Different future. This distinction is critical in business succession. When a board decides to bring in a new CEO, the departing CEO often experiences it as a verdict on their performance. "If I were good enough, they would have kept me."
But sometimes the replacement isn't about performance. It's about calibration. The company needs a different type of leader for its next stage.
When companies blur this, they turn a strategic move into a personal failure. When they communicate it honestly, the departing leader can exit with dignity. And dignity produces better outcomes for everyone.
What Sainz Got Right
Sainz made one decision most leaders don't make. He kept his standard constant, even when the context changed. He couldn't control Ferrari's decision. He couldn't control the timeline. He could control his own standard.
His market value increased. He proved his performance wasn't conditional. Williams hired him, knowing they were getting a driver whose standard doesn't vary with organizational commitment.
His team performed better. A disengaged driver demoralizes the engineers and strategists who work on their car. Sainz's commitment kept his side of the garage performing. Standards propagate.
Ferrari captured the season. Sainz's two wins and nine podiums contributed to Ferrari's Constructors' Championship position. Ferrari didn't lose the transition period; they captured it.
The Question
What happens in your company between "we've decided" and "they're gone"? If you remove authority, you'll get disengagement. If you exclude before announcing, you'll produce the performance drop you later blame on the person.
If you maintain authority, set expectations, and communicate honestly, you're likely to get their best work during a period when most companies get their worst.
Sainz didn't need Ferrari's commitment to perform. He brought his own. The leaders worth hiring don't calibrate effort to circumstance. And the companies worth working for don't withdraw conditions before the work is done.
Most organizations create the performance drop that they later blame.
Charlie Solórzano is a Managing Partner at Alder Koten, a boutique executive search firm specializing in C-suite and board placements across the U.S. and Mexico markets. He advises founders, investors, and boards on leadership transitions using The Race Conditions Model™, his proprietary diagnostic framework built on the thesis that leadership success is determined by conditions, not credentials.
Managing a Leadership Transition?
A 30-minute conversation about structuring departures that capture value instead of destroying it.
Schedule a Confidential ConsultationFrequently Asked Questions
Why do most leaders underperform during departure?
Most leaders perform for the relationship — commitment in, performance out. When the organization signals that the relationship is ending, their output degrades. This isn't cynical. It's human. The organization often removes authority, excludes from decisions, and withdraws conditions for performance before the departure is even announced. The system changes first. The performance follows.
What is the sidelining pattern in executive transitions?
The CEO decides to replace someone and starts acting like it before saying it. Meetings disappear. Decisions reroute. Authority fades. The executive senses the shift and their performance drops. The CEO then uses the performance drop as justification for the replacement. The organizational behavior produced the decline, but the executive gets blamed for it.
What is the lame-duck pattern?
The company announces the transition publicly, and the departing executive has months remaining. They still have the title, but the organization has already moved on. Nobody invests in the relationship. Direct reports route questions to the incoming leader. The departing executive becomes a ghost in their own function. Six months of leadership — without leadership.
How should companies handle departures differently?
Keep authority. Keep responsibility. Keep expectations. Give the departing leader meaningful work until their last day. Structure the transition to extract their best contribution, not their minimal compliance. When organizations don't remove the conditions for performance, performance stays. Leaders treated with respect during departure often produce their best work during that period.
What's the difference between calibration and judgment in succession?
Sainz wasn't fired for underperformance. He was replaced because a different profile became available. Same driver, different future. This distinction matters in business succession — sometimes replacement is about calibration for the next stage, not judgment on past performance. When companies blur this, they turn a strategic move into a personal failure. When they communicate it honestly, the departing leader can exit with dignity.
What kind of leader performs well during departure?
Leaders who perform because performance is the standard, not because of the relationship. They don't adjust effort based on organizational commitment. They adjust nothing. Sainz raced well in 2024 not to convince Ferrari to keep him — that decision was already made. He raced well because delivering anything less would have violated his own standard. One type performs when trusted. The other performs regardless.
