There were very good points raised above, but let me add my 2 cents...
I am convinced that there is a conspiracy by the people who sell PS actions and ACR/LR presets to lead less experienced photoshopers to believe that a given action or preset will always produce the same final look.
This couldn't be further from the truth.
As pointed out above, the result after applying the action/preset depends dramatically on the starting image. In some cases it is highly dependent on the starting image, in others, less dependent. If there are flaws in the starting image, they are likely to come through, often in unexpected ways, in the output of the action / preset.
The image you provided as an example of a starting image, has at least two major problems that will prevent it ever from looking like the goal example image. The first and probably most severe problem is that the highlights in that image are so close to being completely blown out that there is almost no color or luminosity information in these wildly overexposed regions, so, any action will face the impossible task of turning them into beautiful skin like in your goal image. About the best one can do in an automated action or preset is try to blur over these areas.
The second problem with your starting image is, as was pointed out above, the lighting is much too harsh. This results in deep, relatively sharp-edged shadows both on small and large scales. The resulting image can be softened in post production, but there is no way the results of this will ever look as good as if the model had been lit and photographed with the desired softer look in mind right from the start. If you took that image, it looks like you lit her with almost no fill light, and the size of your key light (in angular terms) was much too small. If you used one at all, you should have used a
much larger softbox or umbrella positioned close to the subject to let the key light wrap around and into the subject's nose, eye sockets, far side of her face, folds on her blouse, etc. The solution to this is lighting, not post production.
That being said, I set up an ACR / LR preset that at least attempted to soften the light, reduce contrast and saturation to give it more of a pastel look, etc. As you can see in the attached GIF animation, compared to the goal image, the results of applying that preset to your starting image are horrible. Of course, if I had brought the image into PS and worked on it manually -- ie, essentially reconstructing everything -- I could have gotten closer to the desired look, but even spending hours on one image, the result would still not be as good as the goal image.
Also, to demonstrate that that actions and presets can produce different final results depending on the starting image, I took a preview image from 123RF.com (full ID in the file name) and applied the same ACR/LF preset to it. This starting image is also high contrast, but at least it is not as high contrast as your starting image and doesn't have blown highlights. I intentionally selected this example to have a blue background to show that my preset does indeed turn this into a more pastel sea-foam / cyan color, as expected. However, if I had used a starting image that had a yellow or some other color background, my preset wouldn't have done a thing to it -- it would have stayed yellow and not even been turned into a pastel yellow -- not exactly the behavior you probably want.
In any case, you can see that the result of the exact same preset on a different starting image is even further from the desired look and feel (ie, of the goal image) -- no clean whites, way oversoftened / mushy for this starting image.
HTH,
Tom M