Over last 10 years, I have delivered interim assignments both directly for clients and through various interim management providers. Some of these collaborations worked exceptionally well and created value for everyone involved. Others introduced additional complexity into projects that were already challenging enough.
This experience has led me to a simple conclusion: the presence of an interim management provider is neither inherently good nor inherently bad. However, it is always worth asking one important question before an assignment begins:
What value does the provider bring to the engagement, and is that value greater than the complexity created by introducing a third party into the relationship?
In its simplest form, interim management is a direct relationship between a client and an interim manager. The client defines the challenge, the interim manager accepts accountability for the outcome, and both parties communicate directly. The model is straightforward, transparent and efficient.
Introducing a provider changes the dynamics. Suddenly there are three parties involved, each with their own objectives, responsibilities, communication channels and commercial interests. This does not automatically create a problem. In fact, some of the best assignments I have seen benefited greatly from the involvement of an experienced provider.
The difference lies in the role the provider chooses to play.
A valuable provider helps create the conditions for success. They help shape the mandate, align expectations, remove obstacles, facilitate escalations when needed and support both the client and the interim manager during difficult phases of the assignment. In this model, the provider acts as an enabler.
Less successful situations tend to emerge when the provider becomes another stakeholder that needs to be managed. Additional reporting lines appear. Communication becomes indirect. Decision-making slows down. Instead of focusing entirely on solving the client’s problem, the interim manager starts balancing the expectations of multiple parties.
Another challenge occasionally appears when the provider becomes heavily involved in the content of the assignment itself. This is particularly common when provider representatives come from management consulting backgrounds and have strong preferences regarding methodologies, frameworks or predefined solutions.
In such situations, the provider may unintentionally move beyond a governance or support role and begin influencing decisions that would normally fall within the interim manager’s area of expertise. The result can be confusion regarding accountability. If the interim manager is expected to own the outcome, they should also have sufficient freedom to define the approach.
I have seen situations where highly experienced interim managers were effectively treated as resources deployed to execute a predefined programme rather than professionals brought in to assess the situation independently and determine the most appropriate course of action. This can be particularly problematic when the interim manager’s core expertise lies in transformation leadership, programme delivery or organisational change – precisely the areas where methodology and execution approach are often critical success factors.
The strongest provider-interim relationships I have experienced were based on a simple principle:
The provider supports the assignment. The interim manager owns the solution.
When those boundaries are respected, everyone benefits – most importantly, the client.
For clients considering the use of an interim management provider, I believe it is worthwhile spending some time discussing the operating model before the assignment starts. This does not need to become a lengthy exercise. Often a single conversation is enough to clarify a few important questions:
- Who owns the assignment?
- Who makes decisions?
- How will escalations be handled?
- What exactly is the provider’s role during delivery?
- How will communication flow between all parties?
For larger transformation programmes, it may even be beneficial to treat this as a small project in itself and explicitly define the scope, governance model, roles, responsibilities and communication principles before day one.
My experience suggests that most problems in interim assignments do not stem from technical competence. They arise from ambiguity regarding accountability, authority and expectations.
The goal should not be to avoid interim management providers. Many bring valuable networks, experience and support capabilities. The goal is simply to ensure that everyone understands how the triangular relationship between client, provider and interim manager will operate in practice.
When this is clear, the provider can become a powerful accelerator of success. When it is not, the provider may unintentionally become another layer of complexity in a project that is already difficult enough.
In interim management, clarity is one of the most valuable assets available. The earlier it is established, the greater the probability of a successful outcome for everyone involved.