How Is Handover Managed When an Interim Management Assignment Ends?

Most of the discussion around interim management focuses on the beginning of the process. When an interim executive is needed, how the right profile is identified and how quickly an assignment can begin are the questions organisations ask at the outset. The stage at which the assignment ends, by contrast, is often the least developed part of the plan.

Yet the value interim management generates for an organisation is not limited to the decisions taken during the assignment. The real measure is what remains in the organisation once the assignment is complete. If the work carried out has not become a lasting arrangement, the result achieved is confined to the period of the assignment, and within a few months the organisation returns close to its starting point. Handover is therefore not a closing task to be addressed in the final weeks; it is an output defined at the very beginning of the assignment.

This is also where interim management becomes clearly distinct from permanent employment. A permanent executive embeds their knowledge and methods into the organisation over time; their way of working and the organisation's own order gradually merge over the years. An interim executive takes up the role for a defined period and leaves at the end of it. There is no span of time in which transfer can be expected to happen on its own; transfer is designed as part of the assignment.

Where handover is weak, the resulting picture is usually similar. The reporting arrangement established during the assignment reverts within a few months, matters are reopened because the reasoning behind decisions did not remain in the organisation, and work advanced during the assignment is left without an owner. The organisation sees the benefit of the service only for the duration of the assignment.

Where handover is designed from the outset, by contrast, interim management also increases the organisation's own management capacity. The method established during the assignment settles into the team's way of working, and the permanent executive who follows continues on that basis. For organisations, this second outcome strengthens the case for choosing interim management in the first place.

At E&E Group, in the interim management work we conduct as the Valtus Alliance partner in Turkey, we observe that addressing handover under three separate headings determines the outcome.

Defining the Handover Plan at the Start of the Assignment

Beginning handover work at the end of an assignment is the most common structural error. By the final weeks, an interim executive's agenda is usually full; completing work in progress, closing outstanding matters and the organisation's own calendar all fall within the same period. A handover document prepared under those conditions rarely goes beyond a list of work completed.

What works is including the handover output within the assignment brief itself. Alongside the objectives set at the start, the outputs to be delivered to the organisation at the end must also be defined. That definition shapes how the interim executive works: establishing an arrangement that can be transferred requires a different method from simply producing the result. Recording decisions together with their rationale, setting out the processes established in writing and making the tools used accessible within the organisation only happen when planned from the outset.

How the assignment period is defined is also part of this plan. Where an assignment is bounded by a specific date, handover work can be tied to a calendar. Where the scope is left open or the assignment is repeatedly extended, handover is postponed each time. Extension is in some cases driven by the organisation's needs and is entirely reasonable, but each extension requires the handover plan to be rescheduled as well.

Writing the handover output into the assignment brief has a further effect: it clarifies the organisation's expectation. Some organisations assume the outcome of an interim assignment will be measured solely by the decisions taken during it. Defining the deliverables due at the end from the outset means both parties work to the same expectation and creates the basis for a proper review at the close.

A third element is early clarity on who will take over. In some assignments the incoming executive is known from the start; someone internal is being prepared, or a search for a permanent executive is under way. In others the question remains open throughout. Where the incoming executive is undetermined, the recipients of the transfer become the team itself and the level of management above it. In either case, knowing the recipient in advance determines the level of detail the transfer will need to contain.

The scope of the assignment also determines the weight of the handover work. Where an assignment is defined around completing a specific project, transfer is relatively limited; once the project concludes, what is to be handed over is clear. Where an assignment involves leading a business unit, the scope of transfer is considerably broader. Team leadership, continuing relationships and the daily flow of decisions are inherent to such roles, and none of them fits into a single document. Assessing scope at the start of the assignment allows a realistic amount of time to be set aside for handover.

The handover plan also needs an owner on the organisation's side. Where it is not established who will receive the interim executive's outputs, in which system they will be stored and who will have access to them, the document prepared becomes a file that goes unused once the assignment ends.

Putting the handover plan in writing also serves the organisation's internal audit and corporate governance requirements. In interim assignments, decision-making authority resting with an executive from outside the organisation makes the traceability of those decisions all the more important. Where the record-keeping arrangement is defined at the outset, the handover material takes shape on its own, without requiring separate preparation.

The Scope of What Remains in the Organisation

The content of handover work is usually broader than assumed. The status of the work in progress is only one part of what is transferred. The scope of transfer generally consists of the following headings:

•      Current status of the work: the stage of ongoing projects, outstanding matters, decisions taken but not yet implemented, and their timing

•      Rationale behind decisions: the data and assessment on which the critical decisions of the assignment rested

•      Processes established: the newly defined reporting arrangements, approval flows and monitoring indicators, and how they are operated

•      Transfer of capability: the working arrangements needed to make the methods the team has acquired during the assignment permanent

•      External relationships: moving supplier, client and other external relationships established during the assignment onto an institutional footing

•      Open risks: matters that could not be resolved within the assignment period and an assessment of the risks they carry

Of these headings, the two most often overlooked are the rationale behind decisions and external relationships. Transferring only the outcome of a decision leaves the incoming party with no basis to work from when the same matter has to be reconsidered later. Where it is not recorded which options were assessed, why some were set aside and what assumptions the decision rested on, the organisation repeats the same work from the beginning some time later.

Recording the reasoning behind decisions also relates to the fact that an interim executive arrives without prior knowledge of the organisation. Some of the decisions taken during the assignment may differ from approaches tried in the organisation's past. Where the basis for those choices is not set down clearly, decisions tend to drift back towards the organisation's own habits in the following period. A recorded rationale keeps the decision defensible.

With external relationships the risk is more concrete. Relationships established during an assignment usually run through the individual. The counterpart on the supplier side knows the person, not the organisation. Where such a relationship is not moved onto an institutional footing before the interim executive leaves, communication has to be rebuilt from scratch in the following period. Running these relationships alongside a second representative of the organisation during the assignment largely removes that risk.

Transfer of capability is the most time-consuming part of handover work. That a team has learned a new way of working during an assignment does not mean it will sustain that method once the interim executive has left. Sustaining it depends on the team grasping not only the practice but the reasoning behind it. For that reason, in the later part of an assignment the interim executive's role shifts from directing to observing; the team takes the decisions, and the interim executive assesses them.

In defining the scope of transfer, the organisation's existing documentation arrangements should also be taken into account. Material prepared in line with the organisation's own reporting and archiving structure remains accessible after the assignment ends. Documents prepared in a separate format usually sit outside the organisation's daily operations and fall out of use over time.

This shift should not be left to the final weeks of the assignment. The interim executive being present while the team begins to take decisions itself is decisive in allowing errors to be corrected. In assignments where transfer is compressed into the final weeks, the team takes on the new responsibility only after the interim executive has left, and has no one to turn to at the first difficulty.

How the transfer is recorded also affects the outcome. A long, detailed document is unlikely to be read within the organisation. What works is dividing the material according to when it will be used: information on daily operations in short instructions the team can access, and decision rationale and risk assessment in a separate document presented to senior management. That division makes it likely the material will actually be used.

Another element often overlooked is recording the approaches that were tried during the assignment and did not work. For organisations this information is as valuable as the solutions applied. Setting down which method failed and why prevents the same route being taken again later.

Interim Management: Transition to the Incoming Executive and the Team

The final stage of handover is the actual transfer of responsibility. Conducting this in stages rather than on a single date prevents interruption in the organisation's operations.

Where the transition takes place on a single date, the incoming executive has to learn both the substance of the work and the team's way of working at the same time. Some of the decisions taken in that period are made on incomplete information, and their consequences become visible some months later. A staged transition keeps the organisation from carrying that risk.

A staged transition generally proceeds as follows. In the later part of the assignment, the incoming executive attends meetings but does not yet take decisions. In the next stage, the incoming executive takes the decisions and the interim executive advises. In the final stage, the interim executive's involvement is limited to specific matters. Assigning a defined duration to each of these three steps makes the transition possible to track.

Where the incoming executive comes from outside the organisation, part of the transition period should be given over to learning the organisation. The knowledge of the organisation an interim executive has acquired during the assignment is knowledge the new executive would otherwise gather over months. Transferring it shortens the new executive's adaptation period. Introducing executive coaching support during the same period allows an incoming executive to work through adaptation to both the new role and the inherited agenda within an organised framework.

Where the handover is to an executive from within the organisation, a different consideration comes to the fore. Having worked alongside the interim executive during the assignment, that person already knows the substance of the work. What needs to be transferred here is less the work itself than clarity on the scope of authority and decision-making responsibility. Announcing clearly where an internally promoted executive now stands in relation to the team they previously worked with keeps the transition smooth.

The transition on the team's side also requires separate work. During an interim assignment, the team knows it is working with an executive appointed for a defined period. When the assignment ends, two questions occupy the team: whether the work under way will continue and how the new arrangement will operate. Answering both alongside the transition announcement limits the uncertainty that can arise at the close of the period.

Communication outside the organisation during the transition also needs planning. Suppliers, clients and other external counterparts who worked with the interim executive should not learn of the change on their own. Notifying them of the new point of contact before the assignment ends prevents interruption in commercial relationships and shows that the organisation is in control of the process.

It should also be remembered that the quality of handover work is measured not at the end of the assignment but in the months that follow. A review conducted three and six months after completion shows whether the arrangement established has held. What is examined in that review is whether the reporting arrangement defined is still operating, whether decisions are being taken by the same method and whether matters resolved during the assignment have resurfaced. This is also the stage at which the return the organisation has gained from interim management can be measured.

A second output of handover work for the organisation is the experience it accumulates for future interim assignments. Where it is recorded which transfer method worked, which document was genuinely used and which stage took longest, the next assignment is built on that knowledge. Organisations that use interim management regularly develop their own handover standards over time.

In some assignments, conducting that review together with the interim executive is both possible and useful. A limited follow-up conversation allows the organisation to consider new questions with a counterpart who knows the context of the assignment. Defining this arrangement in the assignment agreement in advance removes the uncertainty that arises when it is raised afterwards.

Where handover is conducted well, the organisation gains on two fronts. The first is that the position reached during the assignment is preserved. The second is that the organisation is better prepared the next time a comparable need arises. In this second respect, interim management ceases to be a one-off solution and becomes a practice that builds the organisation's management capacity.

At E&E Group we have provided solutions for organisations' management needs since 1992, and as the Valtus Alliance partner in Turkey we deliver interim management to global standards with local expertise. For guidance on planning interim assignments and designing the handover stage, you can contact us.