How Is an Interim Executive's Performance Monitored During the Assignment?

Performance of the Interim Manager During the Tenure

Organisations prepare for two stages of an interim management assignment: the beginning, where the remit is defined, and the handover, where the gains are transferred. The period in between is often left to the natural course of the assignment. Yet the full term of the assignment is the part in which the organisation either achieves its result or does not.

The absence of a monitoring structure carries two risks for the organisation at once. The first is the assignment drifting away from the organisation's changing agenda. The second is that gains achieved during the term are not recorded and have to be reconstructed at the handover stage. Both risks stem not from the length of the assignment but from the structure of the communication maintained throughout it.

The reason for this gap is the confidence placed in the interim executive's experience. When a manager with a long record in leadership roles and previous transformations of a similar kind takes up the assignment, the organisation's perceived need to monitor diminishes on its own. Monitoring, however, does not imply any question over the manager's capability. Because the scope and objective of the assignment rest on the organisation's agenda, the assignment has to be updated whenever that agenda changes.

In the assignments we carry out under our Valtus Turkey partnership, we observe that the rate of reaching the stated objective rises markedly where an interim review takes place. Where no monitoring structure is established, the pattern that emerges is usually this: the objective defined at the outset holds during the first months, but as the organisation's priorities shift, a quiet distance opens up between the manager and the organisation's expectations, and that distance becomes visible only at the handover stage.

Establishing the Monitoring Structure at the Start of the Assignment

Monitoring is designed as a structure defined at the start of the assignment rather than a need that occurs to someone along the way. When the remit is set out, three further elements need to be written alongside the objective: the indicators by which the objective will be tracked, the timetable for reviews and the people with whom those conversations will be held.

Discussing this structure while the appointment decision is being taken makes the later stages easier. Setting out the monitoring rhythm in writing alongside the term, the fee structure and the scope allows both parties to begin with the same expectation. A request for monitoring raised after the assignment has started, by contrast, can be read as hesitation about the manager's performance.

Determining the indicators carries a particular difficulty in interim assignments. Because the term is limited, some of the indicators used in annual objectives do not produce results within it. In a restructuring assignment the full cost effect may emerge a year later while the assignment runs for six months. Indicators are therefore defined in two layers: outputs expected to be completed within the term, and effects to be tracked afterwards. The first layer remains the interim executive's responsibility, the second is transferred to the permanent team.

Specificity matters when outputs are defined. An output written as "improvement of processes" remains open to differing interpretation at the end of the term. Defining the same output as "standard workflows for two production lines documented and transferred to the team" also makes monitoring indisputable.

The review timetable is set according to the length of the assignment. In a six month assignment, holding the first review around the thirtieth day, the second at the midpoint and the third as handover preparation begins produces functional results. In assignments approaching a year, quarterly intervals form a more suitable rhythm. Writing the timetable at the outset also prevents a review from being read as a sign that something has gone wrong.

The number of indicators is also kept limited. In interim assignments, going beyond five or six turns monitoring into an exercise that consumes more time than the assignment itself. Selecting the elements that most affect the outcome keeps both the manager and the organisation looking at the same picture.

Identifying the counterpart is the third element. Within the organisation, an interim executive generally reports to the chief executive, the board or a shareholder representative. Keeping review conversations within that line prevents the assignment from becoming a subject of internal debate. We examined how the remit is clarified in our article How Is the Remit Clarified in Interim Management?.

How Interim Reviews Are Conducted

An interim review does not operate as a conventional performance appraisal. Its subject is not the manager's own output but the alignment of the assignment with the organisation's agenda. The conversation therefore runs on three questions: does the objective defined at the outset still hold, has an unforeseen obstacle arisen on the way to it, and is the support the organisation must provide being supplied in full.

The first question touches the point most often skipped in interim assignments. An organisation's priorities can change during the term. An acquisition process may accelerate, an expected investment decision may be deferred, or a key executive may depart. Such changes affect the scope directly. Where the objective needs updating, recording that in writing removes a significant share of the disputes that arise at the handover stage.

The first review differs from the others in content. Held around the thirtieth day, it covers the manager's initial observations about the area of the assignment. A gap between the picture the organisation anticipated when defining the remit and the picture found in practice is a common occurrence. Discussing that gap early allows the remainder of the term to be structured correctly. Assessing the first impressions from the team and close stakeholders in the same conversation also gives the organisation a second source on how the assignment is progressing.

The second question distinguishes the nature of the obstacle. The obstacles an interim executive encounters fall into two groups. Those that can be resolved within their own authority are treated as part of the assignment. Those requiring a decision by the organisation fall outside their scope for resolution and form the main agenda of the review. Where the limits of authority are reached, a timely decision by the organisation allows the term to be used efficiently.

Matters outside those three questions are not taken onto the review agenda. Details of daily operations, individual issues within the team and developments beyond the scope of the assignment are handled through other channels. Keeping the agenda narrow allows the conversation to stay short and to produce decisions.

The third question turns responsibility towards the organisation. Access to data, authority over the team, budget approval and permission to contact stakeholders are among the conditions the organisation must provide for an interim executive to produce results. When one of these is missing, results are delayed, and the reason for the delay is frequently attributed to the manager's performance. The review is the most practical measure preventing that attribution from being drawn incorrectly.

The way the conversation is conducted also shapes the outcome. Turning the review into a presentation leads the manager to spend a significant share of their time on preparation. Sharing the agenda in advance and conducting the review as a mutual assessment shortens it and allows open matters to be addressed realistically.

How the conversation is recorded also shapes the outcome. Rather than long reports, a one page note at each review is sufficient. The note covers the current form of the objective, completed outputs, matters left open and decisions awaited from the organisation. These notes accumulate into the skeleton of the handover file and reduce the need to prepare a separate document at the end of the term.

Indicators Tracked and the Organisation's Responsibility

The indicators tracked in interim assignments differ by type of assignment. What is tracked in a restructuring assignment is not what is tracked in an assignment that begins after an executive departure. Even so, certain headings are worth tracking in every assignment regardless of type:

•      Completion of the outputs defined at the outset against the timetable.

•      Time elapsed on matters awaiting a decision from the organisation.

•      Stability of the team during the term and movement in critical positions.

•      The stage reached in the transfer of expertise and the permanent team members receiving it.

•      The sustainability of stakeholder contact, particularly in client and supplier relationships.

•      Whether the measurement basis for effects to be tracked after the assignment has been prepared.

What these headings have in common is that they measure the process as well as the result. Because part of the result in interim assignments does not emerge within the term, tracking the signals that show the process is running correctly provides assurance for the organisation.

Who reports each indicator is also settled. While it is usual for the interim executive to report their own outputs, using organisational data on headings such as team stability and stakeholder relationships produces a more reliable picture. Assessing both sources together prevents a one sided reading of how the assignment is progressing.

Tracking the transfer of expertise occupies a distinct place among these headings. Whether an interim assignment produces lasting value depends on the structure that remains after the manager leaves. Carrying out the transfer throughout the assignment rather than at its end turns the handover from a formal delivery into a natural completion. We set out how the handover stage is designed in our article How Is the Handover Carried Out When an Interim Assignment Is Completed?.

Monitoring carries particular weight in assignments spanning several locations or countries. As the area of the assignment disperses, the organisation's direct observation of its progress diminishes. Increasing the frequency of reviews and defining separate outputs for each location allows the whole picture to remain visible. In cross border assignments carried out through the Valtus Alliance network, this structure also regulates the flow of information between the local team and the centre.

Recognising early warning signs is likewise part of monitoring. Reviews being postponed, notes growing shorter, decisions awaited from the organisation accumulating and questions about the reporting line increasing within the team are among the first signals that something in the assignment has gone off course. Responding to these signals in good time prevents a loss that cannot be recovered by the end of the term.

The organisation's responsibility does not end with maintaining the monitoring structure. Responding to what the review brings to light is equally decisive. If a matter awaiting a decision remains open across two reviews, part of the term effectively cannot be used. To prevent this, reviews are best held with the participation of the person holding decision making authority.

The decision to extend or to conclude an assignment early also emerges from this monitoring structure. In assignments where the objective is met earlier than foreseen, extending the term creates cost for the organisation. Where the scope has widened, an extension is required. When either decision rests on the interim notes, it ceases to be a matter of dispute between the parties.

Drawing on the management consultancy experience we have built since 1992 and our Valtus Alliance Turkey partnership, you may contact us at info@eande.com.tr to design your interim management assignments together with their monitoring structure.