Few, if any, organisations would dispute the premise that their adaptability to changing markets and new technologies lies at the heart of their very survival, let alone their long-term prosperity. That, in turn, dictates the continual flexibility they need in the talents, capabilities and organisational ‘fit’ of the people they employ - be they temporary or permanent.

Over the last two decades, interim management has become increasingly recognised and respected as a vital flexible option for an organisation’s recruiters to carry in their resourcing toolkit. The recent formation of the Interim Management Association’s IMA Institute provides a further important step in the professional recognition of interim managers and the Code of Conduct to be upheld by its practitioners.

How ironic, then, that precisely at a time when the professionalism of the IM industry’s leading practitioners is being driven to new highs, we are witnessing an increasing commoditisation of the way interim managers are being resourced by both providers and end users.

In the public sector in particular, the combined impact of EU legislation and the drive to demonstrate procurement savings is in danger of hijacking the very foundations on which the reputation of professional interim managers and their value has been built. HR departments are understandably under pressure from central government to reduce recruitment costs. In principle, the adoption of Preferred Supplier
Agreements or Frameworks offers a sensible approach to accrediting resource providers who have demonstrated that they can satisfy the qualifying criteria at the most competitive prices. The problems arise when the application of a system intended to speed up the recruitment process, provide a quality benchmark and cut costs, adopts a ‘one size fits all’ approach without due consideration of the ‘value chain’ required for a given resource.

Perhaps both HR and providers need to give fuller voice to the understanding and delivery of ‘value’ appropriate to particular recruitment needs

There are sound reasons why senior permanent roles in an organisation require a more rigorous approach to their recruitment than more junior ones. So why, then, is there the presumption that a common approach for all levels is workable across the whole spectrum of non-permanent recruitment? Interim management provision, in its pure form, places a high value on the knowledge and understanding of the client organisation, agreeing a specific brief, and matching that to the providers first-hand knowledge of candidates with the right skills and ‘fit’ to a client’s needs.

More than that, the mentoring and skills transfer that is a crucial part of the lasting legacy that an interim executive can impart at middle to upper management level typically gets scant consideration in this homogenous approach.

The unplanned consequence of a more commoditised approach to resourcing interim managers is a lowering of the ‘added value’ that original concept provided. A decade ago client satisfaction levels with interim managers were in the high 90s percentiles. Today, with tighter margins and requirements going out to typically 10 providers (and in some instances multiple frameworks then ‘short-listing’ as many as 20 to 30 providers) those proven standards risk being ‘trimmed’ along the whole length of this ‘value chain’ as providers adapt their business models to market conditions. The prospect of receiving 50 or more CVs for a given role may be ensuring competition but does no favours for the
administrative cost and execution of the whole process.

Whilst the presentation of the interim management process on paper may not change, the ‘real and present danger’ lies in service providers adopting a less rigorous practical application from candidate sourcing and registration, through to interviewing and referencing. Regular audits clearly offer some safeguards but it is a cause for concern when the outcomes of high profile tenders across a wide range of professional service categories can often conclude with notable omissions of providers who are widely recognised by their peers as leaders in their field.

Current moves to merge the Office of Government Commerce’s core specialist contractor and interim management frameworks risks diluting the distinctive characteristics of interim managers still further.

The current over-reliance currently being put on ISO9001 and the other ‘tick box’ quality criteria may be a convenient mechanism for weeding out bidders between pre-qualification and tender stages but enduring reputations in the recruitment sector are built up over many years on the quality and integrity of client relationships and delivery excellence that carry far greater significance. HR professionals themselves need no advice on that score, but perhaps both HR and providers need to give fuller voice to the understanding and delivery of ‘value’ appropriate to particular recruitment needs.

Clive Bennett is client services director of executive talent management provider, Brooklands Executives