Staying the Course is the Lifeline of the Interim Executive Director

As an interim, you need to get familiar with an organization within a year or two. How do you go about getting results in a short period of time while maintaining a connection with the organization
Schraverus: ‘You must be consistent in your behavior. My approach is very friendly and I maintain that demeanor to the bitter end. Of course, I sometimes get thoroughly irritated, but always behind closed doors. Additionally, you must be able to make a quick analysis and then clarify your assessment. I usually do this by breaking down large problems and solving them piece by piece. This often makes it seem less complicated to the organization than what it in fact might be. I also avoid pigeonholing; even though the problems you encounter may share some common features, each organization requires a different approach to management and problem-solving.’
Van Miltenburg: ‘You need to find the solutions together with the people in the organization. From day one, I make it very clear that they will probably have to continue without me and that my function is to help them discover what needs to be done, so they do not regress after I leave. I am not instructing them what to do. The strength of an interim executive director is that you have no past and no future within the organization. I can, without the burden of the past, outline why they got into trouble and frankly explain how to prevent it happening again in the future, as I am not part of that future.
As an interim, you are a bit teflon-like: independent and elusive because you cannot become a pawn in the interests at play. You know in advance that everyone will try to influence you because everything is important and everything needs to get done. Once you have set a course, it is crucial to stick to it consistently. Staying the course is the lifeline of the interim.’

I can imagine employees having the sentiment that this man or woman has no past or future in the organization, so we need not concern ourselves with the process too seriously. How do you get them on board anyway?
Van Miltenburg: ‘I address this by creating a sense of urgency. This urgency does exist, as otherwise I would not have been brought in. This fact has, however, often not settled in fully. I attempt to bring this home by outlining potential scenarios should they continue with their current practices. I highlight the positives and negatives of their approach and ask: are we in this situation because of these negatives or did you underutilize the positive aspects? I also identify the barriers: where did you not get through? Why? And what will we do to overcome these barriers? I aim to make this clear in the first few weeks; otherwise, you would not get anywhere.’

You are brought in by the supervisory directors. How crucial is the Supervisory Board to the success of an interim?
Van Miltenburg: ‘A company facing significant challenges usually has a reason for it. It is a strong and positive action for supervisory directors to bring someone in to address and resolve these issues, but they were also part of the process. They sometimes need to be confronted with this firmly. There always tends to be someone who wants to get involved on a micro level and assume the executive role. I make it clear that this is disruptive and affects the entire organization, for example, when someone burdens the finance department with unnecessary tasks while the agreed-upon KPIs are being met.
What helps is that I also am a supervisory director and have served as an interim executive director in about 30 organizations. I can explain why these issues are problematic and how things are handled elsewhere. This helps shift the focus away from me personally and centers the relationship with the Supervisory Board on the issues and the assignment. At times during an assignment, the support of the Supervisory Board can be crucial.’
Schraverus: ‘You need to hold a mirror to the supervisory directors. Their attitude often is: 'This is about the rest of the organization, not about us.' However, if you want a shift to a different culture or way of working, the supervisory directors need to recalibrate too. During a crisis in the Management Board, you often see Supervisory Boards stepping forward, whereas exactly at such a time they need to remain firm in their own role. Of course, the board needs to address certain issues, but always in a supervisory role. As an interim, it is important to reestablish the clear boundaries between management and supervision quickly. This is challenging, especially in smaller organizations. The board also often functions not as a team, but as a group of individuals who each act separately - when they should be operating as a team. The chair’s role is to unify the team, which involves working on the dynamics and addressing weak spots. I have seen situations where one member of the Supervisory Board was a major disruptor. This is tough for the chair, since he or she is not ‘the boss’.  Still, it must be addressed, no matter how uncomfortable. You need to make sure the disruptive person adjusts his or her behavior to enable progress. If necessary, it may be necessary for the chair to unite with other board members to encourage that person to step down.’

It must be quite challenging to hold a mirror to a Supervisory Board, considering they are also your clients.
Schraverus: ‘They are my employer and supervisors, but they are not my manager, according to the Governance Code. This is a crucial distinction. If they cannot fulfill their role properly, they should not be in that position.’

As an interim executive director, you often face significant challenges such as transitions or mergers. At Boer & Croon, we strongly believe in the combination of IQ, EQ, and RQ: the ability to achieve results and execute plans. How do you ensure that the changes you initiate do not leave when you leave?
Van Miltenburg: ‘I aim to introduce a mix of elements that are so robust that they cannot easily be discarded. This involves creating a sense of urgency and conveying the intended course together with the plan of action. If the key stakeholders in the organization explicitly support this, a successor will first need to work through all those layers to change course. Additionally, I always discuss with the supervisory directors where I think the potential Achilles' heels might arise, what follow-up steps are possible and what type of succession would be appropriate. It is then up to them to take this into account or not.’
Schraverus: ‘There are a number of things you as interim should avoid, allowing the next executive director the space to implement his or her own approach. For instance, if you establish a new top structure, you might bring in one or two new people, but the rest should be chosen by the new executive director. Generally, you focus on broad strokes: get the finances in order, set a course, start a culture and leadership program. The detailed execution should be left to your successor.
I also, in all my assignments, invest heavily in the relationship with the works council and client council, to include them in the process. Especially in small organizations, this tends to be people who do this in addition to their regular jobs and with good intentions, and they need a lot of support. I always ensure they have a professional writer, so their advice is well presented and does not immediately cause an uproar due to unfortunately chosen words. I also consistently emphasize that, by law, they are allowed to hire advisors and that they should make sure to take advantage of this.’

Besides mergers, you both have experience with de-mergers in the healthcare sector. You as a supervisory director of the Reinier Haga Groep, Mr. Van Miltenburg, and Ms. Schraverus as interim in the de-merger between the Slingeland Hospital and the Streekziekenhuis Koningin Beatrix. How can organizations prevent a merger from turning into a de-merger? 
Schraverus: ‘First and foremost, avoid changing executive directors during the merger. If the key proponents of the merger leave, it creates space for those who were opposed to it. Keep the board intact for at least one or two years after the merger. Additionally, ensure that the medical personnel integrate quickly because if the medical professionals cannot work together, it has the potential to blow apart. Set aside money to assist the different departments through the merger and also make sure that the notoriously difficult people get out of the way - because they can disrupt a whole department. Moreover, ensure a tight line of communication with the outside world, because at some point the various interest groups will get involved. Then you need to convey the same message, consistently, to everyone.’
Van Miltenburg: ‘Another crucial point is that a managerial merger often occurs first. If the legal merger is not initiated immediately afterward, the risk of conflicts is heightened, with individuals fiercely defending their own interests. There will always be someone opposed to a merger, which can lead to a stalemate should the legal work not be in place. The legal merger helps in maintaining the established course.’

Has the work of interim executive directors changed compared to 10 or 20 years ago?
Van Miltenburg: ‘Because of the many complexities, our work is now to a far greater extent influenced by content. This makes it even more important to separate content from the process. The people within the organization need to master the content, work with solutions and manage those. This is the reason I spend far more time reviewing the team, looking for hidden gems or then those who are constantly negative. The latter group needs to be motivated and encouraged to change their behavior, or if necessary, shown the door.’
Schraverus: ‘In this complexity, it helps that, as an interim, you can stay somewhat above the fray compared to a permanent executive director. The permanent executive director tends to get complacent after a while. Compare it to moving into a new house. In the beginning a loose electrical socket is annoying, but after three years you no longer even notice it. The same thing happens in organizations. It is, incidentally, also positive to not immediately get involved with everything as an executive director, it can provide a certain sense of calm.’
Van Miltenburg: ‘At the same time, that sense of calm is exactly that, only a sense, as the external world keeps changing and new generations of employees have different demands. You will never get into a calm, stable situation, so do the people the favor of waking them from that dream. Even for good executive directors, I daresay, in the interest of the organization, the shelf life is ideally four years. Then it is time for a change and for them to move on.’

And then you leave after one or two years. Do you follow up on how the organization is doing?
Schraverus: ‘Of course I keep an eye on them through LinkedIn or in the news, but I do not look back or get involved with the organization anymore. You played your part and now someone else has taken over. However, from each assignment, there are always one or two people I become friends with because we worked well together and it was enjoyable. But that always happens after I have left, never while I am still there.’
Van Miltenburg: ‘I always do an exit evaluation to assess whether I have succeeded in my assignment. That is my learning moment. After that, I do not look back and I am not really interested if things go differently from what I expected or hoped for. There are other people in place who may be making different choices.’

This article was published in Management Scope 07 2024.