Henning Schwinum argues interim and fractional executives are often more engaged than permanent employees. Temporary workers can show equal or higher commitment, and interim executives especially are driven by reputation, referrals, and the chance of landing a permanent role.
Chapters
I received an email from a startup founder recently. It read, I'm not completely comfortable bringing in an outside, non committed part time person to figure our sales process out at this stage. Since I'm in the business of placing interim and fractional sales leaders into companies, I immediately shared my belief that those executives tend to be more committed. What I said was their future work relies upon referrals and a successful track record. Interim executives are paid on the understanding of goals and objectives being performed and delivered and not merely based on attendance. Is that true? Beyond belief, observation and color commentary from clients, is there evidence that a fractional and interim executive is more engaged and committed? That's when I started the research. SHRM defines employee engagement and commitment as the employee's satisfaction with their work and pride in their employer. The extent to which people enjoy and believe in what they do for work. Because these commitments require investment of time as well as mental and emotional energy, most people make them with the expectation of reciprocity. In the world of work, employees and employers have traditionally made this agreement. In exchange for the workers commitment, organizations will provide forms of value such as secure jobs and fair compensation. However, fundamental changes in the work context weaken the application of this traditional concept of reciprocity. By 2027, more than 50% of the US workforce will be engaged in some form of freelance or gig work. In temporary work settings, the commitment of a permanent employee is replaced with other types of workplace bonds. The short time frame may accentuate transactional obligations rather than a relational bond involving reciprocity. The expectation of a lower commitment of the transactional type of bond by temporary employees compared to permanent has not materialized empirically. Indeed, several studies have found that temporary workers can display similar or even higher levels of commitment than permanent workers. And the reason is that rather than investing in various transient relationships, workers main attention shift towards securing future assignments through task performance and professional reputation. Now let's narrow the focus from all temporary workers to just temporary executives. These are seasoned individuals that have held permanent leadership roles for two decades or more. They are now coming into an organization to take a similar leadership role on an interim or fractional basis. I think companies stand a greater chance of losing a permanent executive than an interim one. For starters, they are committed for a relatively limited period of time, which makes it easier to stay the course. And more important, these are senior professionals who understand the impact of both their arrival and departure. If they value their reputation, they won't make any sudden moves as it will reflect badly on them. To conclude, here are my top three why contracted interim executives are more committed and engaged than many of their permanent peers. 1. Reputation is key to securing the next assignment. 2. Interims are keenly interested in expanding their network and obtaining a referral from every assignment. 3. They are often in a situation where the temporary assignment can potentially lead to permanent employment.
