Organisations often appoint an interim leader when something cannot wait. A key position is vacant, performance is deteriorating, a transformation has stalled or the organisation requires temporary stability.
The urgency may be clear. The assignment frequently is not.
An interim leader is brought in and expected to take responsibility, create direction and deliver results. Yet the authority to make decisions remains uncertain. Different stakeholders hold different expectations. Existing managers do not know where their responsibilities end, while the interim leader is held accountable for matters outside their control.
This is not primarily a leadership problem. It is a mandate problem.
Research describes interim leadership as a distinct cycle involving entry, execution and departure, not simply as permanent management performed for a shorter period. The temporary nature of the position affects how authority is established, relationships are formed and results are transferred back to the organisation.
A clear mandate must therefore come before the assignment begins.
The Mandate Comes Before the Manager
Before selecting an interim leader, the organisation must determine what the assignment is meant to achieve.
Is the immediate requirement to:
- stabilise operations;
- restore performance;
- lead a defined transformation;
- prepare the organisation for growth;
- resolve a governance problem; or
- temporarily replace an executive?
These situations require different capabilities, priorities and degrees of authority. Treating them as the same type of assignment creates confusion from the outset.
A mandate is more than a job description. It defines the problem, the intended outcome, the boundaries of the role and the conditions under which the interim leader must operate.
When these elements remain unclear, even an experienced interim leader must first negotiate the assignment while supposedly already executing it. Valuable time is then spent resolving expectations that should have been settled before the appointment.
Responsibility Requires Authority
Organisations sometimes want an interim leader to carry full responsibility while retaining most decision-making authority elsewhere.
That arrangement does not work.
Responsibility without authority creates the appearance of leadership but not the ability to lead. Decisions are delayed, difficult issues are repeatedly escalated and employees receive mixed signals about who is actually in charge.
Research on role ambiguity consistently shows that insufficient clarity about responsibilities and expectations is associated with weaker performance. In an interim assignment, the risk is greater because the available time is limited and the leader must establish legitimacy quickly.
This does not mean granting unrestricted authority. It means making the limits explicit.
The organisation should be clear about which decisions the interim leader may take independently, which require consultation and which remain reserved for the board, owner or permanent executive team.
If the organisation is unwilling to grant the authority required to deliver the result, it must also adjust the result for which the interim leader will be held accountable.
Define the Decision Space
A workable mandate should answer practical questions before they become sources of conflict:
- May the interim leader change the organisational structure?
- Can budgets and resources be reallocated?
- What authority exists over recruitment, performance and dismissal?
- Which commercial or operational commitments may be made?
- What requires approval from the board or owner?
- Who resolves disagreements between the interim leader and existing management?
These questions may appear procedural, but they determine whether the assignment can succeed.
The answers also need to be communicated. Authority that exists only in a contract but is not recognised by the wider organisation has little practical value.
Employees, managers and relevant stakeholders must understand why the interim leader has been appointed, what the assignment covers and where decision-making responsibility now sits.
The Sponsor Must Remain Involved
A clear mandate does not remove the need for active sponsorship.
The board member, owner or executive commissioning the assignment must remain available to test priorities, remove obstacles and make decisions that fall outside the interim leader’s authority.
This relationship should not become daily interference. Its purpose is to protect the mandate and maintain clarity when circumstances change.
Regular contact should focus on a limited set of issues:
- progress against the agreed outcomes;
- material risks and dependencies;
- decisions requiring sponsor approval;
- resistance or conflict affecting delivery; and
- changes that require the mandate to be reconsidered.
Where several stakeholders act as sponsor, one person should still hold final responsibility. An interim leader cannot operate effectively when receiving competing instructions from different parts of the organisation.
Stabilise Before Transforming
Urgency often creates pressure to demonstrate immediate action. That does not justify changing the organisation before understanding it.
The first phase of an interim assignment should establish the operational reality: current performance, financial exposure, stakeholder expectations, existing commitments and the organisation’s ability to absorb further change.
Some problems require immediate intervention. Others are symptoms of deeper structural issues. Acting before distinguishing between the two can create activity without improvement.
Stabilisation is not passivity. It is the process of securing essential operations, identifying the most serious risks and creating enough clarity to make deliberate decisions.
Only then should broader transformation begin.
The limited duration of an interim assignment can sharpen priorities and accelerate action. Research also suggests that an interim leader’s partial outsider position can support knowledge transfer: the leader brings experience from elsewhere while working closely enough with the organisation to translate it into the local context.
That advantage is lost when speed becomes a substitute for judgement.
Make the Assignment Transferable
An interim assignment is incomplete if its results depend on the continued presence of the interim leader.
From the beginning, the work should therefore be designed for transfer. Decisions must be documented, responsibilities placed within the permanent organisation and relevant knowledge shared during the assignment—not only during the final week.
This involves more than producing a handover document. The organisation must understand:
- what has changed and why;
- which risks remain;
- who owns the next decisions;
- which routines or capabilities have been established; and
- what the incoming permanent leader should preserve or reconsider.
Research into interim management shows that knowledge transfer occurs through everyday interaction and shared work. It cannot be postponed entirely until departure.
A successful interim leader should leave the organisation more capable of continuing without them.
What a Clear Mandate Should Contain
At minimum, the mandate should define:
- The reason for the appointment
The organisational problem or opportunity requiring temporary leadership. - The intended outcomes
The results expected by the end of the assignment. - The scope of responsibility
The functions, teams, markets or decisions included and excluded. - The decision-making authority
What the interim leader may decide independently and what requires approval. - The sponsor and reporting line
Who commissions the work, resolves obstacles and evaluates progress. - The time horizon and review points
The expected duration and the moments at which the mandate will be reassessed. - The available resources
The people, budget, information and organisational support required. - The transfer and exit criteria
What must be embedded, documented or handed over before the assignment ends.
The mandate may change when circumstances change. But such changes should be deliberate and explicit. Allowing the assignment to expand informally while authority and resources remain unchanged is a predictable route to failure.
Temporary Role, Lasting Responsibility
Interim leadership is often introduced under pressure. That makes clarity more important, not less.
The individual appointed must understand the result they are expected to deliver. The organisation must understand the authority that delivery requires. Both must agree how progress will be assessed and how responsibility will return to the permanent organisation.
A strong interim leader can provide focus, independent judgement and momentum at a consequential moment. But experience alone cannot compensate for an unclear assignment.
Before asking who should lead, the organisation should first decide what that person will truly be authorised to do.
David Monge Vega is the founder and independent adviser at Monge Vega Advisory.
Selected sources
- Fisher, J.-A., Newman, A. & Sendjaya, S. (2024). Interim Leadership: A Systematic Literature Review and Future Research Agenda. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 150, 103974.
- Woods, S.A., Diprose, N., Murphy-Diprose, M. & Thomas, G. (2020). Effective Interim Leadership and Management: Development of a Cyclical Model of Interim Assignments. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, 7(2), 173–190.
- Tubre, T.C. & Collins, J.M. (2000). Jackson and Schuler Revisited: A Meta-Analysis of the Relationships Between Role Ambiguity, Role Conflict, and Job Performance. Journal of Management, 26(1), 155–169.
- Rubin, V. (2025). Leveraging Liminality: How the Interim Manager’s Liminal Position Facilitates Knowledge Transfer to Client Organizations. The Learning Organization, 32(2), 169–190.
