The controversy surrounding Interim Management providers

I was recently approached by a renowned Interim Management provider for a mandate. The mandate sounded very exciting, but also quite challenging: CEO of several hundred employees, international travelling, high-tech environment, M&A.

Everything would have fitted my profile perfectly, except for the Daily rate. The provider offered me the same daily rate for this mandate that I had received for my first mandate in 2008 (also via a provider at the time). As if all my Interim Management experience of the last 16 years was worth nothing. In the meantime, I have developed further, successfully completed 18 mandates, completed an additional Master's programme, etc.

However, the offer to the end customer naturally included the usual commission of 35%, which the provider claims for itself. The end customer therefore continues to pay an overpriced price, of which the interim manager (who provides the service on a daily basis) sees little.

This experience makes me wonder a little. I have been working as an Interim Manager for almost 20 years now, was on the board of the DSIM (Dachverband Schweizer Interim Manager) and have made it my mission to coach newcomers to interim management. I know many of the providers personally and always look forward to a constructive exchange on the topic of Interim Management.

On the one hand, I recognise the Provider as an integral part of the Interim Management market, on the other hand, I am increasingly asking myself where the added value for the customer lies in this business model.

The providers' main argument for their inflated prices to their customers is the promise of being able to present "hand-picked" profiles. But here, too, I recently had another enquiry from a provider in the UK who called up profiles via LinkedIn but (in my view) didn't really understand the actual task of the mandate. How is the Interim Manager supposed to be able to distinguish himself to the end customer if his competences are not properly understood and represented?

For this reason, many of my more successful colleagues no longer offer their services via providers, but acquire them themselves on the market. This is more tedious at first, but if you consistently perform well and make a name for yourself, you can also find exciting mandates through your own network in this way. So why should a competent Interim Manager forgo 35% of his daily rate and let himself be represented by providers who cannot really recognise and pass on his skills? In most cases, these are newcomers (like me in 2008) who come to their first mandate in this way. Or they are Interim Managers who are pushed by the providers towards the end client due to their willingness to forego 35% of the daily rate. I question here whether the end customer (who should ultimately be the focus here) receives the right expertise for their mandate.

Meanwhile, some end customers have understood the problem and fulfil their needs by searching directly via the Internet/LinkedIn, or by using one of the national umbrella organisations contact. This may take a little more time, but you receive the service from the source and have direct contact with the subsequent service provider (without detours via blind profiles, etc.).

I am glad that over the last 16 years I have been able to build up my own network of partners and customers who recognise my performance and pay me fairly for it. If 100% of the remuneration falls to me, I am also willing to pay 100% (or more). Fair is fair.

Ich möchte hier nicht pauschalisieren und auch niemandem an den Karren fahren. Es gibt durchaus korrekt arbeitende Provider, welche auch für den Interim Manager eine Win-win Situation erarbeiten und die Kompetenz haben, den Endkunden kompetent zu beraten. Leider werden dies aus meiner Erfahrung aber immer weniger.