Unleashed Productivity, Empowered Flexibility

The workplace landscape has witnessed a significant shift in recent times, challenging the conventional belief that physical presence is an absolute requirement for employees. This changing perspective has also influenced interim managers, who are increasingly valuing the flexibility of remote work. The question that arises is whether the presence of an interim manager on-site is truly necessary, or if remote assignments can offer a viable alternative. While each situation may vary, there are certain factors to consider when deciding between on-site and remote interim management.

In many cases, having an interim manager on-site during the initial two weeks of a project proves beneficial. This period allows for a smooth onboarding process, enabling the interim manager to familiarize themselves with the organization's processes and establish crucial contacts. The face-to-face interaction during this critical phase facilitates building trust and understanding the organizational culture, which can lay the foundation for a successful assignment.

However, once the onboarding process is complete, transitioning to a remote assignment can offer multiple advantages. Firstly, by adopting a remote approach, the pool of potential interim managers expands significantly. Organizations can tap into a broader talent pool, accessing professionals who may not have been available if physical presence was mandatory. This widens the scope of expertise and skills that can be brought to a project, potentially leading to better outcomes.

From a cost perspective, remote interim management can be a more cost-effective alternative. With on-site assignments, expenses such as travel time, accommodation, and related costs can quickly accumulate. By eliminating these expenses, organizations can allocate their resources more efficiently and potentially invest in other areas of the project. Additionally, remote assignments save professionals from charging for travel time, making it a more attractive option for both parties.

However, it is crucial to acknowledge that not all roles or projects are suitable for remote work. Certain positions, such as team leaders or individuals responsible for identifying and addressing problems within teams or specific processes, may require on-site presence. For example, in an HR project focusing on absence management, on-site discussions with production employees may be necessary to optimize work conditions and allocate resources effectively. Direct interaction and observation can play a pivotal role in these scenarios, making on-site presence indispensable.

Conversely, there are roles where on-site presence is not mandatory. Take the case of a project manager overseeing an ERP implementation or a regional controller without on-site contacts. These roles primarily involve coordinating and overseeing tasks rather than requiring physical proximity. In such situations, a remote interim manager can effectively fulfill their responsibilities without compromising the project's success.

Ultimately, the choice between on-site and remote interim management depends on the specific requirements of the project and the nature of the role. Striking the right balance between the advantages of physical presence during the initial phase and the benefits of remote work thereafter is key. It is important to carefully evaluate the needs of the project and consider the potential impact of each approach on its success.