Are You All In?
The Evidence That Interim and Fractional Executives Are Fully Committed
“Until one is committed there is hesitancy, the chance to draw back, always ineffectiveness.”
from W.N. Murray
I received an email from a start-up founder recently that read:
“I'm not completely comfortable bringing an outside, non-committed, part-time person to figure our sales process out at this stage.”
Since I am in the business of placing interim and fractional sales leaders into companies, I was immediately tempted to share my belief that those executives tend to be more committed:
“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 this 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 to research…
SHRM defines employee engagement and commitment as the “employees’ satisfaction with their work and pride in their employer, the extent to which people enjoy and believe in what they do for work and the perception that their employer values what they bring to the table.”
And they go on to say: “Because commitments require an investment of time as well as mental and emotional energy, most people make them with the expectation of reciprocation. … In the world of work, employees and employers have traditionally made a tacit agreement: In exchange for workers’ commitment, organizations would provide forms of value for employees, such as secure jobs and fair compensation. Reciprocity affects the intensity of a commitment. When an entity or individual to whom someone has made a commitment fails to come through with the expected exchange, the commitment erodes.”
However, fundamental changes in the work context weaken the applicability 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. This temporary employment within the context of an organization covers a broad spectrum of arrangements, including fixed-term employment contracts, on-call employment, temporary agency employment, in-house temporaries, and independent contractors.
In another article, SHRM recognizes this trend and states: “While one might argue that external workers do not really need to identify with the company or embody its values or frankly even exert discretionary effort on the job, that way of thinking is likely tied to an outdated view on external workers where they only fulfill ancillary, supportive roles that are minimally important to the business.
Today, however, 64% of organizations state that external workers are critical for companies’ ability to meet their operational demands, innovate new products and services, and execute their business strategy. Today, external workers often have such size and impact within a company that they can no longer be considered a “necessary evil” with minimal expectations associated with them; instead, they need to be viewed (and treated) as a critical workforce segment and key factor for business success.”
In temporary work settings, the ‘commitment’ of a permanent employee is replaced with other types of workplace bonds. With the absence of an organization offering a sustainable work relationship characterized by job security, career development, and positive attitudes, the short time frame may accentuate transactional obligations, rather than a relational bond involving reciprocity.
The expectation of a lower commitment or a lesser value of a transactional type of bond by temporary employees compared to permanent employees has not materialized empirically. Indeed, several studies have found that temporary workers can display similar or even higher levels of commitment than permanent workers.
Haden, Caruth, and Oyler conclude at the end of their study: “Few statistically significant differences between temporary and permanent employees were found. However, significant relationships between organizational commitment, trust, and fairness were revealed among both temporary and permanent employee groups.”
Yvonne van Rossenberg in her article The Future of Workplace Commitment, provides a further observation: “An alternative implication of working in a temporary work setting is the substitution of organizational commitment for other targets that may be more long term in nature, such as the job, career, or profession. Rather than investing in various transient relationships, workers’ main attention may shift towards securing future assignments through task performance and professional reputation, which further differentiate temporary workers from permanent employees.”
As a final part of my research, I wanted to narrow the focus from temporary workers to temporary executives. These are seasoned individuals that have held permanent leadership roles for two decades or more, and that are now coming into an organization to take a similar leadership role on an interim or fractional basis.
Mike Braun, chief executive of The Interim CEO Network, in quoted as saying: “A concern that often crops up when a company is deciding whether to hire an executive temp, is fear that the person won’t be committed or serious, acting only as caretaker when a real leader and driver is needed. [However] people who hold these jobs are intensely committed to doing good work. They are just wired this way.
I think companies stand a greater chance of losing a permanent executive than an interim one. 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.”
And the author and workplace guru Daniel Pink was quoted in an HBR article about interim and fractional executives: “Corporate leaders need to recognize that in many cases the very, very best talent is in this piece of the population.”
Closing the circle, here are my three top observations why contracted interim executives are more committed and engaged than many of their permanent peers:
1. Reputation is the key to securing the next assignment.
2. They are keenly interested in expanding their network and obtaining a referral from every assignment.
3. They are often in a try-before-you-buy situation where the temporary assignment may lead to permanent employment.
Talk to us to find out how talent from our roster can foster the success of your organization.
__________________
SHRM – Employee Engagement and Commitment
Yvonne van Rossenberg – The future of workplace commitment: key questions and directions
Haden, Caruth, Oyler – Temporary and Permanent Employment in Modern Organizations
SHRM – Engaging External Workers: Fostering Commitment From Temporary Workers
SHRM – Short-Term Executives
HBR – The Rise of the Supertemp
Photo by Anne Gosewehr