The interim manager – a catalyst for organizational learning?

Abstract

Purpose Interim managers (IMs) are consultants who take on managerial positions during limited periods to perform changes, handle crises or cover vacancies. The increasing use of these short-term outsiders shapes new conditions for organizational learning in contemporary work life. The purpose of this paper is to contribute to research-based knowledge and theoretical understanding of the relationship between interim management and organizational learning. Design/methodology/approach The paper presents a literature review on interim management published within the years 2000–2020 and analyzes it through the lens of organizational learning. Findings An interim management assignment is characterized by a period of uncertainty, a limited time frame, knowledge from the outside and rather invisible outcomes. The concepts of shared mental models, dialogue, knowledge creation and organizational culture shed light on possibilities and constraints for organizational learning in these arrangements. The findings highlight the IM’s position as central for transforming the organizational culture, put a question mark for the establishment of the IM’s knowledge, show the need for defining outcomes in terms of learning processes and indicate tensions between opportunities for dialogue and the exercise of power. Originality/value The study provides a new conceptual understanding of interim management, laying the foundation for empirical studies on this topic from an organizational learning perspective.

What are organisations even there for? A call for deeper double-loop learning

“…A specific point between organisational remembering, forgetting and potentially unlearning is taken by the role of interim managers (IMs) and how they contribute to OL. The article by Rubin and Ohlsson (2022) problematizes the difficult role IMs have in OL, especially in terms of knowing what happened before them and making sure that their impact is not forgotten. Their role might be even more transient than PBOs and often takes place in times of heightened uncertainty, leadership gap or crises.…”

“…But a deep value-driven double-loop learning re-examining the purpose of each organisation in the current society is needed. This article summarises key implications for practitioners from articles included in this Issue 4, starting from double feature by Somaskandan, Arulandu, and Parayitam (2022a, 2022b) exploring individual learning, organisational learning and organisational commitment elements; Barbosa, Carvalho, Choo, Versiani, and Pedron (2022) exploring organisational memory in project-based organisations (PBOs); Acharya and Mishra (2022) interviewing Prof Eric Tsang on organisational unlearning; Rubin and Ohlsson (2022) investigating interim managers (IMs) impact on OL; Avby (2022) offering pragmatist perspectives on ambidextrous organisations and finishing with a study on US higher education institutions (HEIs) response to COVID19 early pandemic and how it affected their learning. This implications paper is structured around the themes of changing organisational commitment, organisational memory and the balance between different types of learning in times of change.…”