Our sector itself calls for agility. Subsidies come and go, projects have peak and off-peak periods, and opportunities arise with a short deadline. We want to direct every euro we can toward the substance: toward the people we work for. We embrace the sharing economy for cars, meeting rooms, accounting packages, and joint purchasing centers. We know that we cannot train, support, and help someone grow in every discipline.
And yet we hesitate when it comes to temporary leadership or expertise. Temporarily bringing in an external leader or senior expert is still unusual in many non-profits and social profit organizations, or is seen as a last resort. That is hard to reconcile with the logic we do follow for everything else. Time to turn that hesitation into action.
Many forms, one logic
Hiring temporary leadership or senior expertise comes in many forms. Sometimes it is about someone temporarily taking over a vacated position: the general director who drops out, the business director who retires, the operations manager who takes a sabbatical. Sometimes someone is brought in for a defined sprint: a fundraising professional who sets up a major campaign, a business developer who opens up new partnerships, a financial director who guides an organization through a transition, a specialist who leads an audit process or translates new legislation into operations. Sometimes someone supports the start of a merger, the launch of a new line or the rollout of a renewed strategy.
And sometimes it is about periodic presence: a senior finance professional who sits in the management team two days a month and keeps the general director sharp on the numbers, an HR professional who participates one day a week. The same logic, a different cadence: fully present for a defined period, or present to a limited extent on an ongoing rhythm.
What all these forms share: they are senior profiles, close to the board or management team, with a mandate to help decide or to push things forward. Often title holders such as 'head of', director or leading specialist. The content differs by organization and by moment. The form adapts to what is needed.
Temporary and part-time: both have their place
Temporary presence and part-time presence are often mentioned in the same breath, and it is useful to see both separately. Temporary means: fully present for a defined phase. Often a few months, sometimes longer. The trajectory has a clear beginning and end. Part-time means: present to a limited extent on an ongoing rhythm. A fixed day per week, two days per month, a presence that can last for years.
Both forms are valuable, and organizations regularly combine them. Temporary works for sprints, transitions and clearly defined files. Part-time works for expertise you need structurally without a full-time hire being appropriate, or for a role that will never become full-time in your organization. And a temporary assignment can, if both parties want it, evolve into a longer engagement at a different rhythm.
My own practice shows this. I have been working with about four organizations for more than five years, with assignments that shrink and grow in line with what the organization needs. Sometimes intensively for a few months, sometimes a few days per month. Officially 'temporary', in practice a long-term partnership. Quite consistent for someone who is formally called 'external'.
“I have been working with around four organizations for more than five years, with assignments that shrink and grow in line with what the organization needs.”
What your organization gains
Bringing in an external leader or expert temporarily pays off on several fronts.
- Speed of deployment. A recruitment cycle can easily take four to six months. For a dossier with an approaching deadline, that is unfeasible. An experienced external professional can be at the table within a week, bringing their track record with them. The learning curve on the basics is already behind them, so attention can immediately shift to your issue.
- Momentum on deadlines that would otherwise slip. Project bottlenecks often arise because the existing team is already overloaded. The external professional brings focus and time to one specific dossier, and meets the deadline that had already been pushed back internally for months.
- Breathing room for the team. Preparing an audit, building a multi-year budget, translating new legislation: it keeps being added on top. The person who takes on the burden gives employees breathing space for the work they chose.
- Independence and a fresh critical perspective. An external professional stands outside the organization’s power dynamics. As a result, they ask questions that have long been avoided internally, name what remained unnamed, and see patterns that were dismissed internally as obvious. Confidentiality remains strictly safeguarded.
- Recognizing patterns from other contexts. Someone who has seen multiple organizations knows how similar challenges have been addressed elsewhere. That frame of reference often saves months of searching and helps get to the core more quickly.
- Knowledge that sticks. A good external professional comes in to make themselves redundant. They help design the process, write templates, train internal people, and build a rhythm that continues after their departure. What was previously tied to one person becomes organizational property.
- Bridge to the permanent solution. When a hire proves necessary afterward, you buy time in the meantime to define the right profile clearly. The external professional documents what they do, hands it over to the new colleague, and ensures a soft landing.
- Stronger governance information. An audit process or multi-year budget under external direction often produces the first real management information on which the board and leadership can consistently steer. That quality remains, even after the process is complete.
No wolf in sheep's clothing
The hesitation I often hear feels like the fear that you are bringing in something that appears harmless, but ultimately undermines your self-direction, drains your budget, or leaves your organization detached. The image of a wolf in sheep's clothing. Practice points in the other direction. On one condition: you define the framework in advance.
The cost question in the right perspective
An external expert costs more per hour than a permanent staff member. At first glance, that is true. Calculating the full cost paints a different picture. A permanent staff member costs much more than the gross salary on the payslip. Employer contributions, holiday pay, year-end bonus, sick days, training budget, laptop, phone subscription, insurance, onboarding, support from HR and accounting: it all adds up. Include the moments when someone is getting up to speed, easing back in after leave, or leaving again.
An external expert sends one invoice. The entire cost is included in it. What you use, you pay for. What you leave aside stays outside your budget. With the salary scales that weigh on our sector, that counts double. And when the expertise is sufficient for two to three months, any comparison falls away anyway.
Loyalty lies in the relationship
We automatically link intention, loyalty, and knowledge to an employment contract. When you recruit, you get someone who "really chooses the organization". When you hire externally, you get someone who "is just coming in to do it for a little while". That reflex runs deep in our sector, and reality points in the other direction. Loyalty lies in people, in the relationship, in the work you deliver together. A driven external expert who works with your organization for years often brings more continuity than an employee who leaves within six months.
The sharing economy paradox in our own ranks
In non-profit and social profit, we are fans of the sharing economy as long as it happens outside ourselves. For our target groups, we advocate sharing instead of owning, collaboration instead of fragmentation, solidarity instead of everyone for themselves. At the same time, we want every manager on our own payroll and feel uncomfortable when a fellow organization shares a director or expert. That paradox contributes to the hesitation, and it is healthy to name it honestly.
A good framework makes the difference
Temporary leadership or expertise delivers the most when you frame it clearly: a clear mandate, an agreed start and end point, and attention to handover from day one. Without those frameworks, every good arrangement drifts into non-commitment, or quietly grows into a permanent stopgap that neither party wants. A good external expert asks for that framework herself, because her business model stands or falls by the value she leaves behind. So no wolf, but a professional who leaves as soon as the work is done.
The pitfalls I see in practice are always linked to a lack of that framework: an assignment that is defined too broadly, an end date that keeps shifting, too little connection with the culture, or no plan for what comes after the external expert. Those who agree on these four things in advance defuse most of the risks.
What this work gives me
Honestly, this work also makes me better. With every new organization, I see different systems, different choices, different pain points. I understand more quickly what is organization-specific and where the sector as a whole is under pressure. I share best practices where I can; confidential information stays within the walls where it belongs.
I enjoy working on an interim basis as a general director, business leader, sometimes in an operational role. I like to have my boots in the mud. That brings dynamism, speed, and the feeling that I can truly contribute. It allows me to build business connections between organizations that need one another.
Why through S&L
That I do this through S&L is a conscious choice. A cooperative place with a group of experts together, where we work for the sector. In concrete terms, that means: learning from colleagues, being able to bring in a colleague when the assignment calls for it, checking in with someone with different experience. Working strategically and strengthening organizations from within at the same time. I strongly believe in that. Together, we help build a different narrative for and with civil society. Today’s society shows the necessity of this every day.
In conclusion
Which roles require continuity on the payroll? Which temporary leadership or expertise is fully or only partially available? That question deserves an open discussion at the board table. The answer differs for each organization.
The internal logic of our sector has been pointing in the same direction for years. We ask for flexibility, we direct every euro we can toward the content, we cannot train someone for every discipline, and we believe in sharing. Hiring temporary leadership and expertise fits the same reasoning. Our inhibitions do not.
The hesitation can be set aside. Simply common sense, and high time we dared to call it that.
