There is a situation almost every CFO knows, even if they rarely name it as such. The Head of Accounting resigns. Or is out due to illness. Or a project goes off the rails and the team is overloaded. Or an audit produces findings that must be addressed immediately.
In these moments a decision becomes necessary that many CFOs make for the first time: Do we look for a permanent hire who needs three to six months to become productive? Or do we bring in an interim manager who starts within 48 hours and immediately takes on responsibility?
Most CFOs who have made this decision once make it faster the next time. Not because interim management would be cheaper — it usually isn’t. But because it works. Because it closes the gap that no other option can close: immediate operational competence, without ramp-up time, without long-term commitment.
But interim management is no self-running success. There are CFOs who have excellent experiences with it and CFOs who are disappointed. The difference almost never lies with the interim manager alone. It lies in how the engagement is prepared, led, and embedded. And that responsibility lies with the CFO.
This article explains what interim management in accounting really means, which use cases exist, what distinguishes a good interim manager, and above all: what a CFO must do so that a mandate unfolds its full value.
What Interim Management in Accounting Is and What It Is Not
The most common false expectation CFOs bring into an interim mandate is the following: the interim manager comes, takes over a role, works through what’s on the list, and leaves again.
That is personnel substitution. Interim management is something else.
An experienced interim manager in accounting does not come to fill a position. They come to stabilize a situation, to build a structure, or to solve a problem that cannot be solved internally. The difference is fundamental because it determines what remains of the engagement when the interim manager leaves.
An interim manager deployed like a permanent hire leaves a gap that opens again when they leave. An interim manager deployed as a structure-setter leaves processes, documentation, control structures, and a team that can continue independently.
This distinction is not a question of the interim manager. It is a question of the CFO who defines the engagement.
What interim management in accounting concretely means: a professional with deep experience in a specific area — HGB, IFRS, or US-GAAP, SAP, Oracle, or Hyperion, year-end close, consolidation, or remediation — operationally enters an organization and takes responsibility for a defined goal in a defined time frame. They work in the system, not alongside it. They carry result responsibility, not advisory responsibility. And they actively transfer their knowledge into the organization rather than taking it with them upon departure.
What interim management is not: an expensive freelancer working through tasks. An external consultant who issues recommendations and leaves implementation to others. And not an all-rounder solving every problem the team currently finds uncomfortable.
Why CFOs Bring in Interim Managers and What Goes Wrong
There is an honest observation about the frequency of interim mandates that is rarely spoken aloud: many mandates arise because structural problems were ignored too long.
The Head of Accounting has signaled for months that they are overloaded. The ERP migration was scheduled too tightly. The audit findings from last year were not sustainably addressed. And then these problems accumulate into a situation requiring immediate action.
That is no accusation. It is a reality that arises in finance organizations under continuous pressure. The day-to-day competes with structural work, and the day-to-day almost always wins.
What a CFO must do in this situation is not just bring in an interim manager. They must simultaneously decide which structural problem they want to solve with the mandate. Not just stabilize the acute situation but ensure that the same situation does not arise again in 18 months.
The most common failure of interim mandates has a simple cause: the CFO defines the goal of the mandate too narrowly. They want to bridge the vacancy, complete the close, resolve the audit finding. Those are legitimate goals. But if they are the only goals, the mandate is over after six months and the structural weakness that caused the problem is still there.
A well-defined mandate always has two goals: an operational goal addressed in the short term, and a structural goal that has long-term effect. The operational goal is the trigger. The structural goal is the value.
The Use Cases: What Interim Managers in Accounting Concretely Deliver
Vacancy bridging: more than a stop-gap solution
Vacancy bridging is the most common deployment scenario and the most often wrongly dimensioned. A CFO whose Head of Accounting resigns initially thinks of bridging: someone to hold the position until a successor is found.
What they overlook: the departure of a key person is not just a personnel gap. It is a transparency gap. The departing person takes knowledge with them that is often documented nowhere. Booking logics that have grown over years. System configurations that only they fully understand. Informal contacts with auditors and internal stakeholders that are not transferred.
An interim manager entering this situation therefore has two tasks that must be done simultaneously. First, secure operational continuity: complete closes, lead the team, maintain communication with auditors and management. Second, secure and document the institutional knowledge so the successor doesn’t start from zero.
The second task is in many mandates not explicitly commissioned. It is taken for granted or not considered at all. That is a CFO mistake. Whoever commissions an interim manager without explicitly defining which knowledge should be anchored in the organization at the end of the mandate gives away a substantial part of the mandate’s value.
Typical mandate duration: six to twelve months, depending on the complexity of the organization and the time until onboarding the successor.
Closing projects: when the close becomes a permanent problem
There is a pattern observable in many finance organizations: the monthly close takes longer than it should. Each quarter there are the same discussions about the same bottlenecks. The year-end close becomes a marathon project that pushes the team to its limit.
When a CFO recognizes this pattern and commissions an interim manager for closing optimization, the natural expectation is: the interim manager analyzes the process, identifies bottlenecks, and makes the close faster.
That is correct, but incomplete. A good interim manager in the closing context does more than optimize processes. They ask why the bottlenecks arise. And the answer is almost always a combination of missing documentation, unclear responsibilities, and inadequate system integration.
These three causes cannot be remedied with process optimization. They require structural interventions: a clear closing checklist with named ownership for each step, a systematic documentation of booking logics, and a review of whether the ERP ensures the necessary integration between the relevant subledgers.
What the CFO must contribute is securing the interim manager’s decision authority. Closing optimization means redefining responsibilities, setting priorities that aren’t always popular, and sometimes saying that certain reporting requirements unnecessarily burden the closing process and should be reduced. These decisions can only be backed by the CFO.
Typical mandate duration: three to nine months, often extended when parallel system changes or audit remediation projects are running.
ERP implementations: why accounting competence decides system success
ERP projects rarely fail at the technology. They fail at the booking logic mapped in the system.
That sounds like a technical statement. It is a CFO-relevant statement. Because the consequence of an ERP project set up incorrectly from an accounting perspective directly hits close quality: wrong charts of accounts, missing subledger integration, mapping logics not compatible with the company’s tax and accounting requirements.
These problems arise when the accounting voice is too weak in an ERP project. IT consultants define the system by technical requirements. Business stakeholders define it by operational requirements. And the accounting requirements — the question how the system ensures the correct accounting representation — are addressed downstream or not at all.
An interim manager with ERP experience and deep accounting background has in this context a specific task: they are the accounting voice in the project. They define the booking logics and charts of accounts. They check the mapping files for accounting correctness. They test the subledger integration before the system goes live. And they ensure that go-live is not the start of a chaos scenario but a controlled transition.
What the CFO must do in this scenario:
Bring in the interim manager early, not just shortly before go-live but already in the blueprint phase. And explicitly give them the authority to enforce accounting requirements over technical optimization wishes.
Typical mandate duration:
nine to 18 months, often in waves from blueprint through migration to go-live and stabilization.
Remediation projects: why findings must not simply be closed
When an audit produces findings, the first reflex in many organizations is: who clarifies it? By when? Status: closed.
That is the problem leading to repeat findings. Findings formally closed without addressing the structural causes reappear at the next audit. With the addition that the organization already knew about the problem.
An experienced interim manager in the remediation context distinguishes between repair and remediation. Repair fixes the visible problem. Remediation fixes the visible problem, the cause, and the conditions under which the cause could arise.
That is not just a semantic distinction. It is an economic one. Repeat findings raise the audit risk profile of the organization, extend audit times, increase audit costs, and create loss of trust with auditors and management that is expensive to rebuild.
What the CFO must do in a remediation mandate goes beyond the commissioning. They must ensure that the governance framework exists that enables sustainable remediation: clear ownership for every finding, measurable acceptance criteria not defined by the responsible person themselves, and a control mechanism that checks after the formal closure of a finding whether the solution holds.
Typical mandate duration: six to 15 months, depending on the number of findings and the depth of structural causes.
M&A and carve-outs: the underestimated accounting complexity
With acquisitions and divestments, CFOs initially think of valuation, due diligence, and contract design. What often appears too late on the agenda is the operational accounting complexity that arises after the deal closes.
Systems must be separated.
New charts of accounts must be established.
Reporting lines must be adjusted.
Intercompany relationships newly arising or disappearing through the deal must be correctly represented in accounting.
And all of that must happen in parallel with the ongoing day-to-day business that takes no break because an M&A process is currently running.
An interim manager with M&A accounting experience brings into this situation a competency profile almost never available internally: understanding of the accounting logic of corporate transactions under IFRS 3, experience with carve-out structures, and the operational strength to work in parallel on multiple fronts without compromising quality.
What the CFO must do in this scenario is bring the interim manager in early enough. M&A accounting errors arising in the post-merger phase are expensive to correct and often produce years of rework.
Typical mandate duration: six to 18 months.
IFRS implementations: operational know-how beats theoretical knowledge
The introduction of new IFRS standards — whether IFRS 15, IFRS 16, or the currently relevant IFRS 18 — is no academic topic. It is an operational project that intervenes deeply in booking logics, system configurations, and reporting structures.
An interim manager who only knows a standard but has never operationally implemented it doesn’t help much. What is needed is someone who knows how the standard is mapped in an SAP system, what mapping decisions must be made when categorizing income and expenses, and what auditors want to see when reviewing these decisions.
IFRS 18 is the currently most relevant example. The standard fundamentally changes the presentation of the income statement: mandatory categories, stricter definitions of operating activity, complete reconciliation and definition of management defined performance measures. Companies believing IFRS 18 is a follow-on year topic significantly underestimate the implementation effort.
Typical mandate duration: nine to 24 months, depending on scope and the number of affected entities.
What Distinguishes a Good Interim Manager and How a CFO Recognizes It
There is a list of qualities that regularly appears in briefings about interim managers: technical depth, communication strength, implementation orientation. These qualities are necessary. But they are not sufficient criteria for selection.
What a CFO must additionally judge are qualities harder to see in the interview but decisive for mandate success.
The first quality is structural thinking under time pressure. A good interim manager doesn’t prioritize by what becomes loud first, but by what is important first. They distinguish between the symptom demanding immediate attention and the cause that must be systematically addressed. This ability shows in the first mandate conversation: does the candidate ask the right questions? Do they ask about causes or only about tasks?
The second quality is handover discipline. An interim manager who delivers excellent operational work but documents nothing and transfers nothing leaves an organization dependent on them. That is the opposite of what a mandate should deliver. The question in the selection conversation is: How do you ensure that your knowledge is anchored in the organization at the end of the mandate? The answer to this question shows more than any reference.
The third quality is conflict capability without conflict creation. Interim managers regularly encounter resistance in their work. Processes meant to be changed but no one wants to change. Responsibilities to be redefined but challenging existing power structures. A good interim manager navigates these situations with sobriety and persistence, without destroying the relationships they need for their work.
The fourth quality is independence at the right moment and escalation at the right moment. An interim manager who needs the CFO’s approval for every decision creates more effort than they solve. And an interim manager who makes decisions requiring CFO level without escalating creates risks. The right ratio between independence and escalation is one of the hardest skills and one of the most important.
The Preparation: What a CFO Must Do Before Mandate Start
The quality of an interim mandate is to a substantial degree determined before the first working day. What a CFO does or omits in the preparation phase directly influences how quickly the interim manager becomes productive and how much value the mandate leaves in the end.
The first step is the sharp definition of the mandate goal. Not “vacancy bridging” or “support the team”, but:
What should be concretely different at the end of the mandate than today?
Which processes should be documented?
Which structures should be established?
Which findings should not just be formally closed but sustainably resolved?
This definition must be in writing. Not as a bureaucratic act, but because writing forces clarity. What stays vague when spoken becomes concrete when written, or shows that it hasn’t been thought through concretely enough.
The second step is ensuring system access. An interim manager without ERP access on day one loses days that can’t be recovered. Setting up access to all relevant systems must be completed before the start day.
The third step is communication to the team. How the deployment of the interim manager is communicated determines how the team receives them. Communication that is unclear, creates anxieties, or gives the impression that the interim manager comes as a control instance creates resistance that costs weeks. Clear communication explaining the purpose of the mandate and defining the role of the interim manager in the team creates the foundation for fast integration.
The fourth step is naming an internal contact person. The interim manager needs someone in the company who establishes accesses, clarifies administrative questions, and is available as a sparring partner for the first weeks. That doesn’t have to be a manager, but it must be someone who knows the organization and is reachable.
The Leadership During the Mandate: What a CFO Must Not Delegate
There is a temptation many CFOs know: commission the interim manager and then let go. They are the expert, after all, they know what to do.
That is an invitation to disappointment.
An interim manager doesn’t need micromanagement. But they need CFO leadership in four specific areas that cannot be delegated.
The first area is resource decisions. An interim manager who identifies structural problems and recommends investments — whether in technology, personnel, or external support — needs a decision. No decision is a decision, and it is almost always the wrong one. CFOs who delay resource decisions force the interim manager into compromise solutions that only partially solve the problem.
The second area is escalations. When an interim manager escalates a situation, signaling that a problem requires CFO level, that is a signal deserving immediate attention. A CFO not reacting promptly to escalations sends the signal that problems in their organization have no consequences. That is the fastest means to undermine the mandate.
The third area is backing during structural changes. When an interim manager redefines responsibilities, changes processes, or makes uncomfortable decisions, they need the visible support of the CFO. Without this support, every structural change is contested and delayed by internal interest groups.
The fourth area is the regular status conversation. Not a weekly meeting slot taken seriously by neither side. But a real conversation, every two weeks, that assesses the state of the mandate, adjusts priorities, and clarifies open decisions.
The Handover: What Must Not Happen at the End of a Mandate
The end of an interim mandate is the moment in which it shows whether the mandate was truly successful. Not whether the closes were on time or the audit findings formally closed. But whether the organization is more independent at the end of the mandate than at the start.
The most common problem at mandate ends is the opposite:
The organization is more dependent than before because the interim manager was the only person who fully understood certain processes.
A good handover has three elements.
The first element is complete documentation. Not as formality, but as substantial knowledge enabling a successor to become productive without months of onboarding. Process descriptions, booking logics, system configurations, contact lists, open topics, ongoing projects.
The second element is structured onboarding of the successor. When a permanent hire takes over the role, the interim manager should have at least two to four weeks of overlap time. This time is not there to show the successor what they do. It is there to hand over to the successor the implicit knowledge that stands in no document: which decisions were made why? Which risks remain? What in the next three months requires special attention?
The third element is an honest closing assessment. What was achieved? What could not be achieved and why? Which structural risks remain? This assessment is no closing report presenting everything positively. It is an honest evaluation allowing the CFO to make informed decisions about the next steps.
What Interim Management Costs and What It Is Worth
A direct statement missing from many articles about interim management: interim management is expensive. The day rate of an experienced interim manager in finance lies, depending on qualification and engagement complexity, between EUR 800 and EUR 1,400 net. For a six-month mandate with 120 working days, that is EUR 96,000 to EUR 168,000.
This number is for many CFOs the first braking moment. Before it has effect, it should be put in the right context.
The comparison size is not the salary of a permanent hire. The comparison size is the damage that arises if the problem is not solved.
A year-end close that is delayed costs not only nerves. It costs additional auditor effort, contractual penalties from lenders insisting on timely reporting, and loss of trust with investors and banks reflected in financing conditions.
An audit finding that becomes a repeat finding raises the risk profile of the entire organization in the auditors’ perception. That creates for several years increased audit effort costing far more than the mandate that could have prevented it.
An ERP implementation set up incorrectly from an accounting perspective creates years of manual corrections, increased close effort, and systemic quality problems.
The ROI of interim management does not lie in short-term cost savings. It lies in avoiding these follow-on costs. And it lies in the structural value left behind: processes, documentation, control structures, a more stable team.
A CFO who views interim management as a cost factor makes worse decisions than a CFO who views it as an investment decision.
What I Bring
I am Nicole Vekonj, interim manager for finance & controlling. With over 20 years of experience in international group structures and mid-sized companies, I accompany CFOs in critical phases: from vacancy bridging through closing optimization and ERP implementations to remediation and IFRS introduction.
My way of working is operational: I enter the system, take responsibility, and ensure that at the end of the mandate more structure is in place than at the start.
I prefer to work in direct mandates, without provider intermediaries, with full transparency about conditions and direct communication.
If you, as CFO, are currently facing one of the situations this article describes, or if you want to know whether an interim mandate is the right path in your specific situation:
Let’s talk for 30 minutes. No sales pitch. No detour.
Nicole Vekonj | Interim Manager Finance & Controlling | zahlenkompetenz.de
