Consumer markets focus: Bridging the transaction leadership gap with interim executives

Consumer transactions present a paradox. Just at the point where experienced leadership becomes most critical, uncertainty about the company’s future can make permanent executive hiring challenging–or even undesirable. 

The demands of a complex one-off process such as a merger, acquisition, PE exit, or IPO require a particular set of leadership capabilities beyond those needed for a consumer company’s day-to-day operations–but the timing and economics involved can make a permanent hire impractical. Meanwhile, the transaction itself can generate a disconnect between the leadership a company needs before, during, and after the deal. 

These conflicting demands create a distinct window during which companies need experienced leaders who can step in quickly, navigate complexity, deliver against a defined mandate, and leave the team with enhanced capabilities going forward–all without requiring the organization to make a long-term leadership hire before the next chapter is clear. 

The transaction leadership window

BCG research reveals a rebound in worldwide consumer M&A deals in 2026–with deal value rising by 20% from 2025–generating an acute requirement for executive talent with the skills to support such transactions. But for consumer firms, these transactions can also create a leadership talent vacuum. Existing executives may consider opportunities elsewhere as their future roles become less certain. Meanwhile, potential external candidates may be reluctant to leave stable positions for a company where the ownership structure or leadership model could soon change. 

Although the organization itself could look very different following the transaction, the company still needs committed senior leadership in place through the year or more it can take for the deal to conclude. And the close a company gets to that transaction, the less practical it may be to conduct a lengthy search for a permanent executive. 

Interim leadership offers a robust solution to this scenario, marrying up the executive commitment with the period in which that leadership is needed, while preserving the company’s flexibility to make longer-term decisions once the transaction is complete. 

A case study in short-term solutions

For one consumer entertainment company we worked with, using an interim hire to precisely align the duration of the leadership investment with the duration of the transaction was the ideal solution. With an anticipated deal creating an immediate leadership need, uncertainty about the company's future structure made a permanent hire impractical. An interim executive instead provided experienced executive capability and continuity through the transaction, while preserving flexibility to reassess the longer-term leadership needs.

The compensation equation

The structure of executive remuneration is a particular characteristic of many consumer companies that complicates transaction leadership hiring. Permanent executive contracts often include long-term incentives, particularly equity. But close to a deal, equity becomes a less useful tool, with companies unwilling or unable to offer meaningful share options, and candidates less keen to join without them. 

By contrast, compensation for interim executives is typically built around a defined assignment and time period, avoiding the need to construct a long-term compensation package for what may prove to be a short-term leadership requirement. This can give companies greater flexibility while the organization’s future structure remains uncertain.

When transaction experience outweighs sector-specific knowledge

The leadership skills needed to guide a company through a transaction extend beyond strong functional credentials, with a deep sector understanding potentially less immediately pertinent than knowledge of the relevant transaction market. 

Experience with exits, integrations, business sales, due diligence, or public-private transitions can provide valuable pattern recognition within a compressed transaction timeline. Consequently, when assessing the leadership capabilities needed to guide the company through a transaction, boards may place particular value on executives who have navigated similar ownership transitions before. 

Experienced transaction executives bring another advantage: they are accustomed to entering unfamiliar organizations and quickly establishing credibility with boards, investors, advisers, and management teams. This credibility gives them an authority that then enables them to move rapidly from diagnosis to agreement, and from agreement to execution.

A case study in M&A expertise

In one complex transaction scenario, we worked with a company managing the sale of one business while simultaneously considering a potential merger. They required additional M&A expertise and execution capacity to navigate complex workstreams, ensuring no element of either deal was overlooked. An interim executive with 20 years of transaction experience was therefore recruited to provide senior-level support, helping drive the process forward and giving the business flexible capacity during a critical period.

A different type of talent

When an assignment has a defined end point, the available talent pool takes on a different composition to that of the wider hiring market. Up-and-coming executives looking for their next permanent position are not seeking these roles–nor are they the strongest candidates.  

The ideal interim executives are those for whom the finite nature of the assignment is an advantage, not a drawback. Some senior leaders deliberately choose time-limited engagements with a defined scope. They are confident entering complex situations, find it rewarding to work toward a defined outcome, and it suits their plans to move on once the mandate is met. 

A talent perspective: The carve-out expert

Heidrick placed an experienced interim leader to support the sell-side carve-out of an individual business from an international PE-backed group. A typical “short-range” assignment, the role includes managing the buyer’s due diligence, working closely with advisers and management, and taking the deal through to completion.

“The core capability needed for this role is influence without authority,” the executive says. “Nobody in the team reports to me, so I build relationships and achieve what’s needed to keep the project on track by being precise about the asks, not commissioning new work, and helping to draft material for interactions with bidders. The default is to be a proactive gatekeeper, mapping what already exists to support a bidder, knowing what is really behind their questions.

“The single largest, and least visible, benefit I deliver is absorbing the diligence load so management can keep running the business. I preserve value through avoided mistakes and inconsistencies, and a timetable that holds in the face of stress and adversity. A single inconsistent answer or error can cost more than my total fee!

“For me, the appeal of transaction-driven assignments is that I know what success looks like and when it happens. Success is getting to completion and the pleasure comes from seeing how all the pieces need to align in order to achieve that.”

This executive’s description of their remit highlights an important distinction between the roles of interim and permanent leadership. The value of an interim leader during a transaction is not only additional capacity. It is the ability to absorb the demands created by the transaction while allowing the permanent management team to continue running the core business.

Choosing the right leadership model for the moment 

For consumer companies hiring executives to lead them through a transaction, the same challenges exist across private equity exits, company sales, carve-outs, IPO preparation, and public-to-private deals. The key question is which hiring model will be most effective in seeing them through these challenges. 

To establish whether an interim or permanent position is best, clarity is required around what has to be accomplished beforehand–and whether that need will still exist afterwards. Companies should ask:

• What has to be achieved before the transaction takes place?
• Does the company need experience or capacity that is missing internally?
• Is the need tied to the transaction window, or the company’s next several years?
• Is the required role likely to exist in the same form after the transaction?

When the need is senior, urgent, and clearly tied to a defined outcome, interim executives can offer a compelling model for leadership during the lifespan of a transaction. Alongside speed and flexibility, the model matches the leadership commitment to the business requirement by bringing in an experienced executive for a consequential period while preserving the organization’s ability to make the right long-term leadership decisions for its future.

About the author

Olly Hampson (ohampson@heidrick.com) is a director focused on interim solutions for consumer markets across Europe, Africa, and the Middle East. He is based in the London office.