Urgency is often the reason organisations turn to interim procurement support.
A senior procurement leader leaves unexpectedly. A supplier issue escalates. A cost-reduction programme slips. A system implementation starts to wobble.
In these moments, bringing in an experienced interim procurement or supply chain professional can feel like the safest option.
Yet, paradoxically, the most rushed interim procurement hires are often the riskiest.
Not because of the interim professionals involved — but because urgency influences how decisions are made.
When speed replaces design
Rushed interim procurement hires tend to be defined quickly and approved under pressure.
The brief is written fast. The scope is broad. The mandate is implied rather than stated. Stakeholders assume alignment that hasn’t actually been tested.
What gets lost is design.
Instead of asking:
-
What specifically needs to change?
-
What authority is required to make that change?
-
What does success look like in 30, 60, or 90 days?
Organisations often default to:
“We just need someone senior in quickly.”
That assumption carries risk.
Urgency often masks the real problem
In many cases, urgency is a symptom rather than the issue itself.
A rushed interim procurement hire may actually be responding to:
-
Unresolved governance issues
-
Long-standing supplier relationships that no longer work
-
Internal decision bottlenecks
-
Change fatigue within procurement teams
Without acknowledging this context, interim procurement professionals are asked to fix problems they haven’t been empowered to address.
Speed without clarity rarely delivers stability.
The authority gap widens under pressure
Urgent interim procurement assignments often expect immediate impact — but offer limited authority.
Decisions are escalated. Stakeholders hesitate. Approvals slow down. Political sensitivity increases.
Ironically, the faster the organisation wants results, the more cautious it becomes about granting autonomy.
Experienced interim procurement leaders recognise this pattern quickly. When authority and sponsorship aren’t explicit, progress stalls — and confidence erodes on both sides.
Short-term thinking creates long-term friction
In pressing scenarios, organisations frequently focus on starting an interim procurement assignment, not finishing one.
Little attention is given to:
-
How decisions will be embedded
-
How teams will be stabilised
-
How knowledge will be transferred
-
What happens when the interim exits
This creates dependency rather than resolution — the opposite of what interim support is meant to achieve.
When structured interim procurement works
Rushed interim procurement hires can be highly effective — when urgency is matched with structure.
The strongest outcomes appear when organisations:
-
Define a narrow, outcome-led brief
-
Grant explicit authority from day one
-
Align stakeholders before the interim starts
-
Agree what “good” looks like early
-
Plan the exit at the same time as the entry
Urgency doesn’t have to mean compromise — but it does require discipline.
A reality check
Urgent interim procurement hires aren’t inherently risky.
Poorly defined rushed hires are.
The difference lies in whether speed is used to accelerate clarity — or to bypass it.
To discover more about our Procurement and Purchasing & Supply Chain recruitment capabilities click here or if you have an immediate need to recruit an interim within the procurement, purchaing supply chain contact Dan Plimmer:
dan.plimmer@jonlee.co.uk
01384 446174
This article is Part 2 of The Interim Procurement Reality Check — a series exploring what actually works (and what doesn’t) in UK interim procurement and supply chain leadership – – Click for part 1 – Why interim procurement & supply chain hires so often miss the mark in the UK.
Share this blog post
