41 - 44 Great Queen Street, London, WC2B 5AD
Other
By 2025, many private equity firms were spending less time debating whether interim executives add value, and more time thinking about how to deploy them effectively.
Across a series of six surveys which ran in 2025, a consistent picture emerged: the firms that won were the ones that treated speed, clarity, and operational execution as non-negotiables.
As the year drew to a close, our final series in December took a reflective tone, asking what had truly driven pressure and created value over the preceding twelve months. The responses confirmed patterns that had been building all year.
When polled on what drove the most time pressure in portfolio companies during 2025, the answer was unambiguous. Half of respondents pointed to board push on value creation as the dominant force, with a further third citing the need for day-one impact. Operational disruptions requiring speed accounted for the remainder.
PE sponsors were no longer content to wait for traditional onboarding cycles. The expectation was that incoming leaders, particularly interims, would be effective by Wednesday, not after a hundred-day settling-in period. Every lost day represented burned value, and boards made that calculus explicit.
The December results reinforced what had been the defining theme of the year: execution trumped strategy. When asked which execution lever created the most value in PE-backed businesses, three quarters of respondents identified rapid operational turnaround. The remaining quarter pointed to cost resets that preserved growth capacity.
Notably, neither working capital compression nor upgrading reporting and controls registered a single vote. This does not mean these areas lack importance, but it does suggest where the perceived alpha sat. The businesses that moved the needle were those that could operationalise change quickly, not those that refined dashboards or squeezed creditor terms.
This aligned closely with findings from earlier in the year, when 63% of respondents identified operational efficiency and cost reduction as the most urgent transformation priority, well ahead of digital and AI adoption at 31%.
The final December poll asked which PE-specific capability proved most critical for interims in 2025. Three attributes tied at 29% each: freedom to make the hard calls, operating in ambiguity and pace, and leaving the business exit-ready.
Precision functional expertise trailed at 14%.
This distribution tells an important story. Portfolio companies did not primarily need interims who brought narrow technical skills. They needed leaders who could make decisions others had avoided, maintain momentum when clarity was scarce, and position the business for eventual sale. The interim who thrived in 2025 was not a subject matter expert waiting for instructions. They were an operator comfortable with incomplete information and empowered to act on it.
The December findings on capability echoed what earlier surveys had surfaced. When asked where leadership gaps were most evident in portfolio companies, 41% pointed to change leadership as the most critical missing capability. Commercial rigour came second at 36%.
The implication is clear. Finance discipline and operational drive were largely adequate across the portfolio company landscape. What was in short supply were leaders who could drive transformation end to end: sequencing initiatives, cutting through organisational resistance, aligning stakeholders, and sustaining momentum when initial energy faded. This was the capability interims were increasingly called upon to provide.
Across multiple surveys, one obstacle appeared repeatedly: internal decision-making. On the question of what was holding portfolio companies back from delivering the plan, 33% cited slow decision-making whilst another 33% pointed to misaligned incentives. Separate research found that 69% of respondents identified internal decision-making as the primary bottleneck delaying interim placements themselves.
This creates a difficult irony. The same governance weaknesses that make interim leadership necessary also slow its deployment. Organisations that recognise they need external capability often cannot move quickly enough to secure it. The firms that gained ground in 2025 were those that had streamlined approval processes and clarified decision rights before the crisis hit.
The data also highlighted culture as a persistent source of friction. On the question of which factors created the most drag in PE-backed businesses, results split evenly across three dimensions: legacy leadership mindset, resistance to accountability, and misaligned incentives post-deal.
These are not separate problems. They are symptoms of an operating system that was never designed for PE-level execution speed. Pre-deal behaviours, committee-driven norms, and incentive structures that fail to map tightly to value creation all contribute to the same outcome: organisations that cannot deliver what sponsors expect.
Perhaps the most striking finding of the year came from surveying on whether interim executives are underutilised in private equity strategies. A full 71% answered with a definitive yes, significant untapped value.
This belief persisted despite growing recognition of interim value. Across our surveys, 63% of respondents highlighted the interim leader’s ability to provide leadership during transitions or bring a fresh, objective external perspective. Over 40% identified the post-deal period, specifically the first twelve to twenty-four months, as the window when interim leadership is most valuable.
Yet half of respondents still cited cultural fit as the number one challenge in interim hiring. Speed of placement registered zero concern. The constraint is not finding candidates quickly. It is finding the right match for a complex organisational context, and making the decision to proceed.
The transformation agenda is not slowing. On the question of where professionals expect to see the greatest growth in demand for interim executives over the next three years, 66% predicted the greatest growth in transformation and AI integration. Traditional value creation and operational improvement came a distant second at 24%.
Similarly, surveying on which new C-suite role will emerge as most critical saw Chief Transformation Officer lead at 42%, followed by AI and Tech Acceleration Leader at 31% and Chief Value Creation Officer at 24%.
The firms that positioned themselves well in 2025 did so by treating interim leadership as a strategic asset rather than a contingency plan. They shortened decision cycles, clarified mandates, and deployed operators who could act without waiting for perfect information.
By 2025, private equity’s long experience with interim leadership had made one thing clearer: maintaining the status quo is rarely enough. There is a growing emphasis on tactical, objective, high-impact operators who create value that extends beyond the length of their assignment. The data showed where the pressure points sit across governance, speed, change leadership capability, cultural alignment, and the ability to execute rapid operational turnaround.
The organisations that mastered these fundamentals did not just fill gaps. They built the execution infrastructure that makes sustained value creation possible. As 2026 begins, the question is not whether interim executives can deliver. The evidence says they can. The question is which firms will create the conditions that let them.
Contact Jennifer Brook-Botfield at jen.brook-botfield@renoirinterim.com to discuss how interim executives can support your value creation strategy this year.
