It contains the latest thought  leadership from interim managers such as yourself, news stories, sector specific subgroups, polls, jobs and blogs from each Interim Partners consultant.

Having all these different streams of information in one place has meant the group is active, interesting, growing quickly and requiring your membership if we do not have so already.

We’d also encourage you to invite your relevant connections to join as well. You can do so by clicking ’share group’ in the top right hand corner of the screen once your membership has been approved.

Please join the Interim Partners linkedin group by clicking here.

If you have any further social media or website enquiries please don’t hesitate to get in touch with me.

Thomas Bridge is the Marketing Manager for Interim Partners.

Which begs an obvious question, but one I think we rarely ask to those interims who are constantly in demand; those whose names are top of everyone’s mind; and those who rarely have a break between assignments – except by choice:

What’s the secret of their success?

Is it:

- An “interim” mindset and love of complex challenges?
- Current industry expertise (and thereby associated credibility as an external resource)?
- Deep specialism in a burgeoning market?
- A catch-all CV which can be tailored according to role?
- Extensive networking, even when on assignment?
- Softer skills: good interview technique, ability to adapt to different styles of working  and general, all-round “good egg”?

Your thoughts would be appreciated. Clearly the ideal would be to have all of these – but which of these factors is key?

And who knows, your comments may be doing your bit to help others who are newer to the market.

Liz Sinclair is the Key Account Director for Interim Partners.

The challenge of setting up an asset management company or bad bank for an economy the size of Spain seems pretty mind boggling. If this is done on the same basis as NAMA in Ireland and only looks at big ticket loans, it will still represent a huge practical challenge. The Spanish economy and banking sector dwarfs that of Dublin – and with 11 of the main banks being downgraded it is not hard to see what the scale of the challenge might be. If it is decided to pursue a transfer of the smaller, more mainstream residential mortgages, the practical challenge becomes exponentially greater.

The practical difficulties can be overcome but it seems bizarre to me that years (not months!) after the initial crisis that we are still lurching forward and back on what feels like a week by week basis.  Changes such as ratings downgrades can change things rapidly and dramatically for counties while others issues, such as growth levels in key export markets, are beyond any one countries control. But even allowing for such issues, the fundamentals of any economy does not change overnight – it wasn’t a recent revelation to realise that Spain’s real estate market might have pretty serious problems. Yet it seems that any spark of bad (even if not new) news means that the markets go into renewed panic.

I appreciate that this is a hugely complex problem and that getting a sustained cohesive approach from EU members, let alone market participants, is extremely difficult. However, the continual yo-yo effect cannot be good – somebody (and neither is this a simple issue) needs to show leadership – call it like it is, agree a plan and stand behind the position. Perhaps this is a problem with the EU structure?

Have we moved on or are we still potentially in the middle of a minefield?

Charles Geoghegan is Head of Banking for Interim Partners.

The reason I mention this is because I can’t help but notice that at present, Financial Services seems to be suffering from the same symptoms – call it lack of confidence to “turn the tap on”. Many companies are still in self-imposed “hiring hosepipe bans”, yet at the same time a lot of organisations seem to be dealing with flood conditions within their own four walls. It’s “all hands to the pumps”-  more work than some overstretched departments can deal with – and a definite need to go to market for Interim resource. But many companies seem unable/afraid or just not confident to do so.

I have also noticed in the past two months more conversations happening and more programmes of work coming to light,  yet the big decisions are still not getting made when it comes to getting people on board/ investing in the people that will drive their business and no doubt the economy forward.

In Insurance the dates of Solvency II being pushed back to 2014 has dampened enthusiasm for hiring in that space.  Only today it was reported that Asset manager and Insurers alike will need to bolster activity here and bring in expertise to deal with data challenges. The on-going sovereign debt issues increase pressure to tighten purse strings in retail and capital markets banking yet is there is still a reluctance to spend and hire to get essential programmes off the ground.

So what will be the catalyst to snap 2012 into action?  Are we looking ahead to a year of self-imposed “hiring hosepipe bans” or is this just a bit of caution that we as a nation need to exercise and effectively ride out the storm?

Jay Alexander is the Senior Consultant for Insurance at Interim Partners.

Whilst the dynamic of party politics dictates that Labour are almost obliged to criticise the government’s policies they are, in fact, not alone in their criticism of austerity measures. A groundswell of opinion appears to be growing across the EU with a number of European political figures including Mario Monti, the Italian Prime Minister, and Francois Hollande, the French, Socialilst Presidential candidate, recently adding their weight to concerns over the impact of spending cuts. This train of thought appears to be gathering momentum in the halls of power across Europe as growth continues to elude the EU member states. The question, therefore, is : Are austerity measures harming the economy rather than fixing it and what is the alternative?

There’s no denying the public sector needed to be trimmed to remove the flabbiness and efficiencies of large central and local government departments but is that the only solution? What does history tell us? After the Wall Street crash of the 1920s and ensuing depression in the 1930s the New Deal of the F.D.R. presidency was instigated with the express aim of stimulating the economy. Questions are asked about its success but the figures seem fairly healthy. Between the economic nadir of 1933 and 1939 U.S. GDP grew by 60%, consumer spending increased by 40% while private investment in industry also grew by a factor of five.

So, does the UK need a ‘New Deal’ to spend its way out of recession? Can the government create jobs, boost consumer spending and therefore growth through investing infrastructure?

Paul Phillips is the Senior Consultant for Business & Support Services at Interim Partners.

It has been portrayed by the western media as a direct and excessively desirous grab of a significant, privately owned asset, a desperate move by an economically distraught government. The company originally state owned, was privatised in 1999 for $15b and the majority shareholder (57%) is a major Spanish energy giant, Repsol (for those who didn’t know).

Rumours abound however, that prior to this renationalisation, Repsol were in negotiations with a Chinese NOIC behemoth (Sinopec), to offload their controlling stake to them.

This adds a completely new perspective on the row which has erupted between Spain and Argentina.

Added to this, Kirchner also claims that YPF has not been investing enough in its assets whilst hydrocarbon prices are at a premium. As a result, Argentina has been forced to import more and more energy, about $10bn last year.

Spain has condemned the grab, not surprisingly followed by other EU countries, and least surprisingly the UK, as have their Latin American neighbours, Mexico, Brazil and others. The US has publicly but cautiously stated their ‘deep concern’.

Alternately, Venezuelan President Hugo Chaves has supported it with great aplomb. Ecuador also wholeheartedly supports the move and Bolivia is potentially joining the pact as well. What unites this fraternity? They are all Marxist governments and believe in the deeply embedded notion that all natural resources and oil/gas in particular, belong to the people, and that proceeds from their extraction should go to the owners, i.e. the people of the nation.

Whilst this working class rhetoric, wringing the necks of the foreign imperialist capitalists and sticking it to conquistadors, is splendid rabble rousing stuff, the reality is that while Argentina possesses great hydrocarbon wealth, they stand a snowballs chance in hell of developing these resources by themselves and fully exploiting the wealth creation for the general populace anyway.

What Argentina does however increase, is the risk of developing the reputation of an international pariah, and is jeopardising potential future investments from traditional economic partners…leaving only one country that it can turn to in hope to develop her economy: China.

So in the short term, the asset grab of YPF for perhaps the valid reason of protecting its national assets from the influence of foreign control like Beijing seemed like a well justified idea, in the medium to long term, if the Argentinian political elite continue along the path of international isolation and refuses to normalise its relationship with the international financial and investment community, it looks like the only partner she will be able to turn to is, you guessed it….China.

And if Buenos Aires were to ever try similar tactics with Beijing, there would only be one winner.

As always, would welcome your thoughts and responses.

Jonathan Mooney is the Senior Consultant for Energy & Utilities at Interim Partners.

On paper this seems like a positive move for Vodafone as it adds enormous capacity and reach through CWW’s extensive cabling, particularly into the high-growth Asian enterprise markets.  Cost savings to be gained will also sweeten the deal dependent upon a successful integration.

For both businesses it perhaps signals an end to a reliance upon their traditional roots and acknowledges that in today’s rapidly developing communications world ownership of a greater piece of the ‘supply chain’ is essential to control one’s own destiny.

I am interested in your thoughts as to the deal itself but also how it might affect the competitor landscape.

Steve Blake is Head of Technology, Media and Telecommunications at Interim Partners.

It’s interesting that only six companies featured on this list, as Food & Drink represents the largest part of UK manufacturing. This begs the question:

Why are there not more private food & drink companies in the Top 100?

Key trends to growth were the ability to reduce costs, buy up the competition, innovation and international growth. Which would rule in the Food & Drink industry, operating as it does with some of the most mature retailers who are pretty adept at leveraging such strategies.

So why are they not achieving growth?

With companies like Premier carving out brands, UK Private Businesses have a great opportunity to buy up iconic names and consolidate their competitive landscape. Equally today’s market – where former titans of Food & Drink are disposing of brands – presents an opportunity for wider international distribution.  Next year I truly hope to see more British Food & Drink companies on this list!

I would be keen to know why you think there are not more Food & Drink Companies on this list and what the industry can do about it!

Jo Sands is Head of Food & Drink for Interim Partners.

It’s the final straw and with celebrities piling in – most recently Heston Blumenthal, as well as a petition gaining pace  from major bakery chain Greggs – is it a matter of time before this tax is demolished before it began?

The reason for our discontent comes down to some basic ethics and principles broken by our current government.

In order to be successful in life, Napoleon is quoted as saying, “An army marches on its stomach”. Procuring enough food to support an army in the field is a paramount concern for all commanders!

So why at a time of economic crisis, when those with modest to middle incomes are experiencing income erosion more than most, are Cameron and Osborne adding to the pain by taxing the food staple of generations:  the hot pasty?!

Is Osbourne so disconnected from the rest of society that he has forgotten that in order to pull yourself from adversity you need to feed your army?!

Has he forgotten that the Cornish pasty was originated as portable lunches for tin miners, fishermen and farmers to take to work?

Today the original value of a portable lunch hasn’t diminished, for most working people an affordable hot meal that covers the major food groups of protein, vegetables and fat at lunchtime keeps them going through the rest of the day.

Are they forgetting that they are punishing the people who have been hit hardest in this recession, not only the customers but also the SMEs? By enforcing this tax they will force many small bakeries out of business!

Bewildering and as outrageous as this tax is, I think it may be one step too far for George. As the nursery rhyme goes;

Georgie Porgie pudding and pie,
Kissed the girls and made them cry
When the boys came out to play,
Georgie Porgie ran away.

Your thoughts would be welcome…

Jo Sands is Head of Food & Drink at Interim Partners

Initially I took great personal interest in the proposals of the bill. I started at Interim Partners in April 2010, I had recruited into the NHS before as part of broader public sector remit but now it was my sole focus and the White paper that came out in June 2010 with the initial proposals of the bill was essential reading.

I have to be honest and say my interest has waned over the last two years, for two main reasons:

1. The challenges against and support for the bill have resulted in a series of changes which have been so frequent and nuanced that it has been easy to lose sight of the original starting points.

2. The more recent coverage seemed to degenerate into general “Lansley bashing” and debates over whether it would be passed or whether it should be repealed altogether. It has become almost fashionable to take an opposition stance. When the Royal College of GPs (the very group destined to benefit most) called for the bill to be withdrawn in February 2012 it all became a bit laughable.

But if you work in the NHS or supply services to the NHS, I think 27^th March 2012 was a notional day because the changes proposed by the bill have been well and truly in motion for a while. PCTs started clustering and establishing joint executive teams last April, CCGs are being established and are already recruiting to substantive posts and 10 SHAs became 4 in August 2011. Had the NHS waited until 27^th March to get started on the structural changes required by the bill, the 1^st April 2013 “go live” date for the new NHS would have had to have been put back a couple of years.

And there is the financial cost of change as well. £1.3bn or 3.4bn is the cost of transition depending on which numbers you believe, which makes you wonder what the cost would have been had the bill been repealed and the coalition had to put everything back to the way they found it? Now the bill is law, the NHS can at least focus on the tasks in hand – cutting costs and improving patient care.

So my question is this. Do you think it will be worth it?

Steve Melber is Head of Healthcare at Interim Partners.