Search Fills the Seat.
Interim Runs the Building.
Two different problems, two different solutions — and most buildings need both, in the right order.
Supply Chain Strategy
+
Interim Leadership
+
Project Management
+
Interim Leadership vs. Executive Search
When an operations leadership seat opens, most companies call an executive search firm by reflex. Sometimes that is right. But interim leadership and executive search solve two different problems, and choosing the wrong one costs a season.
What each one actually is
A retained search firm exists to find the right permanent leader. Done properly, that takes 90 to 120 days or more: calibration, sourcing, interviews, references, notice periods. Good search firms resist compressing that timeline, and they are right to — a permanent GM or VP of Operations is a decision that should not be rushed.
The limit is structural, not a failing. While the search runs, nobody is running the building, and the firm's accountability is to the placement, not the operation.
An interim engagement puts a working operator in the seat now. Not a candidate to evaluate. A leader who arrives running. The measure is the building's performance — throughput, accuracy, labor, safety, the daily numbers.
These are different tools for different problems, and most buildings need both. GoVia is not a search firm and does not compete with yours. We have worked alongside retained search firms and handed off cleanly, because a well-run search and a covered seat are not in tension. They are sequential.
The speed question
Search delivers in months. Interim delivers in days.
That gap does not matter much in February. It decides the season in September. An operations seat that empties eight weeks before peak cannot wait on a hiring cycle — by the time the right permanent leader accepts and works a notice period, the building has already run its season without a leader in the chair.
The decision most companies actually face is not interim or search. It is whether the building runs the next ninety days uncovered while the search does its job properly.
If the question is whether your building is ready for what is coming, the peak readiness assessment is the faster way to find out.
The bench question
The reasonable thing to ask a provider is how deep their bench runs, how fast they can produce a slate, and what happens if the placement does not work out.
Those are the right questions for a staffing firm. GoVia's answer is that there is no slate to size, because there is no bench.
A Managing Partner takes the chair. An owner of the firm, a career operator who has run distribution centers and fulfillment networks. The partner who scopes your engagement is the partner who shows up, and the firm's name is on the outcome rather than on an introduction.
That eliminates the post-and-pray risk by structure rather than by promise. There is no roster of vetted-on-paper leaders waiting to be matched to a description. There are five operators, and one of them takes the seat.
It also means capacity is real and finite. GoVia cannot staff ten simultaneous engagements, and does not claim to.
The cost structure
Retained search bills a percentage of first-year compensation. Interim staffing typically bills an hourly rate with a markup layered on top, which is why hours have a way of expanding.
GoVia bills a flat weekly rate with a defined end date. The number does not move because the week got complicated.
There is a related question worth answering directly: whether to hire an interim executive as an independent contractor or through a firm that employs them. A contractor is cheaper on paper and carries the risks that go with it — no institutional backing, no continuity if the arrangement ends badly, and a scope that lives entirely in one person's head.
The GoVia model sits outside both. The person in your chair is not a 1099 stranger and not an employee sent by a staffing coordinator. They are a principal of the firm, with four other partners behind them and the firm's reputation attached to the result.
When you need both
The expensive mistake is using one to do the other's job — rushing a permanent search because the seat is burning, or letting an interim arrangement drift for a year because the search never got the attention it needed. The first produces the wrong hire under pressure. The second produces dependency.
The discipline that avoids both is simple. Cover the seat with an operator immediately. Run the permanent search on its proper timeline. Require the interim leader to help onboard the person the search finds.
Every GoVia interim engagement carries a defined exit from the first day. Not a target date that slips — a scoped mission with criteria for completion. When the permanent leader is hired, the partner onboards them, documents the operating rhythm, and leaves the building stronger than they found it.
That is the skin-in-the-game difference: the person in the chair has the firm's name on the engagement, not a résumé in a stack. This is what an interim DC general manager engagement looks like in practice.
If the seat is open, the two decisions are separable — who runs the building now, and who leads it for the next decade. Get the first one settled this week.
Straight Answers
Q: How do I decide whether to hire an interim executive through a provider or run a full executive search for a permanent leader?
They answer different questions. A search decides who leads the building for the next several years and should take the 90 to 120 days it needs. An interim decides who runs the building tomorrow. If the seat is empty and the operation is exposed, cover it now and let the search run properly. The two are sequential, not competing.
Q: Can executive search firms help with interim placements too?
Some do, and some interim providers also run searches. The question worth asking is where the firm's accountability sits. A search firm is accountable for the introduction; an interim provider should be accountable for the building's numbers while they hold the seat. GoVia does not run searches — we cover the seat and hand off to the leader your search firm finds.
Q: What service-level expectations should I set around candidate slate size, speed, and replacement guarantees?
Those are the right questions for a staffing model, and GoVia's answer is structural rather than contractual. There is no slate, because a Managing Partner takes the chair rather than a candidate being matched to a description. The replacement question is moot for the same reason — the partner who scopes the engagement is the one who shows up.
Q: What are the tradeoffs between hiring an interim executive as a contractor versus through a firm that employs them?
A contractor costs less and carries more risk: no institutional backing, no continuity, and scope that exists in one person's head. A firm-delivered interim brings the firm behind the individual. In GoVia's model the person in your chair is a principal — an owner — with four other partners available and the firm's reputation attached to the result.
Q: How can I tell whether an interim executive provider has a real bench of vetted leaders or is just posting and praying?
Ask who specifically will be in the seat, and ask to speak with them before you sign. If the answer is a profile type rather than a person, you are buying a search dressed as coverage. GoVia has no bench — five Managing Partners, and you meet the one taking your chair during scoping.
Q: Does GoVia provide interim leaders for technology roles like an interim CTO?
No. GoVia's seats are supply chain, distribution, and operations leadership — DC general manager, VP of operations, and the roles that run a building or a network. Interim technology leadership is a different market with different providers.