Search the internet for articles on the first hundred days of leadership and you’ll find a plethora of advice supporting the theory that early impact and momentum are essential to transformation. The overwhelming sentiment is that the success of incoming leaders is founded on making a flying start, establishing the trajectory of their tenure with lightning speed. So embedded is this view that there are books, tool kits, and even preparatory courses for would-be torchbearers, be they in commerce, sport or even politics.
Indeed, the term ‘First Hundred Days’ although now commonly associated with business, was originally coined by Franklin D. Roosevelt. On taking office, he summoned a three month ‘special session’ of Congress, passing over seventy laws to address the immediate challenges of the Great Depression. The decisions he took set the US on the road to recovery and laid the foundations for a period of unprecedented prosperity. Ninety years on, few doubt that FDR was one of our greatest Presidents.
And it’s undoubtedly true that the early months of any new leadership are a critical time. The internet articles I mentioned earlier have not proliferated on the basis of myth alone. It’s accepted wisdom that new leaders must balance a respect for the past with renewed purpose and vision; listening with humility but acting with resolve, seeking quick wins but sticking to the long-term plan. This is what’s meant by establishing the tone of their tenure, a period in which pace and direction are as essential than polish or perfection.
But to read some of the advice, it would be tempting to think that this is all that’s required. The concept of a ‘honeymoon’ period in which change is more possible may have some truth, but it risks the fallacy that momentum is synonymous with true transformation. Because for all that pace can ameliorate our most immediate concerns, deep change, as I argued in my book Fair Value; reflections on good business, always takes time.
Roosevelt’s genius wasn’t just to act quickly, it was to resolutely stand for a vision and values that would require time to mature. The same is true of the all the greatest leaders in business, science, sport or the arts: think of Bill Gates, Henry Ford or Estée Lauder — entrepreneurs whose lifelong visions have shaped how we live today; the same might be said of Picasso in the Arts, Alex Fergusson in Soccer, Edwin Hubble in Astronomy… All of these giants had their moments of epiphany, and all were willing, when necessary, to act decisively; but at root, their success is founded on an ethos that was lived over decades not days.
Today, I’d suggest our expectations of change, and the time and sacrifices it requires to be successful, have become wildly unrealistic. Surrounded by spin doctors and social media we want our politicians and CEOs to conjure instant outcomes, fuelling a tendency to quick fix solutions that at worst are little more than soundbites. The less comfortable truth is that the most important issues we face — as organisations, societies and even as individuals — are seldom solved with single acts or scalpel-like precision. No one hundred-day programme will solve the environmental crisis, just as it won’t contain inflation, fathom how we pay for universal healthcare or turn around an organisation that’s lost its way.
Most business leaders don’t face quite these levels of challenge, but the principles, even in less momentous contexts, are much the same. First steps are vital but we should remember they are just that; long term success requires not only vision, but a commitment to the values that will sustain it and the stamina to see it through. When campaigning for a second term Roosevelt made a speech that summarised this idea. ‘For nearly four years’ he said, ‘you have had an Administration which instead of twirling its thumbs has rolled up its sleeves. We will keep our sleeves rolled up.’
That seems to me to be an excellent approach and it’s as relevant today as it was back then.
