CEO “100-day plans” are overrated. This isn’t politics. The company doesn’t pause at Day 101 waiting for the CEO’s next move. The 100-day playbook exists because it feels good — to the CEO, the board, the consultants. It may signal control. Direction. Momentum. But most of the time, it’s corporate theatre. The truth? Leadership doesn’t fit neatly into 100-day sprints. Some things need to move in the first 10 days. Others take 300. In my opinion, the best CEOs don’t follow a formula. They assess, listen, move fast where it matters, and adapt constantly. They’re not trying to “land a narrative.” They’re trying to lead. The 100-day myth is driven by ego and bureaucracy, dressed up as urgency. It’s not strategy, neither is it effective leadership. Real leadership is messier — and far more honest.
“Real leadership is messier”, love it, Rajeev! I feel we need to challenge some of the common ways on our paths. For example for us over the last months innovation happens in the engine room in execution in small daily steps testing and co-creating with customers and each day makes a big difference. A CEO especially building something from the scratch needs to be in the engine room.
Rajeev Suri By sharing your thoughts on organic and authentic leadership, you're pioneering a movement in the corporate world. You're sharing a template for REAL leadership. In a sense, you're disrupting the myths and pioneering sustainable leadership progression... This here, is how to change the narrative!👌👌 Kudos...👏👏
It is never a straight line!
good language and yes so true - easy to sign off :)
I subscribe totally to your point. Even more, I think much of what we call 100 days plan should be done previously to engaging the ceo as part of the choice. No company is interested in pausing everything 100 days because one person needs to learn and think. It does not work like this. A great part of the plan needs to be agreed with the board previous to the CEOs entry. I am a strong believer in listening, but not only the 100 first days. Listen to the signals of the market, to the employees etc.. then act.
Interesting. Agree.
The window for change is short, never long, if you do not take any minute of 100 days as one day, then you are changed to old team. Trust your first feeling and analysis.
GREAT BRAND STORIES: From Humble Beginnings to Corporate Giants https://a.co/d/exRgZXJ
I think a CEO needs to study the business for at least 100 days before making changes. Those that make changes too hastily really screw things up. There are numerous business cases that are studied in decent business schools that go over this. (clearly not Wharton, their grads tend to screw this up, a lot!) I saw this when Motorola Mobility was absorbed by Google. We're seeing it right now in the Whitehouse. Forget the 100-day plan. Sufficiently study the business to be able to audit and sign off an at least one quarter's P and L. Then make small changes at first, the low hanging fruit. Then go for the bigger fish, if they still exist.
Could it depend on the plan? What if the plan was: Listen to our ten most valuable customers Listen to our tech support staff and identify their top issues Listen to our service delivery team and identify their top issues Listen to operations team and understand their concerns Listen to the sales team and understand our strengths Talk to ten customers who left us to understand why Would a board even agree to such a plan?