"The first 100..."

This past Sunday, "Leadership Reverie" reached an important (well, important for me, I guess) milestone, the 100th blog posting.  I wrote my first blog post on January 2, 2016.  I created this blog for two simple reasons.  First, I wanted to be able to write more.  While I still occasionally have the opportunity to contribute an invited review article or editorial, most of my research articles of late have been primarily written by someone else, with me as a co-author.  Second, I wanted a place to be able to collect good articles, stories, and examples of leadership.  I have thoroughly enjoyed writing articles to Leadership Reverie!  As of today, June 22, 2017, there have been over 8,800 "hits" or pageviews to my blog from around the world.  I actually never imagined that anyone would read my blog, other than my family!  So to all of you who have at least opened up my blog, thank you for inviting me into your lives, even if just through the medium of the Internet.


I don't really know why we are so enamored with the number "100" in today's society.  For example, there was a report a few years ago that the $100 bill was closing in on the $1 bill for the most common currency in circulation.  One-hundred is the basis of percentages ("per cent" comes from the Latin, meaning "per hundred").  The number "100" is the sum of the first nine prime numbers (check for yourself - 2 + 3 + 5 +7 + 11 + 13 + 17 + 19 + 23 = 100), the sum of the cubes of the first four integers (1^3 + 2^3 + 3^3 + 4^3 = 100), and the square of the sum of the first four integers (100 = (1 + 2 + 3 +4)^2).  I bet that you didn't know that there are 100 prime numbers whose digits are in ascending order (for example, 239 and 2357 are both prime numbers) .  The boiling point of water is 100 degrees on the Celsius scale.  There are 100 Senators in the United States Senate.  There are 100 years in a century.  If you want to dial the operator in the United Kingdom, the number is "100."  We are absolutely fixated on 100.


In the United States, we (or at least our media) make a very big deal about a President's so-called "first 100 days" in office.  But why?  According to my favorite online source of information (Wikipedia), the concept of a "Hundred Days" started with the second reign of the French emperor, Napoleon Bonaparte.  This so-called "Hundred Days" ("les Cent-Jours") began with Napoleon's return from exile on the island of Elba on March 20, 1815 and lasted until the second restoration of Louis XVIII on July 8, 1815 (technically, 115 days!) after Napoleon's defeat at Waterloo.


Apparently it was President Franklin Roosevelt who made the first real "fuss" about the so-called "first 100 days" in office.  In retrospect, there was certainly a lot at stake when FDR took over as President.  The country was in the midst of the Great Depression, and FDR had made several promises during his campaign that he would lead the United States back to prosperity.  By all accounts, every President since FDR has been measured on how successful his (again, since every President to date has been a male) first 100 days in office have been - usually assessed by the number of laws passed.  By this measure, there really is no comparison to FDR!  According to a recent article on www.fivethiryeight.com, FDR successfully championed/sponsored/led the passage of 76 bills during the first 100 days of his administration - a mark that has not been touched since (Harry Truman was the second "most successful" at  55 bills).  Whether or not "success" should be measured by the number of bills passed is arguable, but nevertheless, FDR's benchmark has been difficult to reproduce.  Moreover, I believe that history has judged FDR's Presidency as highly successful.


Which brings me back to my original point - why is there so much emphasis on "the first 100 days"?  While writing his Inauguration speech, President-elect John F. Kennedy once complained to one of his aides, "I'm sick and tired of reading how we're planning another 'hundred days' of miracles.  Let's put in that this won't all be finished in a hundred days or a thousand."  The final version of his speech even included the caveat that JFK Administration would likely fail to meet all of their ambitious goals "even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet."  Michael Watkins talked about the "the first 100 days" in a recent Harvard Business Review blog.  He apparently surveyed 143 senior executives in Human Resources and found that 87% of those surveyed either agreed with the statement, "Transitions into significant new roles are the most challenging times in the professional lives of managers."  More relevant to the present discussion, over 70% agreed with the statement that "Success or failure during the transition period is a strong predictor of overall success or failure in the job."  In other words, like it or not, "the first 100 days" matters!  During this important transition period, a leader lays out his or her vision and sets the appropriate tone to create the culture to achieve that vision.  As Watkins says, "The first hundred days mark is not the end of the story, it's the end of the beginning."


Patrick Ducasse and Tom Lutz, from the Boston Consulting Group, asked 20 current CEO's about their first 100 days in their new position.  They had several recommendations and words of wisdom:


1. "Diagnose first, decide second."
2. "Follow your instincts."
3. "Take notes, then prioritize and act."
4. "Understand that as the head person, you have only three topics: people, strategy, and values.  Everything else is secondary."
5. "Pick a kitchen cabinet of people you trust and use them for problem solving."


Above all else, Ducasse and Lutz said that the CEO's advised that a strong start was almost essential to long-term success, "A strong report card during the first 100 days can set the tone for the next 1,000."