This is Part 2 on what differentiates the approach I've used to help nearly a hundred executives make the most effective First Hundred Days starts of their careers.

Part 1 highlighted the game-changing difference between an on-boarding orientation and a change management orientation, one that rests on building the Trust-Momentum flywheel.

The Key Change Ingredients

There are so many ways to get the Trust-Momentum flywheel spinning.

On the trust front, my program is packed with dozens of subtle action steps that have a noticeable effect on how my clients are viewed.  I know because they constantly share comments they get on the positive impact their actions are having on the team and organization.

Rather than going through the list of trust building suggestions, I'll focus on a few other key ingredients in the secret sauce my First Hundred Days approach leverages: elements of effective change needed in that initial three month window.

Many execs in transition not only overlook this step, worse, they put their attention on "quick-wins" and "low-hanging fruit" because they think they need to (eye-roll) make a new-sheriff-in-town first impression.

Current Reality.  You will, over time, develop a picture of "B"...the preferred future...you want to help the organization sail towards.  But Point B rarely comes completely into focus in your First Hundred Days. 

On the other hand, getting clear on Point A, the current reality of "where we are," needs to happen fast, usually within the first three to four weeks.

This seems straightforward enough. 

But the higher you go, the more stakeholders there are.  And, surprise!  They rarely see the current situation, let alone future options and tradeoffs, the same way.

Status quo is Latin for 'the mess we're in'. ~ Ronald Reagan

One of my early FHD clients was a Brand executive. 

He was hired by the CMO to better leverage the brand across all marketing, product, sales and service activities.  Most saw getting a winning and consistent message as a heavy lift, but also as an effort that could have a huge impact for the business.

To say the least, Brand is a rather amorphous area that a lot of people seem to have multiple opinions about!

When he interviewed one of the founders...obviously a key stakeholder...he asked what about the current approach to brand was working and where did he see opportunity.  The founder said, "The brand is perfect as it is.  I don't see upside to changing anything."

My client thought to himself, "Good to know." 

Not just good to know...critical to know.

Stories like that are par for the course. 

Key stakeholders are rarely aligned and that is a big reason why they brought someone in to herd the cats into a consensus view.

Many execs in transition not only overlook this step, worse, they put their attention on "quick-wins" and "low-hanging fruit" because they think they need to (eye-roll) make a new-sheriff-in-town first impression.

If they were more focused on the mission and less on how they looked, they would realize the power of aligning on current reality. 

Because that moment when stakeholders clearly see and align on the unacceptable status quo is when the system "unfreezes" and the change process begins.

It is one thing to know this.  It is another to pull it off real-time with all the different agendas in play.

I make sure my executives have the playbook, steps, and templates to accomplish this critical, trust and momentum building step.

The job of the leader is to define reality on the way in and thank them on the way out. ~ Max Depree

A Plan to Get the Team Right. There is a saying in FHD work:  Prior to your 100th day, it is your predecessor's team.  After the 100th day, it's your team.

The point is clear, and somewhat amusing, but it ignores organizational realities that are almost like laws-of-physics.

People often can't be moved into different jobs or moved out of the organization right away, and requisitions can't be opened up...for lots of reasons.

As emphasized in the best-seller Good to Great, getting the team right means "getting the right people in the right seats on the bus." This requires evaluating your team, which of course, new leaders start doing the moment they walk in the door.

But the new leader's evaluations and decisions about the team are just one small piece of the change management puzzle.  Often, actually, the smallest piece. 

Because unless you are coming in as CEO, attempting to proceed without buy-in from your boss and HR can quickly get you out-of-step with the culture, norms, and precedents of the organization.

What aides executives in transition is having structured templates for doing the evaluations and making the decisions, templates that can easily be shared and understood by the stakeholders the new leader needs buy-in from. 

Moreover, strategies for that discussion are also helpful, as there is a good chance stakeholders might not agree with the proposed people decisions.  Any lack of alignment will almost certainly have consequences on the new leaders ability to execute and then that will have to be aligned on.

The templates and suggested approaches to the evaluations and discussions I share with my clients were new to all of them.

Though new, they were grateful to have them because they felt they facilitated very productive conversations that resulted in rapid alignment on next steps and timing.

Getting your team in place during the first hundred days rarely happens.  A better objective is to, by Day 100, make the changes you can make and ensure you get aligned on a plan to finish the job.

But trying to do the second part of the assessment and push for change before you have done the first part is like landing on the square of that long slide in the Chutes and Ladders game: you're going to be sliding backwards towards Square 1 and scrambling to recover.

Stakeholder Assessment and Influence. Stakeholders will support your efforts when 1) they see you understand their needs and are supporting them, and 2) the ingredients are in place for them to be able to make the changes you need.

Again, simple enough...a Part 1 and a Part 2.

But trying to do the second part of the assessment and push for the changes you need before you have done the first part is like landing on the square of that long slide in the Chutes and Ladders game: you're going to be sliding backwards towards Square 1 and scrambling to recover.

Here is what focusing first on others needs before asking them to support your agenda can look like:

“[Day 1, to all employees]. We cannot expect you to value our agenda, until we tangibly demonstrate that we value yours.  My commitment is that you are going to see that we care about you, and we are going to trust that in the fullness of time that you are going to care about our agenda and help us lift this company up.”    ~ Doug Conant, Former CEO of The Campbell Soup Company at the beginning of one of the largest turnarounds in Corporate America's history

The first part of the Stakeholder Assessment then is, independent of what you are trying to do, what are your various stakeholders trying to do?  What's important to them and to their success?  How will your changes affect them and their efforts?  Where are the synergies?

In second phase of the assessment template I give my clients, you're checking if your stakeholders have what they need to either just go along with your changes or actually support and play a role. Clear goals and clear first steps are a couple examples those ingredients.

"Once CEOs set a clear course for the business, they must get buy-in among their employees and other stakeholders. We found that strong performers balance keen insight into their stakeholders’ priorities with an unrelenting focus on delivering business results. They start by developing an astute understanding of their stakeholders’ needs and motivations, and then get people on board by driving for performance and aligning them around the goal of value creation. [...] "CEOs who excel at bringing others along plan and execute disciplined communications and influencing strategies. In our data, CEOs who deftly engaged stakeholders with this results orientation were 75% more successful in the role." What Sets Successful CEO’s Apart?  Harvard Business Review

After the assessment phase, it's time to get off the sidelines and begin to actively get stakeholders aligned.

Change is hard enough when there is broad agreement.  When there isn't, egos, internecine power struggles, and seemingly never-ending politics have to be worked through. 

That is why the Stakeholder Influence process is where transition support for a new executive can have the biggest impact. 

From a time standpoint, after ensuring alignment on current reality, Stakeholder Influence is exactly where I spend the bulk of my time supporting my executives in transition.

A client of mine was recently hired to build an organizational capability and offering where none existed.  There was a power struggle between his hiring SVP and another top leader, and weeks after he arrived he was moved out from under the hiring SVP to the other person. 

His hiring SVP was desperate for the new capability, as he saw it as a way to drive C-Sat and revenue.  The SVP he got shoved under saw the capability as a nice-to-have and as a way to reduce cost. It was such a low priority, my client was told he would be reporting down a level.

Some execs in transition would have seen the reporting change as a bridge too far and resigned.  My client, for personal reasons, chose to stay. 

Supporting him required tapping all my HR, consulting, and experience reporting to a CEO to navigate the politics and help him get enough alignment to start executing.

Think my client's experience was a one-off?  From what I've seen, disorienting reorgs and re-prioritizations are much more common than transitioning leaders are prepared for.

An onboading orientation ignores the support needed by the internal executives getting promoted. Newly promoted leaders often need support to be seen differently and to acquire the political capital needed to affect change.

The Costs of Letting New Executives Go-it-Alone

New executives need more than onboarding.  They need real support.  

Just to be nice and make them feel welcome?  No.  

Organizations can suffer huge productivity hits when their new leaders misstep or derail, as often happens.  

Moreover, organizations consistently fail to consider the substantial upside when new leaders are able to get momentum after just three or four months, as opposed to the leaders who don't get support who can take six or even nine months to get up-to-speed.

Further still, an onboading orientation ignores the support needed by the internal executives getting promoted. The attitude is often, "they are already onboard so they don't need any help."

But if the objective is driving organizational improvement, newly promoted leaders often need support to be seen differently and to acquire the political capital needed to affect change.

Effective transition support for new leaders then means two things. 

First, it's making sure the new leader understands the fundamentals of the change management process. 

And second that they, with a steady hand, get the building blocks in place to bring the organization along as they steer towards that preferred future...the one you hired them to create.

Dennis Adsit, Ph.D. is an executive coach, organization consultant, and designer of The First 100 Days and Beyond, a consulting service that has helped hundreds of newly hired and promoted executives get the best possible start in challenging new jobs.