The pressure to make an impact starts almost immediately when a new executive joins. Boards and investors expect quick wins and progress, while employees want immediate clarity on direction. While quick wins matter, the real test of success lies not just in the opening days and months but in sustaining momentum through the first year and beyond.
Many organisations use the first 100 days as an easy measure of executive performance since it gives boards a neat deadline for judging progress. However, leadership transitions rarely follow such a neat timeline. Research from McKinsey & Company shows that 45% of successful C-suite transitions take four to 12 months for executives to feel fully comfortable in their roles, while a further 7% take 13 to 18 months. When it came to resolving their initial strategic questions, 54% of successful executives took 4 to 12 months.
If you expect a new leader to prove their value in 100 days, you could be judging them before the transition has properly begun.
New Leaders Should Be Learning in the First 100 Days Instead of Proving Themselves
New executives are expected to make decisions quickly, but they first need to understand what they’re walking into.
A new CEO might spend their first weeks meeting customers, reviewing financial performance and understanding the leadership team. They must also work out who influences decisions, where problems have been buried and which parts of the strategy still make sense.
Some of the most important areas in successful leadership transitions include having an accurate picture of role requirements, team dynamics, stakeholder relationships, organisational culture and personal readiness. None of those can be properly understood through a 100-day checklist.
Instead of asking a new leader what they’ve changed after three months, a better question is what they’ve learned and how those insights are changing their priorities.
That distinction matters because while moving quickly can create the appearance of progress, taking time to understand the organisation helps a new leader make better decisions.
Leadership Transition Practices Must Change with the Business Landscape
Stepping into a new senior role has become harder than it was a few years ago. A survey of 500 senior decision makers in UK-based businesses found that 73% believe their roles have become more complex since 2020, with the figure rising to 79% among directors and C-Suite executives.
Leaders are bearing the weight of unprecedented pressure from technologies like AI, global uncertainty, new ways of working, changing employee and societal expectations and new regulations and legislation. In addition, attracting and retaining talent, maintaining competitive advantage and creating long-term growth strategies have become harder.
This is the environment that new leaders are entering, and they require greater support to succeed. Expecting them to have everything figured out within 100 days doesn’t reflect the reality of the role.
Although Quick Wins Still Matter, They Need Context
New executives shouldn’t spend six months observing from the sidelines. Early decisions matter and can help in building confidence, showing direction and demonstrating leadership.
The mistake is treating early activity as evidence of long-term success. A leader might restructure a team within 100 days and still struggle to deliver the strategy your business needs a year later. Another might spend longer assessing the business before making a significant change, only to deliver stronger results later.
Insights from McKinsey & Company emphasise moving away from the 100-day mindset, noting that 40% to 50% of new leaders fail within their first 18 months. Its research shows that you can have successful leadership transitions when you focus on the areas that can have the greatest impact on your business rather than following a fixed calendar.
Your board should ask what progress looks like at each stage rather than treating day 100 as a verdict.
Measure Progress Across the First Year Instead of Scrutinising Immediately
Instead of asking whether a new leader has delivered enough by day 100, your board should establish milestones across the first year.
The first few months can focus on understanding the business, relationships, risks and priorities, while the following period tests whether the leader has built the right team and converted those insights into a clear strategy. Later reviews can focus more heavily on execution, organisational performance and sustainable results.
This gives you a much better view of leadership effectiveness and allows the board to spot problems early without turning every setback into a question about whether the appointment was wrong. Focusing on the first 100 days makes it easy to miss what truly matters while distorting the distinction between onboarding and transition.
Onboarding usually takes one to three months and focuses on access, information and entry into the organisation. Successful transitions involve a much longer process and can last from around 12 to 18 months since the new leader must take ownership and build sustainable performance.
This provides a far more realistic timeframe for judging an executive appointment.
Avoid Leaving Succession Planning Until You Need It
Having a succession plan in place can influence whether or not new leaders successfully transition into their roles. However, data from Robert Walters 2026 Talent Trends report shows that only 19% of organisations have a leadership succession plan, while 41% have no plan at all, and 7% are unsure whether one even exists.
This creates a difficult position for boards. You’re asking a new leader to deliver under pressure while potentially having limited internal succession strength behind them.
Good succession planning gives you more options since it allows you to develop internal candidates, identify external talent early and understand where interim leadership could provide stability during a longer search. It also changes the conversation around leadership appointments because you’re no longer reacting to a vacancy but preparing your organisation for its next stage.
Novo’s Perspective
The first 100 days can be useful for setting priorities, building relationships and showing early leadership, but they shouldn’t decide whether a new executive is successful.
Leadership transitions are more complex than a calendar deadline suggests, and many successful executives take considerably longer to become comfortable in their roles and resolve the strategic questions they inherit.
At Novo Executive, we believe that boards should judge new leadership appointments across a longer horizon, with clear expectations, regular feedback and meaningful milestones through the first year and beyond. The real measure isn’t what they achieve by day 100 but whether they can build the leadership, strategy and momentum needed to deliver sustained results.
