The First 90 Days Is a Lie

(Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here.)

He had done everything the book said. Listening tour in the first thirty days. Umpteen one-on-ones. Customer interviews. A 30-60-90 plan built with the CEO's chief of staff. A strategic assessment, presented at the end of month two, that walked the executive team through five growth priorities and three drags. The deck took his team ten days. The room praised it. 

He was fired at month nine.

The CEO said the decision was about "fit." Under pressure, he clarified that he hadn't "built the right relationships" and the team "hadn't come together" around his plan. She spent the next year trying to figure out what happened. Every week of hisfirst hundred days was documented against the Watkins framework. He had color-coded his calendar to track stakeholder quadrants. He had done the “work”.

The work was the wrong work.

The category error

Every first-90-days playbook I've read assumes the new executive's first job is to understand the business. It isn't. The first job is political alignment. By the time you understand the business, the politics have already hardened against you.

Michael Watkins wrote The First 90 Days in 2003. 1.8 million copies sold, Watkins's own count. Assigned in most senior executive programs in most of the top business schools. I want to be careful about how I say this because the book is a good book. The advice is solid. For the job it was written for.

Watkins wrote for general managers. A GM is the center of their org. Plants report to the GM. Sales reports to the GM. Finance reports to the GM. When a GM takes a new role, the people around them are direct reports, and the first-90-days problem is understanding the business fast enough to make good decisions before the team loses faith. For a GM, a listening tour is learning, because the people being listened to are the people who work for you.

The CMO is not a GM.

The CMO is a functional leader whose work touches every other function. The people you need relationships with are mostly not direct reports. They're peers. They're the other executives. They're the CEO's existing confidants who will decide, in your first quarter, whether the hire was a good one. They'll mostly decide on axes that have nothing to do with the strategic quality of your 30-60-90 plan.

"Understand the business" is the wrong first job when everyone around you is already deciding what you're here to do.

The three alliances

The real first 90 days for a CMO is about three alliances. All three have to be built before you touch strategy.

The CFO. Most urgent. The CFO is modeling next year's budget in your first sixty days whether you know it or not. Every dollar you don't protect in that model is a dollar FP&A hands back as "found savings." The conversation, in your first three weeks, has two questions. "What does a strong marketing function look like to you, and how would you know we had one?" and "If you could change one thing about how marketing reports to the board, what would it be?" You're not asking to collaborate. You're asking to learn how the CFO will evaluate you. The worst thing you can do in this meeting is present your strategic vision. Do not present anything. Take notes. I wrote about why the CFO relationship is actually the load-bearing one in The CFO Problem. This meeting is where that relationship starts.

The CRO. If the CRO decides you're "brand, not revenue" in your first sixty days, they've locked in that framing with the CEO before you've finished onboarding. The CRO is looking at you as either a threat to their territory or a resource for their pipeline. There's no neutral read. Early on, ask what the CRO thinks marketing's revenue contribution should look like. Then, more carefully, ask what it should not look like. The second question matters more. The CRO tells you where the third rails are. Don't argue. Don't propose a different division of labor. Acknowledge the framing. Renegotiation comes later, from allyship, not from threat.

The Chief Product Officer. Lower urgency. Higher cost if you get it wrong. The product leader is the executive most likely to ignore you by default and then, in month six, announce a launch you weren't consulted on. Establish early that product marketing works through your team and the next launch is a shared plan. Ask what's in the pipeline for the next two quarters, who's running the marketing for each, and whether they were happy with how the last launch went. Every product leader has a grievance about the last launch. Listening to the grievance is the first deposit in a relationship bank you'll be drawing from for the rest of your tenure.

The listening tour isn't for learning the business. It's for learning who thinks your job is what. The questions aren't about customers. They're about which of your peers is going to define the job you ended up taking. At least one of them has been quietly telling the CEO for a year that marketing has been underperforming and needs a "real operator." You need to know which one.

It's an intelligence operation. Pretending it's anything else is what gets new CMOs fired.

The 60-day trap

The strategic assessment at month two is the trap that kills most of them.

The content is almost always fine. The problem is that every month-two assessment is read through the lens of politics the new CMO hasn't learned yet.

Diagnose a "brand awareness gap" in the segment the CFO has been championing, and the CFO hears "she's going to ask for more money for a gap I said didn't exist." Diagnose "demand-gen underinvestment" and the CRO hears "she's coming for my SDR team." Diagnose a "product-marketing opportunity" and the CPO hears "she's going to slow my launches." In each case, the diagnosis is probably accurate. It's also politically catastrophic, because you're naming other executives' territory as a problem before you've built credibility with them.

What the peers hear is not the diagnosis. It's the threat.

I wrote about the broader pattern in Everyone's a Marketer (Until It Doesn't Work). Every executive has an opinion about marketing. The book-standard assessment gives them a clean read on your intentions before your coalition exists to absorb it.

What fit actually means

Fit at the senior level means coalition fit. Whether the three alliances hold. Everything else is noise.

The executives who survive longest are the ones who maintain the coalition more than they maintain the strategy. A coalition without a sharp strategy survives almost any quarter. A sharp strategy without a coalition can't survive an adverse one.

What to do instead

Skip the strategic assessment at 60 days.

Build the three alliances first. When the CEO asks for your plan at 90 days, hand them a plan your three allies have already signed off on. It won't be your best plan. It'll be the plan your CFO, CRO, and CPO can each look at and say "yes, I agreed to this, and here's the part I'm accountable for." It'll feel watered down. It has been. The watered-down plan survives the first budget cycle. The sharper plan, the one that's clearer and more ambitious, is the plan your peers quietly knife in the first quarterly review.

Present the watered-down plan. Share credit. Show immediately that marketing wins when the rest of the executive team wins.

Wait.

The sharper plan comes at month six or nine, after the coalition holds. It can be sharp by then because by then it's defensible. You have proof marketing delivers. You have relationships that absorb friction.

The CMOs who last write a worse plan, slower, with more friends.

You don't get good at the first 90 days by reading the book. You get good by understanding, before you accept, that the first 90 days aren't the work. They're the audition for the right to do the work.

Watkins wrote a book about the wrong audition.

The one you're in is simpler, more political, and easier to win than it looks, as long as you stop performing the book.nd see what breaks.