The first 100 days. A case study

I have every faith in your abilities Jane, I know you can sort this firm out'. Those infamous words of encouragement from John Parsons (57), the firms Senior Partner, were uttered just before Christmas, 1999. They had echoed continually around Jane Allens (39) head every since. By Tom Kennie & If Price .

Prior to her appointment as the new Managing Partner of Graysons & Hanrahan (incorporating Parsons & Jones) from the 1st January, 2000, she also had confidence in her ability to sort this newly merged firm 'out'. Now, she felt much less clear.

Her appointment as Managing Partner of this medium sized practice had come as a slight, but not totally unexpected surprise. She had been with Graysons for 15 years. A respected professional with a reputation for being 'firm, but fair' she had led the firms largest department for the past 4 years. Under her guidance the department had grown significantly and, prior to the merger, had accounted for over 60% of the firms fee income.

The merger had been part necessity and part ambition. With such significant activity in a single main sector Graysons felt more than a little exposed to a possible downturn in this area. To compound their concerns their reliance on 3 major financial institutions accounted for over 70% of their fee income in the sector. The other departments saw themselves as 'general practitioners' - and claimed to provide a single point of contact for their clients. Her fellow partners had also been with the firm for 15-20 years and, with one or two exceptions, generally she had good relations with all of them. It was a comfortable place to work - not the most dynamic - but one which had enabled them to continue the long history of Graysons, which traced its roots back into the 1780s. Prior to the merger, Graysons had 10 equity partners and 130 fee earners and support staff.

John Parsons, the senior partner had held this post in his previous firm (Parsons & Jones). When they merged with Graysons in 1997 he had negotiated that he would continue in this role. He was well respected in the business community and internally had a reputation for 'running a tight ship'. He did, however, hate 'administration and bureaucracy' with a vengeance, and generally liked to be involved in 'all significant decisions'. In the merger with Hanrahans, a deal had been reached that he would continue (until his retirement in 3 years time) as one of two joint Senior Partners of the merged firm.

Hanrahans appeared to be a good merger partner. Its professional disciplines complemented Graysons although it had grown from a very different start point. The firm was formed in 1986 by two ex-City practitioners who wanted the challenge of growing a new firm from scratch. They had a reputation for being commercially aggressive and over its first 15 year's the firm had doubled in size every 3 years. Along the way a number of other entrepreneurial partners had joined and, prior to the merger, it had 8 equity partners and some 80 fee earners and support staff.

John Hanrahan (49), one of the two founders now held the post of joint senior partner in the merged firm.

Jane's appointment as managing partner had been welcomed by all the partners. It was recognised by all that the firms management structure and strategy needed 'sorting out' and they all felt Jane would be able to deliver a solution.

As mentioned earlier Jane was less sure of 'the solution'. She had read recently of the critical importance of her 'first 100 days' in post. She knew that her style of operating, the decisions she made and the processes she used to 'sort out' the firm were under continuous observation by the other 17 partners. The honeymoon period felt as if it had come to an end. The initial enthusiasm and high expectations associated with her appointment were evaporating rapidly. When was 'she' going to outline her strategy?, is 'she' up to this challenge? - these comments being largely attributable to partners who were originally from the Hanrahans side of the merger.

So how would you advise a Jane Allen to operate during her first 100 days in post?

What should her key priorities be during her first 100 days in post?

The first 100 days
Some issues to consider

The following summary is intended to act as a catalyst for comment from readers on this case. It is not 'the answer', it is simply one perspective. What would you/have you done differently ? Why not write some of your observations on the case and send them to the Editor in order to share your views with others.

So how should Jane manage her first 100 days? The initial pre-Christmas euphoria following her appointment has gone and the reality of the challenges ahead are now uppermost in her mind.

Appointment to Managing Partner (or other senior management position) can either be viewed as an exciting and potentially exhilarating opportunity, or, alternatively as an exhausting and ultimately impossible job. How you manage your initial period in office - and particularly your first 100 days will heavily influence which of these two potentially self-fulfilling prophesies wins out. Unfortunately no easy to follow checklist exists, no one speaks to you about it and the 'unwritten rules' in some firms may imply that if you have to discuss it 'you clearly are not up to the job to which you have been appointed'. Yet the processes you use and the approach you adopt in this critical phase can heavily influence your future success. But, so often, new appointees have to rely exclusively on their own instincts, which in some cases may suffice, but in others can lead to confusion, inefficiency and demoralisation.

So back to Jane - what issues should she be considering? From your review of the case write down 5 issues which would be on your 'hit list' - also write down 2 words to describe the leadership style you might adopt in this initial period.

Some of the issues you may have identified could be;

Setting Expectations

Establishing the mutual expectations and boundaries of the role each member of the senior team will play can be a crucial issue in this initial period. Jane may have two issues on this agenda. With two 'joint senior partners' - what roles will they play in the management of the firm ? - what do they really expect from the Managing Partner? Jane may also be concerned to ensure that John Parsons ('tight ship'& ) is clearly aware of how and ultimately where decisions will be reached. With John Hanrahan ('the entrepreneur') her concerns may be more focused on how growth will be managed in the future - again how and where decisions will be reached.

Strategy

One might argue that the heart of the firms need for someone to 'sort out this newly merged firm' is associated with a lack of a clear strategy for the firm. A key aspect of Jane's job will be to gain agreement for a review of the firms future strategy. Following this she might wish to undertake an intensive period of consultation and listening to staff at all levels within the firm. Her ability to suspend judgement during this phase whilst providing a sense of direction and emphasising the need for change in a number of areas is likely to be critical. She will need to deal with the dilemma of 'communicating your vision' - which many wish to see NOW, with a need to involve others (at all levels) in the process of establishing a joint, shared sense of direction.

Service(s)

A central part of the review process will be likely to revolve around the service range which the firm is, and should offer in the future. The reliance of the firm on 3 financial institutions for 42% of its fee income would require further investigation. How well are these clients currently managed? What is happening in their business and how might the firm be affected by any changes? Should the firm expand in this sector or diversify? If the latter, in what direction?

Systems

One issue which Jane might explore in her first 100 days could be the compatibility of the systems used by the merger partners. The firm appears to be lacking in cohesiveness - the two cultures are very different and some practical steps are required to help create a common culture from the co-existing cultures. Focusing on an audit of policies and systems with a view towards creating an integration plan could be a means of starting this process.

Structure

Firms which appoint new Managing Partners, particularly in the circumstances described in the case, do so with the anticipation of change. The most obvious, but potentially most contentious area, is in the area of structure. Move to quick to change the structure, without a clear rationale, may lead to a new structure on paper, but the status quo pattern is likely to re-exert itself. Wait too long and the opportunity will have gone. Unless in crisis conditions, the first 100 days is more likely to be a period of listening and testing the structure against the future strategy and service plan. But, soon after the honeymoon some decisions will be expected and required. Whether the tool you use during implementation is a 'big bang sledge hammer' or 'incremental scalpel' is ultimately where your judgement will be tested.

Symbolism

During your first 100 days (and beyond!) your actions will be under the spotlight - who do you see, where, how often, when, will be noticed. Small gestures you make will take on much more significance in this phase than at later stages. Try and avoid, unless you are in deep financial trouble the classic, symbolic, cost cutting moves such as 'cancel biscuits for all internal meetings' or 'stop all non-reclaimable travel' etc. This process can, however, be used in a positive sense. Changing the process by which you communicate or consult - from paper to face-to-face will send signals about how you are likely to operate after your initial period. Be seen around the office, despite your desire to get behind the figures and spend time in your office.

Segment(ing)

During any change process such as this, Jane will need to make some judgements on the level of support (or otherwise) she can expect from those who will be affected by the changes she may be introducing. Segmenting the population into:

those she can change now,
those she can influence now,
those she can't change or influence yet, and
those who can't or won't change,

may help her to gauge at various stages where her problem people exist.

Finally, Jane may have a more challenging issue on her mind. Gender. Does it matter? Does it change what people expect of me? Does it change how they are likely to treat and be treated by me? Whatever the gender of the new Managing Partner it may highlight the need for Support - a mentor, a 'critical friend', someone outside the firm who can act as a sounding board and help work through the managerial and political dilemmas which will inevitably arise.

But what do you think?

Dr Tom Kennie
Ranmore Consulting Group/Sheffield Hallam University
tkennie@compuserve.com

The author is a consultant in practice management and is currently advising a number of legal, property advisory and consulting engineering firms on management issues. He also acts as a coach to senior practice managers. In addition he is (part-time) Professor of Practice Management at Sheffield Hallam University where he teaches on MBA and other post-graduate courses and supervises research students on aspects of business management applied to the professions.

Dr If Price
Sheffield Hallam University
i.price@shu.ac.uk

The second author is Professor of Innovation Management within the Facilities Management Graduate Centre (FMGC) at Sheffield Hallam University. He also consults in the professional services sector. He is co-author of a recent book 'Shifting the Patterns' which deals with organisations and change.

If you have a comment on this case study, contact Tom Kennie or If Price directly, or the Editor Caroline Poynton on
T. + 44 181 785 2700
E: cpoynton@ark-group.com