Why 100? Why not 76? Or 83? 100 is a nice round number, that’s why. If history had decided on a different global numbering system, then maybe it would be the first 100001 days (which in fairness, is quite round too, although – I think – it’s 65 in binary).
Anyway, the first hundred days. It’s often mentioned in the context of new presidents or prime ministers, or to focus attention on the crucial early stages of an acquisition, a relaunch, a merger, or a turnaround. The implication is that whatever this new thing is, it’s going to make a big impact quickly, and generate sufficient inertia to drive through the rest of its implementation.
Impact and inertia, says Newton, are functions of mass and energy. Those first hundred days often fizzle with the enthusiasm and drive of the new team, the new idea. Then reality and detail bite (look at Gordon Brown’s regime, hit by flood, bombing and disease in very short order), and the energy dissipates.
Just think what you could achieve if you could retain the passion of the first however-many days.
Well of course you can. Those first days were just a convenient construct. You’ve chosen to believe that those three months are the key ones and that everything gets harder thereafter. So, as NLP will tell you, you will prove yourself right.
So here’s a thought. Pick a different number. After your first new number of days, decide that you will now have a second set, where you will have just as much energy and enthusiasm. Then a third. Change the number and have a fourth. Of course you need to look after the reality and the detail, that’s not going to change. The bit you probably can change, is to keep making an impact, and maintain the energy that led you to start the thing in the first place.
Note added 14th February: see the inestimable Seth Godin’s thoughts on what happens to new organisations and new projects: http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2008/02/soggy.html