My Impressions: The First 90 Days

Part of the reason I read this book is because I started a new role as a Senior Pricing Analyst.  The name of the book fit the theme and I thought would help me transition into the new job.  Overall, thought the book was fairly comprehensive for someone starting a new job.  But more specifically, for people that do not have direct reports, only the first 1/3 of the book would be relevant.  

The First 90 Days: Proven Strategies for Getting Up to Speed Faster and Smarter, Updated and Expanded

This book is majorly about common sense.  But then again, common sense is not so common.  While I studied in MBA, b-school focused tremendously on networking.  For most people (myself included, still), networking is probably the make or break of your career because of how much it is underutilized compared to other aspects of a career. 

Since I am not a manager, I will also only focus on the first one third of the book.  A lot of focus is on networking and learning.  What type of networking you should have – as most people only seem to make an effort to find one single type of network – mentorship for career advice.  All other types (e.g. industry specific, customer centric, company politics…etc.) are left out. 

I have had a lot of thoughts on the subject.  First, “networking” has a negative connotation.  When I first learned the term “networking,” I had a hard time coming to terms with it.  The concept seemed for you to become someone you’re not, and fake it with someone else until you get some benefit out of it.  However, now I don’t think so anymore. 

We all have different types of relationships and we all behave differently in each of these relationships.  This does not mean we are any less true, or any less sincere.  This purely is because of the nature of the relationship is different.  I have relationships with my parents, relationships with my siblings, relationships with my friends growing up, relationships with my mentors, relationships with my bosses…etc.  I am sincere with all of them.  However, I treat them all differently.  I’m sure you do, too.  The way you talk to your kids is probably different than how you talk to your parents.  The same applies for your classmates, boss, coworkers…etc.  Being sincere is NOT being radically honest.  I don’t think you should treat EVERYBODY the same and tell everybody everything the same way.  Instead, be constructive about what you say. 

If I am in short of money for a real estate transaction, I may talk to my parents about it.  But I wouldn’t tell my boss about these sorts of things.  I mean, the traditional wisdom is keep business and personal separate.  I would like to propose a more micro-segmentation of relationships.  Bosses go in a bucket, coworkers go in a bucket, parents go in a bucket, kids go in a bucket, and so on and so forth.  For most of the time, it’s hard for people to care about the aspects of your life they can’t identify with/or have no overlap. 

On a separate note, your job comes with a set of responsibilities.  Usually these responsibilities are your “direct responsibilities.”  I strongly believe “networking” is a part of your responsibility that is NOT directly written on the job description.  You are in a team and working with others because you alone cannot figure everything out.  Or else, start a company and make millions.  There are times you need to reach out to people about technical details, business trends, career advice, political stances, personality checks, working styles…etc.  The different types of information will not come from the same person.

You don’t have to “fake it” to talk to someone new.  You can still be 100% sincere and care for the other person, but just that the topics among different people are different.  I can sincerely talk to an RND guy about the technical details.  I can also sincerely talk about sales and marketing with a sales rep.  Does that make me “fake” when I don’t talk about sales to the RND guy?  Honestly, he probably doesn’t care.  But you are in a role to make things work, and you can still be a good guy when you make it work. 

Networking is probably the biggest refresher for myself in this book.  Remember not to just focus on your directly responsibilities but also build up a network of people that you can help – as well as help you.  Create those mutually benefit relationships that benefits you, the other person, and the company. 

I took some notes and here are a few other important points I’ll list in bullets:

• What’s your break even point?  What is your team’s break even point?  How long do they expect you to be converted from a cost-center to a value-add-center?  Can you match that or shorten that time frame?
• Are your goals clear/specific and aligned with your boss?  Do you have the correct tools to make it happen?
• Are you “purely” doing what you were good at (what got you promoted) but neglecting the fact that the new role may have different challenges and need different skill sets to be good at?  Often times, successful people have a tendency to do what has proven successful in the past.  However, it’s beneficial if you take a holistic view of the new role/responsibilities before you just blindly do what has worked in the past.  Maybe how you’ve done things in the past won’t work in the new role. 
• Every forward-driven person wants to be adding value and proving themselves.  However, often times we fall into the trap of wanting to make a difference too quick, too bold, without understanding the situation first.  Do have a plan to act quickly…  But try to understand the landscape first.  

The last point I need to separate out: The book mentioned about a sink-or-swim mentality that should be avoided.  In my past jobs, sink-or-swim was always part of every internal move.  Since I grew up with that mentality, I never thought much about it and took it as it is.  I mean, if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.  If you can’t do the job, let someone else do it.  I guess that’s how the Peter Principle is coined.  You are continuously promoted until you are at a level to be incompetent. 

Sounded right, sounded real, and I didn’t have a problem with it.  However, after reading the book, I realized that if a valuable asset does not successfully transfer to a new role, it not only harms the person, but also the company.  First of all, the employee now has a black eye/reputation that will be hard to build up again.  But even for a company, you just lost a very valuable employee at a previous job (or else he wouldn’t be promoted), then you put him in a situation where he screwed up…  Double stab in the heart. 

Maybe we’re in a world for survival of the fittest.  Maybe we want to test a person to his/her maximum potential.  But the truth is, not everybody is well-rounded and can do everything well.  Some people are extremely good at a very narrow field.  If you want him/her to shine at “bigger” responsibilities, you may have just lost your most valuable employee in a certain sector and then fired him/her for screwing up (and costing) something s/he wasn’t naturally adept to. 

I wish HR and managers could consider this dimension more…

But hey, if your manager and HR just wants to do the minimum possible…  Follow the path of least resistance…  The company won’t fail overnight. 

That’s why there’s the saying that “A” player hire “A” employees.  “B” players hire everybody else lower that still pass…