The first 100 days after an investment create unusual pressure. The company must protect current performance, respond to new governance requirements and begin delivering the value-creation plan. If decision rights remain implicit, ordinary choices slow and material choices migrate to whichever person has the most power or urgency.
Executive answer
Decision rights in the first 100 days should make four things explicit: which matters are reserved, who decides cross-functional questions, what management can decide without investor escalation, and how exceptions move. Investors and management should:
- protect essential decisions during the first 30 days;
- trace real bottlenecks before redesigning authority;
- clarify one accountable decider and necessary input for material choices;
- match authority with information and consequence; and
- review whether the new pattern improves speed and quality.
A decision right is the practical authority to make a defined choice within stated boundaries. It is not merely responsibility for completing a task. Research on post-merger integration and practitioner work on decision effectiveness both support early clarity, while also warning against generic structures detached from context.
TL;DR
Use the first 100 days to protect, clarify and embed decision rights. Days 0–30: preserve operational control, define reserved matters and observe real decisions. Days 31–60: clarify cross-functional and delegated choices, with escalation thresholds. Days 61–100: practise the model, review exceptions and remove bottlenecks. Do not build a RACI chart for every task. Focus on decisions material to the thesis, safety, customers and cash. The 100-day horizon is a planning device, not a universal deadline.
Four categories to make explicit
Reserved matters
Define the decisions retained by the board or investor, such as capital allocation, acquisitions, senior appointments or material risk. Specify thresholds so ordinary management choices do not drift upwards.
Cross-functional decisions
Pricing, customer exceptions, product priorities, capacity and integration often span functions. Name one decider, identify essential contributors and set the evidence required.
Delegated operating decisions
Managers need usable authority within clear limits. If accountability expands after investment while approvals remain centralised, pace and ownership deteriorate.
Exceptions and escalation
Define what makes a case exceptional, who can pause work, how urgent issues move and when the decision returns to the normal owner.
A phased first-100-day approach
Days 0–30: protect and observe
Confirm reserved matters, banking and system authorities, regulatory accountabilities and decisions that could interrupt customers or safety. Trace ten recent decisions. Avoid changing authority merely to signal control.
Days 31–60: clarify and rehearse
Choose the decisions most important to the thesis. For each, state the question, decider, input roles, boundaries, evidence, time expectation and escalation path. Rehearse one likely exception before it becomes urgent.
Days 61–100: embed and learn
Review decision cycle time, reversals, repeated escalations and outcomes. Remove duplicated approvals. Coach leaders who have new authority and refine the model where information or consequence does not match the role.
Why RACI is not enough
RACI can clarify task participation, but decision work needs sharper language. Several people can be responsible for analysis or implementation; one role should normally hold the decision within a defined boundary. Input is not veto unless explicitly stated.
The investor-management interface needs equal care. A reserved-matters schedule without service expectations can create delay. State who can be consulted, by when, and what happens if urgent action is required.
The contrary case
Faster decisions are not always better. Safety-critical, regulated, irreversible or high-capital choices may require deliberate challenge and formal approval. The aim is appropriate pace and quality, not maximum decentralisation. The 100-day sequence must adapt to regulatory obligations, distress conditions and transaction complexity.
A practical test: ten decisions in ten days
Sample ten material decisions made during a ten-day period. Record initiation, evidence, input, decider, elapsed time, escalations and rework. Discuss two cases where the formal model differed from practice. Change one boundary or information flow, then review the next ten decisions.
What investors ask next
Should the investor approve operating decisions?
Only where governance, risk or agreed thresholds justify it. Routine involvement can weaken management ownership and consume investor capacity.
How detailed should the map be?
Begin with decisions material to the thesis and downside. Expand only where ambiguity is causing delay, risk or repeated intervention.
What metrics help?
Decision time, escalation frequency, reversal, repeated exceptions and execution outcomes are useful when interpreted with context.
What if authority is clear but decisions remain poor?
Examine information quality, incentives, capability, challenge and whether consequences reach the decider.
Continue the investor diligence cluster
The Organisational Genius Diagnostic can surface perceived decision bottlenecks. Treat those results as hypotheses and test them against recent choices. Follow the investor path for deeper work.
© Course Correction Consulting LTD. Evidence-informed practitioner guidance, not an audit, valuation or investment recommendation.
.svg)
.svg)
