The 90-Day Executive Assessment

Why 40% of Executive Hires Fail Within 18 Months

The most frequently cited statistic in executive hiring is that 40% of executive hires fail within their first 18 months. The less frequently examined question is when those failures become visible — and whether early intervention could have changed the outcome. Across Majhi Group's placements and the broader body of executive onboarding research, the answer is consistent: the signals that predict failure are almost always visible within the first 90 days. They are simply not being observed systematically.

The 90-Day Executive Assessment framework is designed to close this gap. It provides a structured observation protocol for the new executive's first quarter — the specific behaviours, decisions, and relationship-building activities that predict whether the hire will succeed or fail, and a clear escalation path when the early signals are concerning.

Days 1–30: What Good Looks Like

A strong executive in their first 30 days demonstrates a specific behaviour pattern that is reliably predictive of later success: they invest heavily in relationships before investing in changes. They schedule one-on-ones with every direct report, peer, and key stakeholder in their first two weeks. They ask more questions than they answer. They observe and document before they opine and prescribe.

The executive who arrives on day three with a 90-day plan they prepared before joining — and begins advocating for it immediately — is demonstrating a dangerous over-confidence. They have not yet learned enough about the specific organisation, team, and context to know whether their prior framework is applicable. The most capable executives know this and treat the first 30 days as exclusively an information-gathering exercise.

The red flags in the first 30 days: moving to restructure the team before deeply understanding it, advocating for tools or processes they used at their last company before understanding whether they're appropriate here, creating visible distance from their predecessor's work before understanding what was good and what was not, and spending significantly more time with the CEO than with their direct team.

Days 31–60: The Judgment Window

The middle 30 days of the first quarter are the most information-rich period for assessment. By day 31, the executive has enough context to begin making decisions — and those decisions reveal their judgment in a way that the first 30 days of listening and observing cannot. The CEO and board should be actively observing the decisions the executive makes during this period, not just the outcomes of those decisions, but the process: how they gather information, how they involve their team, how they communicate uncertainty, and how they respond when a decision produces an unexpected result.

The positive signals in the judgment window: decisions that are visibly informed by input from the team, willingness to name trade-offs clearly rather than presenting only the upside of a path, and comfort with "I don't know yet, here's how I'll find out" when asked about something they haven't had time to fully diagnose. The concerning signals: decisions made without adequate input, communication that filters reality upward to the CEO, and defensiveness when early results do not match expectations.

Days 61–90: The Plan and the Team

By day 90, the executive should be able to articulate a clear plan for the next six months — specific enough to be evaluated and held accountable to, honest enough to acknowledge the constraints and uncertainties they're navigating, and compelling enough to have generated genuine buy-in from their direct team. The 90-day plan is not primarily a deliverable for the CEO — it is a signal of how the executive thinks and communicates. An executive who produces a genuinely excellent 90-day plan has demonstrated the synthesis, prioritisation, and communication skills that the role requires.

The team dimension is equally important. By day 90, the executive's direct reports have formed clear views about the new leader. They know whether they feel heard, whether the executive is competent in the domain, and whether they can trust them. The CEO should be conducting brief, informal conversations with a sample of the executive's direct reports at the 90-day mark — not to audit the executive, but to calibrate their own perception against the team's experience. Significant divergence between the CEO's perception and the team's experience is a serious early warning signal.