The 30-60-90 framework.
On when you inherit a mess and you're staring at chaos, your first instinct is all wrong.
Welcome to Lead You First. Every essay is a field note: something I’ve tested, observed, or learned the hard way. If it’s here, it’s because it holds up under pressure.
I landed my pivot from Operator to HR with what looked like a dream role.
I was brought on as a “sparring partner” to the GM overseeing an 8-figure acquisition; a 25-year family business that had scaled from 7 to 8 figures (almost overnight) and had become a multi-site operation with complexities. From the outside, the they looked established, profitable, and rich with opportunity.
My role was to help the newly acquired business integrate into the Fortune 500 parent company. The plan: audit the structures, systems, and practices, then align everything with corporate branding and leverage the ecosystem.
Simple enough.
We got as far as the audit before we discovered the shell was covering several challenges.
The org structure was flat; leading to bottlenecks with decision-making. The leadership team was insecure. Causing friction and delays. The parent company had assigned a leader with diminished trust corporately, which didn’t help with the newly acquired teams.
And the previous system? It rewarded discretion and holding back “bad news.” It rewarded multiple checkpoints and layers of opinions before any decision got made.
This wasn’t a simple integration.
This was a mess.
My instinct was to fix it.
I could see the problems. I knew what needed to change. Reorganize, restructure, clarify roles, get the right people in the right seats.
I wanted to move fast.
But I’d learned something from my years as an operator: when you’re staring at chaos, your first instinct is usually wrong.
Not because the problems aren’t real. But because you don’t understand them yet.
So I set up a meeting with the GM and did what I was recruited to do: we sparred.
I laid out the assessment—kindly and honestly.
“We have a confusion problem covering up a trust problem,” I told him. “Let’s not assume. Let’s get clear and diagnose what’s actually causing the symptoms.”
He agreed. And we got to work.
He set up 1:1s with his leadership team, then leaders beyond that. I collected data by curiously learning about the business, the teams, and the history.
For 30 days, I consumed. No producing.
Week after week, meeting after meeting, shift by shift, I consumed to gather data.
After 30 days, I felt like it was time to digest.
The next 30 days, I held back from “solving the problem.” Instead, I partnered with the GM and worked with the leadership team to think through potential solutions—focusing on ideas we had confidence would actually stick.
Reorganizing. Restructuring. Promotions. Demotions. Role clarity. Skill gaps. Retention plans. Succession needs. Knowledge transfer.
All tools to help us create clarity, get people in the right seats, and remove excuses.
From day 30 to day 60, the leadership team established a plan we stood behind. A plan that would send a strong message:
“We recognize what got us here. We agree that what got us here won’t take us to the next level. We want the right people in the right seats. And we trust you.”
Then came the final 30 days.
During my first 90 days, I was the bearer of disruption.
I’ve seen people confront chaos and delay change. I’ve observed leaders promote great people to wrong roles and contribute to more chaos. I’ve witnessed teams grow stale or lose great people because they grew complacent.
I knew we needed to tackle as many uncomfortable conversations as possible in a short timeframe if we were going to have any shot at turning things around.
So we did.
That 30-60-90 framework is the same onboarding I use today.
Whether I’m stepping into a new role, working with a new client, or taking on a new project:
First, we get curious.
Next, we plan together.
Then, we test it out.
The timeframe might change, but the outcomes stay the same:
Disruption leads to change.
Change leads to trust.
When you do it right, people are uncertain at first and rave about “what took us so long” afterward.
If you do it right, people start with skepticism and end with safety and security.
I’ve learned that fear is what holds us back.
Fear that we’ll hurt someone.
Fear that it won’t work out.
Fear that it’s not the “right” move.
There are plenty of excuses. But it all comes down to fear.
I’ve also learned that reframing works.
If we don’t act, won’t we hurt more of the people who don’t deserve it?
If we don’t act, will we ever find out what we should avoid?
If we don’t act, what’s going to happen to the business?
Perspective tends to change everything.
That, and making sure you’re approaching “people problems” with EQ.
Coming from a background working with engineers, I learned the importance of IQ in thinking through problems. But I’ve also learned that IQ isn’t as strong as EQ when you’re needing to feel your way through problems that impact and influence people.
If you’ve inherited a mess—or you’re walking into one right now—here’s what I’d ask yourself:
Are you trying to fix it before you’ve actually understood it?
Because most leaders jump straight to solutions. They see the chaos and want to clean it up immediately.
But the best leaders I’ve worked with do something different.
They slow down first. They get curious. They consume before they produce.
They resist the urge to “fix” until they actually understand what’s broken.
And then—only then—do they move.
Here’s the framework:
Days 1-30: Consume.
Learn the business, the teams, the history. Ask questions. Listen. Don’t solve anything yet.
Days 31-60: Digest and plan.
Partner with your team to think through solutions. Focus on ideas you have confidence will stick. Get alignment before you act.
Days 61-90: Test and disrupt.
Tackle the uncomfortable conversations. Make the changes. Be the bearer of disruption.
It won’t feel fast. But it will feel right.
And when it’s done, people won’t ask why you moved so slowly.
They’ll ask what took so long.
That’s all for this week.
Question for you: What are you trying to fix right now before you’ve actually diagnosed what’s broken?
Thanks for your attention. If you found this useful, please share.
Whether I’m stepping into a new role, working with a new client, or taking on a new project:
First, we get curious.
Next, we plan together.
Then, we test it out.
I could see the problems. I knew what needed to change. Reorganize, restructure, clarify roles, get the right people in the right seats.
I wanted to move fast.
But I’d learned something from my years as an operator: when you’re staring at chaos, your first instinct is usually wrong.