We see this scenario so many times:
A CEO hires a Chief of Staff.
The CEO thinks: Finally. Someone who will anticipate what I need, take things off my plate, and make sure the organization follows through.
The Chief of Staff thinks: Great. I’m going to help shape strategy, work on the organization’s biggest priorities, and serve as a thought partner to the CEO.
Six months later, both are frustrated.
The CEO doesn’t understand why the Chief of Staff isn’t creating more leverage.
The Chief of Staff doesn’t understand why they’re spending so much time coordinating meetings and chasing follow-ups.
Both are talented. Both are incredibly hard working.
Neither may be doing anything particularly wrong.
They are experiencing what we at Prime call “the Expectation Gap.”
The role everyone understands differently
Check out LinkedIn these days, and you’ll see few roles generate as much discussion about what they actually are as Chief of Staff.
Ask ten Chiefs of Staff to describe their jobs and you’ll likely hear ten different answers.
That’s partly what makes the role so powerful. A Chief of Staff can be shaped around the particular needs of an executive and organization. But that flexibility also has a downside.
When a role can be almost anything, two people can easily believe they’ve agreed to the same job when they haven’t.
And let’s be honest, the job description isn’t solving this issue.
While organizations often try to create clarity through a job description, it’s just not enough for this role.
A job description might say the Chief of Staff will “drive strategic priorities,” “ensure alignment across the leadership team,” or “serve as a trusted advisor to the CEO.” That’s great, but it’s not enough to make this partnership successful.
Expectations exist whether we articulate them or not
Every executive has a picture in their head of what a great Chief of Staff looks like.
So does every Chief of Staff.
Those pictures are shaped by previous experience, other Chiefs of Staff they’ve encountered, articles they’ve read, people they’ve worked with, and assumptions about what the title means.
The problem is that those expectations often remain implicit. Until one of them isn’t met.
The CEO thinks, Why didn’t they know I wanted them to handle that?
The Chief of Staff thinks, I didn’t realize that was mine.
This is the Expectation Gap: the space between what the executive assumes the Chief of Staff will do and what the Chief of Staff understands themselves to own.
The wider the gap, the harder the relationship becomes.
Trust often gets blamed for what is actually ambiguity
When a Chief of Staff relationship isn’t working, we often hear about trust. But sometimes what looks like a trust problem is actually an expectations problem.
It’s difficult to trust someone to exercise judgment when neither person is clear about where that judgment should begin and end.
It’s difficult for a Chief of Staff to act confidently when they don’t know what authority they actually have.
So they hesitate. They check. They ask permission.
The executive experiences that as a lack of initiative.
The Chief of Staff experiences the executive’s frustration as shifting expectations.
A devastating cycle begins.
The gap exists beyond the executive and Chief of Staff
There’s another layer to this problem.
The rest of the organization also has expectations of the Chief of Staff.
Senior leaders may not understand whether the Chief of Staff speaks for the executive or simply works with them.
Employees may view the role as a gatekeeper. An Executive Assistant may suddenly find responsibilities they previously owned shifting to someone new. Other executives may wonder why the Chief of Staff is involved in their work.
So even when the CEO and Chief of Staff understand the role, the organization may not.
That ambiguity creates friction. And because the Chief of Staff operates across boundaries rather than neatly within one function, that friction can be particularly consequential.
Alignment isn’t a one-time conversation
The answer isn’t to create an exhaustive list of responsibilities on day one.
Chief of Staff roles change. The needs of the executive change. The organization changes. A major strategic initiative emerges. The leadership team evolves. The Chief of Staff becomes more capable. The executive becomes more comfortable delegating.
A role that was appropriate six months ago may no longer be the role the organization needs today.
That’s why expectations need to be revisited quarterly.
Not because the role was poorly defined, but rather, because the relationship is being actively managed.
Define the need before defining the role
There is an even more fundamental way to reduce the Expectation Gap.
Before hiring a Chief of Staff, understand the problem you’re asking them to solve.
Once that is clear, you can determine what responsibilities belong with a Chief of Staff, what belongs with an Executive Assistant, what should be owned elsewhere in the organization, and what may be better solved through process or technology.
Success requires two people to see the same role
The Chief of Staff role will probably always resist a universal definition. That’s not necessarily a problem. In fact, its adaptability is one of its greatest strengths.
But a role doesn’t need a universal definition to have a shared definition between the people who matter.
Photo by Jonathan Valerius
