Chiefs of Staff aren’t an excuse for poor leadership

Over the last few years, the Chief of Staff role has proliferated. There are plenty of reasons for that. Organisations have become more complex, leaders are responsible for increasingly broad portfolios, and the pace of decision-making has accelerated considerably. Running a modern organisation places demands on executives that simply didn't exist a decade ago.

Against that backdrop, it's hardly surprising that more organisations are investing in Chiefs of Staff. A great Chief of Staff creates leverage. They improve decision-making, increase organisational alignment, protect executive time, and help leadership teams operate with greater consistency. In many organisations, they've become an essential part of the senior leadership infrastructure.

All of that is positive.

What I hope doesn't happen, however, is that the growing popularity of the role changes our expectations of leadership itself.

Leadership isn’t easy

One explanation for the rise of the Chief of Staff is that leadership has become harder.

I think that's largely true.

The number of competing priorities has increased. Organisations move faster. Information flows constantly. Leaders are expected to think strategically while remaining operationally engaged, communicate effectively across a wide range of audiences, and make decisions under persistent uncertainty. Having someone whose primary focus is helping them navigate that complexity makes complete sense.

But complexity and capability are two different things. A Chief of Staff exists because modern leadership is demanding. They shouldn't exist so that organisations can tolerate leaders who repeatedly fall short in areas that remain fundamental to the role.

There's an important distinction between helping someone perform at their best and compensating for behaviours they have little intention of changing.

A Chief of Staff isn't there to clean up after the leader

Every Chief of Staff supports their Principal in different ways. Some help prepare difficult conversations. Some provide feedback on communication. Some offer an alternative perspective before important decisions are made. Those are all healthy parts of the relationship.

The line begins to blur when the Chief of Staff becomes responsible for repeatedly repairing problems that the leader themselves created.

Perhaps they spend their time smoothing relationships after unnecessary conflict. Perhaps they're constantly reinterpreting poorly communicated decisions for confused teams. Perhaps they become the person who apologises, explains, reassures and rebuilds trust after avoidable mistakes.

Most Chiefs of Staff are capable of doing those things; but should they have to?

Over time, there's a risk that the organisation starts relying on the Chief of Staff to compensate for weaknesses that really belong to the leader. The symptoms become manageable, but the underlying cause remains untouched.

The role should raise the bar

Ironically, I think the existence of a Chief of Staff should have exactly the opposite effect. Having access to a trusted strategic partner is an extraordinary privilege. Very few leaders throughout history have enjoyed that level of dedicated support.

A Chief of Staff creates more capacity for reflection, better decision-making and stronger execution. They provide honest feedback, challenge assumptions and create space for leaders to improve. Used well, the relationship should accelerate a leader's development rather than reduce the need for it.

That's one of the reasons the best Chief of Staff relationships are characterised by mutual growth. The Chief of Staff becomes more effective because they're working with an exceptional leader, and the leader becomes more effective because they have someone capable of helping them think more clearly.

Leadership is still the leader's responsibility

As the role continues to mature, I hope we resist the temptation to see Chiefs of Staff as organisational shock absorbers.

Their value doesn't come from protecting organisations from weak leadership. It comes from helping good leaders become exceptional ones.

The most effective leaders I've worked with don't see their Chief of Staff as someone who fills the gaps in their capability. They see them as someone who helps them continue developing, challenges them when necessary and enables them to operate at a higher level than they could alone. That's a very different relationship.

The Chief of Staff role has rightly become one of the most important positions in modern organisations. My hope is that its continued growth encourages organisations to expect even more from their leaders, not less.

With great power comes great responsibility. Having a Chief of Staff doesn't change that. If anything, it reinforces it.