March 2026 Newsletter
Burning Questions from the C-Suite
From a CEO: Do I Need A Chief of Staff?
Let’s talk about the role of Chief of Staff and why so many CEOs are asking about it right now. The role came from the public sector: government, military, politics, universities. In the last few years, it has become more popular in the private sector for small to mid-size companies.
And it makes sense. A Chief of Staff (COS) is a high-level, capable, confidential person who can think strategically and be deployed anywhere. That flexibility is attractive. It gives you a sense of freedom. You can move faster and get stuff done without navigating the full organization every time because you just have your Chief of Staff go and do the thing.
When you bring in a Chief of Staff, you are deploying a person who comes in from the side and accomplishes things in an immediate, sometimes scrappy, way. That is useful. However, it is different from building a leadership bench that can deliver over time. With a Chief of Staff, you are not deploying a person who will use existing organizational processes and structures to accomplish sustained work. You are bringing in a problem solver, a fixer, a do-er. You are not building organizational capability.
A Chief of Staff role is tied to a specific leader. They help one leader at a strategic level. They may run projects, act as a brain partner, move initiatives forward, or represent you in certain settings. They are often in the room with the leadership team, but they are not leading a function of the business. If you need someone to set up a process, a Chief of Staff can do that. If you need someone to implement and manage that process across the organization,that is a job for a line manager such as a VP or COO.
One way to understand this is to distinguish between intra organizational and extra organizational roles. Intra organizational roles sit in the hierarchy. They manage people and own outcomes. A Chief of Staff is extra organizational. They sit alongside the structure and connect directly to you. That is why they can move across the organization so easily. It is also why they create confusion.
If you bring in a COS, other leaders might ask:
Do I work for this person?
Do they work for me?
Is this person on our leadership team?
Do I talk to them or the CEO when I need something?
When you add an extra-organizational person, you have to more carefully define communication and decision-making because the boxes and lines on the org chart don’t clarify those things. What decisions can the COS make on your behalf? What decisions can they not make? Where do they speak for you and where do they not? Without thinking this through and telling others on the team, you create friction you did not intend.
The question to ask when you are considering a COS is this: Are you trying to magnify the organization’s ability to deliver, or your own?
If you are trying to improve your own capacity, consider:
Executive Assistant for tactical support
Chief of Staff for strategic support and special projects
If you are trying to move the business forward, consider:
COO
President
VP or C-suite leader
Those latter roles build structure and create sustainable output.
There is also a pattern here worth mentioning. Sometimes a Chief of Staff is an end run around a slow or dysfunctional organization. If the CEO feels the business is not moving quickly or not listening, it is tempting to bring in someone who can run side projects without needing permission or buy-in from the rest of the team. A Chief of Staff can definitely do that. But if the only reason you are wanting a Chief of Staff is to force your slow organization to get a move on it, you might benefit from addressing that issue directly with your existing leaders instead of hiring an alternate performer.
So do you need a Chief of Staff? It depends on which problem you are trying to solve. If the goal is expanding your personal productivity and capacity, a Chief of Staff can be exactly right. If the goal is expanding your organization’s productivity and capacity, a Chief of Staff might be the wrong Right Hand.
Famous Right Hands— Truman and Marshall: Post-WWII Edition
U.S. President Harry Truman did not need more activity around him. He needed clarity, judgment, and follow-through, and that is exactly what Truman got from George C. Marshall, who was Truman's Chief of Staff during WWII and his Secretary of State immediately afterward. Something powerful about their dynamic was the blend of autonomy and structure. Marshall was not there to “support” Truman in the loose, ambiguous way many senior roles drift into. He had clear ownership of problems, and Truman expected him to use it. When something complex landed on the table, Marshall did not bring options and ask what Truman preferred. He developed a fully formed strategy and presented it with clarity and conviction. That is a different posture. We do not mean going rogue. We mean taking responsibility for thinking. Marshall carried the intellectual load on major issues, and Truman created the conditions for that to happen by expecting challenge before a decision and alignment after it.
Once a decision was made, the dynamic shifted. There did not appear to be any hedging, revisiting the argument in side conversations, or slow-walking execution because someone would have chosen differently. Marshall’s job became full ownership of the outcome. You make the recommendation, then you own delivery of it. This was on full display with the Marshall Plan. In 1947, as Europe faced economic collapse, Truman gave Marshall responsibility to define the response. Marshall advanced a bold plan for recovery and framed it publicly as a solution to hunger, poverty, desperation, and chaos. He brought a complete point of view. Once Truman approved it, Marshall took full operational control, advocating across Congress and the public, coordinating implementation, and handling criticism without reopening the strategy.
For modern CEOs and Right Hands, this is where things usually break down. We blur the phases. The Right Hand brings partial thinking, the CEO jumps in too early, and decisions get made mid-conversation. Then both parties keep second-guessing, and execution slows because alignment was never complete. Truman and Marshall did the opposite. The CEO defined where the Right Hand had authority to shape strategy and expected that Right Hand to deliver a complete answer. The Right Hand challenged where needed and then pivoted fully into execution once the decision was made. The CEO signaled approval, and the Right Hand drove results. No confusion about ownership. No shadow decision-making. Just clear ownership, direct challenge, and disciplined follow-through.
Sources:CFR,Marshall Foundation,Archives
News
Vistage Worldwide just named Heather a 2025 Top Performing Speaker in the Talent category. This is the second year in a row Heather has earned this award. Thanks to the many Vistage members and Chairs whose ratings and participation helped make this a reality. We appreciate you!
To arrange a 2027 booking, contact us.
EOS and a Guest Columnist
If you haven't sent in the name of your favorite EOS implementer yet, please do! Just reply to this email. We are also accepting recommendations for facilitators of other systems besides EOS (BOS-UP, Pinnacle, Scaling Up, etc.). We'll publish the list in next month's newsletter. Meanwhile, enjoy this write-up from Angelo Sisco of Sisco Advisors about what a business operating system can do for a company. Angelo works for some of our clients who are seeing excellent results.
Why Your Business Needs an Operating System (And Why Winging It Is Like Playing Baseball Without Knowing the Rules)
By Angelo Sisco
Picture this: you walk onto a baseball field with your team. Nobody knows the rules. You're not sure what winning looks like. Some guy is standing on second base holding a bat. Someone else is trying to pitch from the outfield. Nobody knows if they're supposed to catch the ball or run from it.
Sounds ridiculous, right?
Yet this is exactly how most businesses operate.
Everyone's working hard. Everyone's showing up. But there's no shared understanding of the game you're playing, what success looks like, or who's responsible for what. You've got your "pitcher" trying to do sales calls. Your "catcher" is attempting quarterly planning. And your founder? They're sprinting around trying to play every position at once, wondering why the team isn't winning.
Fun Fact: every business already has an operating system. The question is whether it's accidental or intentional.
Click here to read the rest of Angelo's article
Can We Help?
At Practical PhD, we help companies Get the Right Hand Right so they're ready for top leadership transition in 1–3 years:
Find and hire a Right Hand
Onboard a new Right Hand
Teach an aspiring Right Hand the job
Performance-manage a struggling Right Hand
Create a phased leadership succession plan
Click here to book a free consult.