I wanted to ask a couple questions here that might be relevant for others: When you think about the most senior operations folks, how would you describe their strategic strengths as they move up the hierarchy? I sort of imagine (an example of) growth from “keeping the website updated” to “partnering with CEO to match the future vision with the future of how the org can practically pull that off”.
I’ve heard perspectives that Chiefs of Staff can also be framed not as people leaders, but as more strategic assistants to executives—their right hand so-to-speak. It sounds still like an ops-minded person has skills here, but perhaps different ones than managing employee performance and direct reports. Thoughts on that?
The typical growth of an operations specialist from an associate to more senior usually involves more responsibility and oversight. The trajectory starts off very micro, and over time shifts slowly into more macro positions, overseeing others who are doing the micro work. But, if need be, they’re capable of doing the micro work as well. The experience climbing the operations career ladder means that they’ve been in all the more junior roles, so they have the skills and know how to delegate and oversee those beneath them. The highest form of this is overseeing all the operations to actualize the mission of the organization. The chain usually goes from ops associate → ops manager → ops director → COO, with each level becoming more macro and having more oversight.
Regarding the Chief of Staff position, that is one title that can mean almost anything… it’s so ambiguous that I try to stay away from it myself. I think it was potentially intended to be instead of “HR director”, and now that people are trying to avoid using the term HR, they use Chief of Staff instead. To me, a true Chief of Staff is responsible for overseeing all things people—HR, benefits, payroll, hiring, firing, performance management and mentoring. What it’s actually become varies greatly from org to org; sometimes it’s a glorified executive assistant, and sometimes it’s an unacknowledged COO or operations manager. I’m not really sure why people like to stick the label of “Chief of Staff” on almost anything… maybe it sounds more exciting to potential candidates? In those scenarios, it might be an ops role in disguise.
Re: Chief of Staff.. most of the roles I’ve seen posted in the impact space over the past year seem to be a less-tactical (than an exec assistant) more-strategic direct report to a c-suite. For a “traditional” CoS that heads up people-functions, I’ve also seen role names like Chief People Officer (at my current org), and I have no doubt there are many other versions.
Chief of Staff as a role name seems like it has an unusually broad set of use cases, and yes I’d agree—anything with “Chief” in it sounds more prestigious. I balance that with the fact that the “non-traditional” version doesn’t seem to really be a managerial position in a lot of cases but a high-level individual contributor. I’m not entirely sure that’s the path for me personally, but I do see the allure (not just for prestige, but to be in ongoing high-level work with senior leadership). I do think that the non-traditional role I’m referring to here deserves a different kind of role name then CoS—its literal interpretation throws me off.
Thank you for the experienced insights, Deena.
I wanted to ask a couple questions here that might be relevant for others: When you think about the most senior operations folks, how would you describe their strategic strengths as they move up the hierarchy? I sort of imagine (an example of) growth from “keeping the website updated” to “partnering with CEO to match the future vision with the future of how the org can practically pull that off”.
I’ve heard perspectives that Chiefs of Staff can also be framed not as people leaders, but as more strategic assistants to executives—their right hand so-to-speak. It sounds still like an ops-minded person has skills here, but perhaps different ones than managing employee performance and direct reports. Thoughts on that?
The typical growth of an operations specialist from an associate to more senior usually involves more responsibility and oversight. The trajectory starts off very micro, and over time shifts slowly into more macro positions, overseeing others who are doing the micro work. But, if need be, they’re capable of doing the micro work as well. The experience climbing the operations career ladder means that they’ve been in all the more junior roles, so they have the skills and know how to delegate and oversee those beneath them. The highest form of this is overseeing all the operations to actualize the mission of the organization. The chain usually goes from ops associate → ops manager → ops director → COO, with each level becoming more macro and having more oversight.
Regarding the Chief of Staff position, that is one title that can mean almost anything… it’s so ambiguous that I try to stay away from it myself. I think it was potentially intended to be instead of “HR director”, and now that people are trying to avoid using the term HR, they use Chief of Staff instead. To me, a true Chief of Staff is responsible for overseeing all things people—HR, benefits, payroll, hiring, firing, performance management and mentoring. What it’s actually become varies greatly from org to org; sometimes it’s a glorified executive assistant, and sometimes it’s an unacknowledged COO or operations manager. I’m not really sure why people like to stick the label of “Chief of Staff” on almost anything… maybe it sounds more exciting to potential candidates? In those scenarios, it might be an ops role in disguise.
Would you agree with that?
Thanks for the response!
Re: Chief of Staff.. most of the roles I’ve seen posted in the impact space over the past year seem to be a less-tactical (than an exec assistant) more-strategic direct report to a c-suite. For a “traditional” CoS that heads up people-functions, I’ve also seen role names like Chief People Officer (at my current org), and I have no doubt there are many other versions.
Chief of Staff as a role name seems like it has an unusually broad set of use cases, and yes I’d agree—anything with “Chief” in it sounds more prestigious. I balance that with the fact that the “non-traditional” version doesn’t seem to really be a managerial position in a lot of cases but a high-level individual contributor. I’m not entirely sure that’s the path for me personally, but I do see the allure (not just for prestige, but to be in ongoing high-level work with senior leadership). I do think that the non-traditional role I’m referring to here deserves a different kind of role name then CoS—its literal interpretation throws me off.
I totally agree, based on the information you’ve provided. I’m happy to chat about the right career path for you if you’d like!