Chief of Staff from the Board's Perspective: This is how management strengthens itself

The Board's perspective on the Chief of Staff

A board chair and other board members generally do not see the Chief of Staff as an operational support function, but as a management function that strengthens the executive director and the management team’s ability to translate strategy into results. From the board’s perspective, the value is rarely that the Chief of Staff produces more work, but that the organization makes better decisions, implements priorities more consistently, and reduces the risk that important issues fall between organizational silos. The board is ultimately responsible for strategy, risk, governance, and follow-up. Therefore, the board tends to assess the Chief of Staff based on indirect effects: the quality of the decision-making basis, the effectiveness of the management team, the implementation power of strategic initiatives, and the organization’s ability to manage complexity.

At the same time, there is an important difference between the perspective of the chairman of the board and that of the other members. The chairman often focuses on the interaction between the board and the CEO, as well as on the long-term sustainability of the organization. The other members focus more on whether the management provides transparent decision-making materials, clear priorities, and reliable follow-up.

What board chairmen and board members can expect from the Chief of Staff

The perspective of the Chairman of the Board

A board chairman often sees the Chief of Staff as a potential enhancement of the CEO’s leadership capabilities. The most important expectations are usually:

That strategic decisions are implemented systematically.
That the management team works towards the same priorities.
Risks, dependencies and implementation obstacles are identified early on.
That the board receives more well-founded decision-making material.

A skilled Chief of Staff helps the CEO create order out of complexity. This does not mean that the role takes over operational responsibility from business managers or functional leaders. Instead, the role ensures that decisions are translated into action and that the organization learns from the outcome. A board chair particularly appreciates when the Chief of Staff contributes to:

Strategic follow-up.
Cross-functional coordination.
Change management.
Leadership team development.
Priority discipline.

The perspective of the board members

Other members tend to value the role based on governance and transparency. They want to see that:

Board materials become clearer.
Key figures are consistently monitored.
Strategic initiatives are reported in a uniform manner.
Risks and deviations are highlighted without filtering.

For members, it is often less important exactly how the Chief of Staff works and more important that the organization becomes more predictable and controllable.

An important boundary drawn from the board’s perspective is that the Chief of Staff must not become a parallel power structure. Warning signs include:

That all decisions are channelled through the Chief of Staff.
That business executives lose their mandates.
That information flows are filtered too tightly.
That the role becomes unclear in relation to the CEO.

The best Chief of Staff function makes the leadership stronger, not more dependent.

Recruitment of the Chief of Staff from the perspective of the board

When a board assesses a candidate for the position of Chief of Staff, characteristics that are closer to executive judgment are often prioritized over administrative skill.

Basic requirements

Strategic thinking

The candidate needs to understand the relationship between:

Strategy
Implementation
Risk
Governance
Organizational development

Boards value people who can switch between a helicopter perspective and operational reality.

Business or operational understanding

The chief of staff must be able to understand what drives results and value creation. Boards are generally more interested in this ability than in previous experience in project management or meeting administration.

High integrity

The Chief of Staff works closely with the CEO and has access to sensitive information. Boards therefore tend to assess:

Review
Discretion
Objectivity
The courage to speak out

The most important loyalty should be to the organization's best interests, not to individual individuals.

Qualifications

Ability to influence without formal authority

Most Chief of Staff roles are based on influence rather than hierarchical power. The board appreciates candidates who can get senior managers to collaborate without creating conflicts.

Board understanding

Experience in:

Corporate governance
Board work
Ownership issues
Risk management

is often very valuable.

Change management

The greater the transformations the organization faces, the more important experience of:

Reorganisations
Digitalization
Growth travel
Integration work
Cultural changes

Evaluation questions that a board often considers

Has the candidate influenced strategic decisions?
Has the candidate implemented complex changes?
Can the person challenge the CEO in a constructive way?
Can the person build trust with the management team?
Does the person understand the board's information needs?

Differences between the public and private sectors

In the private sector, the board tends to emphasize:

Growth
Profitability
Competitiveness
Implementation pace

The Chief of Staff is therefore often judged based on their ability to accelerate strategic initiatives and strengthen the CEO’s execution power.

In the public sector, the emphasis is often on:

Legitimacy
Transparency
Coordination
Rule compliance
Stakeholder management

Here, the ability to navigate between political, administrative and operational perspectives becomes particularly important. However, the difference should not be exaggerated. Both public and private boards value:

Good judgment.
Integrity.
Ability to handle complexity.
Strong communication skills.
Ability to translate strategy into implementation.

Does the board have a board member with a background in Chief of Staff?

It does occur, but it is still relatively uncommon compared to board members with backgrounds as CEO, CFO, business area manager or entrepreneur. However, we are increasingly seeing people with previous experience as Chief of Staff in boards, because they often have:

Broad understanding of operations.
Exposure to board work.
Experience with strategy and transformation.
Strong understanding of management dynamics.
Good ability to identify organizational risks.

A former Chief of Staff can be particularly valuable in boards that face:

Comprehensive change programs.
Rapid growth.
Digital transformation.
International expansion.
Complex coordination between several departments.

At the same time, election committees usually require documented line responsibility or P&L responsibility in addition to the experience of being the Chief of Staff. A purely Chief of Staff background is not always sufficient to become a board member, but when combined with business or operational responsibilities, it often becomes very attractive.

Summary

From the board’s perspective, the ideal Chief of Staff is not primarily an organizer but a strategic facilitator. The chairman of the board wants to see a person who strengthens the CEO’s leadership capacity, improves the implementation of the strategy, and increases the organization’s manageability. The other board members want better decision-making support, clearer follow-up, and greater transparency. The capabilities that should usually be prioritized highest are:

Strategic thinking.
Business or operational understanding.
High integrity and good judgment.
The ability to influence without formal authority.
Change management and implementation power.
Understanding of board work and corporate governance.

When a board truly appreciates a Chief of Staff, it is rarely because the role makes management more efficient in an administrative sense. It is because the role contributes to something significantly more valuable: that strategic decisions are actually implemented, followed up, and translated into lasting results.

Go to the summary page->