The rise of the Chief of Staff: why the role is still difficult to define

As Chief of Staff appointments become more common across financial services, a recent EC1 Executive search highlights why defining the role remains one of the most important parts of getting the hire right.

Chief of Staff positions grew by 91% globally between 2019 and 2024, according to LinkedIn Economic Graph. That compares with 31% growth across comparable senior roles.

It’s a significant increase for a position that still has no universally agreed definition. In one organisation, a Chief of Staff might manage the principal’s priorities, communications and day-to-day demands. In another, they could lead strategic projects, coordinate senior leadership teams or operate as something approaching a deputy COO.

Both positions carry the same title. But they require different experience, capabilities and working styles. The challenge for organisations considering the appointment is that the title doesn’t necessarily tell them what kind of person they need.

A recent EC1 Executive search for a Chief of Staff to the managing partner of a venture capital firm brought that challenge into focus. What emerged was a useful reminder that, in some executive appointments, understanding the person being supported is just as important as understanding the responsibilities of the role.

The brief starts with the principal

The client had previously employed a Chief of Staff, so there was an established position to recruit for. But replacing someone in this role isn’t necessarily about finding a candidate with the same background or experience as their predecessor.

The principal’s priorities may have changed. The business may have evolved. And the responsibilities that worked in one relationship may not be appropriate for the next.

During the initial brief, the managing partner was open about the difficulty of defining the ideal candidate. What became clearer through the conversation was the type of individual they needed: someone proactive, commercially aware and comfortable taking initiative; someone with the judgement to represent the principal when necessary, anticipate what needed attention and keep priorities moving without constant direction.

Importantly, this wasn’t a mandate to find a senior operational leader who would take ownership of significant parts of the business. The principal wanted someone who could work effectively alongside them.

A candidate with extensive operational leadership experience might look impressive on paper but ultimately want a level of strategic ownership the role wasn’t designed to provide. Equally, someone with a less conventional background might be better suited to the combination of judgement, initiative and proximity the appointment required.

The challenge wasn’t simply identifying capable people. It was establishing what success would look like for this particular principal.

Deloitte’s 2026 research into the Chief of Staff–CEO relationship identifies trust as the cornerstone of the partnership. That helps explain why these briefs can resist standardisation. A job description can outline responsibilities and experience. It’s considerably harder to capture how someone needs to think, communicate and operate alongside an individual leader.

Candidates are assessing the principal, too

One of the more interesting aspects of this search was how differently candidates approached the same opportunity.

For some, the first priority was understanding the balance between strategic responsibility and day-to-day support. How much ownership would the Chief of Staff have? Would they be expected to lead projects independently? Was the position intended to develop into something broader?

Others were more interested in the working environment. The pace of the role, the flexibility required, the principal’s expectations and the extent to which priorities could change at short notice were central considerations.

The responsibilities hadn’t changed. But what made the opportunity attractive varied considerably between individuals. Candidates weren’t only assessing whether they could perform the responsibilities; they were considering whether the relationship, working style and future opportunities were right for them.

McKinsey’s analysis of approximately 250 Chiefs of Staff found that median tenure was 2.3 years, compared with 4.8 years for the average large-company CEO. The same research found that around two-thirds of Chiefs of Staff were promoted when they left the role.

A relatively short tenure, therefore, isn’t necessarily evidence of an unsuccessful appointment. For many professionals, the role provides exposure to senior decision-making, an opportunity to develop broader leadership capabilities and a route towards future operational leadership.

A candidate may be attracted by proximity to an influential principal, yet ultimately want a position with greater independent responsibility. Another may value precisely the access, variety and pace that the role provides. Neither perspective is inherently right or wrong. The important part is establishing those expectations before an appointment is made.

For hiring organisations, that requires transparency about the role’s actual scope, the demands of the working relationship and what the opportunity could realistically lead to.

The talent market doesn’t follow a predictable career path

The difficulty of defining the role creates another question: if Chief of Staff responsibilities vary so significantly, how useful is previous experience in the position as a hiring requirement?

McKinsey’s research suggests that the relevant talent market is much broader than the title might imply. More than three-quarters of externally appointed Chiefs of Staff came from outside their organisation’s industry. Strategy and operations were the two most common functional backgrounds, but together accounted for only around half of the sample. Chiefs of Staff also had, on average, just over 12 years of professional experience before entering the position.

This is experienced talent, but it doesn’t follow a single, predictable route. During our recent search, the managing partner placed greater emphasis on character, judgement and intellectual capability than on a conventional Chief of Staff career history.

That changed how the research team approached the market. Rather than concentrating exclusively on people already holding the title within venture capital, the search considered individuals whose experience demonstrated the qualities needed to succeed in the role.

Relevant backgrounds extended into strategy, operations and other positions where candidates had developed the ability to manage complexity, exercise judgement and work closely with senior decision-makers.

Someone may never have been called a Chief of Staff but have spent years performing closely related responsibilities. Equally, someone who has held the title previously may have operated in a very different capacity.

A well-defined brief doesn’t always narrow the talent pool. Sometimes it provides the clarity needed to explore a much broader one.

For executive search teams, the challenge is recognising where the relevant capabilities exist without losing sight of what makes the individual appointment different.

Why the selection process matters as much as the shortlist

Even after identifying suitable candidates, there is another challenge: determining whether the principal and Chief of Staff can work effectively together.

Most executive selection processes are designed to assess capability. Structured interviews, case studies and references can provide valuable evidence of professional experience, judgement and past performance. Those assessments remain important.

But a Chief of Staff appointment also depends heavily on the working relationship. During our search, the managing partner repeatedly emphasised the importance of chemistry. That wasn’t simply a question of whether two people would get along.

It reflected the reality that the Chief of Staff would need to understand how the principal operated, anticipate their priorities and exercise judgement in situations where detailed instructions might not be available.

How does the candidate respond when priorities change unexpectedly? Are they comfortable challenging the principal’s thinking? Can they recognise when to act independently and when to seek direction? And does the principal genuinely want someone who will operate with that degree of initiative?

These qualities can be explored through realistic working scenarios and conversations about how both individuals approach decisions, communication and delegation.

The objective isn’t to replace structured assessment with personal chemistry. A strong relationship cannot compensate for a lack of capability, and an impressive professional background doesn’t guarantee working compatibility. Both need to be considered.

Financial services is embracing the role, but the model is still evolving

The growing prominence of the Chief of Staff is particularly evident within financial services. Research by Deloitte and SDA Bocconi examined 563 listed European companies and found that financial services accounted for approximately half of Chief of Staff positions across the five largest markets analysed.

But adoption remains uneven. In France, 78% of CAC 40 companies had at least one Chief of Staff, compared with 42% of UK companies in the sample.

There is a further question about how the position could evolve. Deloitte’s research considers the potential impact of artificial intelligence on responsibilities traditionally associated with Chief of Staff roles. As AI takes on more administrative and coordination activities, the role may become increasingly focused on strategic judgement, decision support and higher-value responsibilities.

That could have important implications for future appointments. Businesses may need to consider not only the support their principal requires today, but also how those responsibilities could change as the organisation grows and technology develops.

A Chief of Staff hired primarily to coordinate information and manage competing demands may need a different capability profile from someone expected to support strategic decisions and lead complex initiatives. The distinction reinforces why the role shouldn’t be defined solely by what other organisations are doing.

Getting the appointment right starts before the search

The most valuable part of a Chief of Staff search may happen before the market is approached. It’s the conversation that establishes what the principal genuinely needs, what the role should and shouldn’t involve, and which capabilities will matter most.

What does the principal need this person to take responsibility for?

Is the priority strategic execution, operational coordination, decision support or managing the demands on an individual leader? The answer will influence the experience and seniority required.

Which capabilities are essential, and where might they be found?

Previous Chief of Staff experience may be valuable, but it isn’t necessarily the only route to the judgement, adaptability and operating capabilities the position demands.

What working relationship will allow both individuals to succeed?

The principal’s expectations, communication style, approach to delegation and willingness to give the Chief of Staff independence should inform both the brief and the assessment process.

These questions may appear straightforward, but answering them properly can change the direction of a search. They influence how the opportunity is positioned, which backgrounds are considered and how candidates are assessed.

Our recent mandate demonstrated that the strongest candidate isn’t necessarily the person with the most immediately recognisable career history. It’s the person whose capabilities, expectations and working style align with what the principal actually needs.

The Chief of Staff role may be growing rapidly, but successful appointments still depend on understanding what makes each mandate different.

The title provides a starting point. Understanding the principal is what gives the search its direction.

Sources

LinkedIn Economic Graph — The Rise of the Chief of Staff (March 2026)

McKinsey — Chief of Staff: Anatomy of the Role in Eight Charts (August 2024)

Deloitte — Inside the Symbiotic Partnership: The Chief of Staff and Their CEO (2026)

Deloitte / SDA Bocconi — The Chief of Staff Revolution across Europe in the AI Era (2026)

Client and candidate observations are drawn from an EC1 Executive search. Identifying details have been anonymised.