It has been quite some time since I’ve been lingering somewhere between a reflective and inspired mood - the sort of mood where writing makes sense on a sunny sunday afternoon, with a cool beverage perched upon a white table in a white-walled cafe. I could wish for a quieter environment, but the ceiling height windows permit a natural light that suffuses the mind with clean thought. To linger and languish is not pleasant, and I feel tense but lucid in events transpired.
It’s been a while since I adopted a role in Staff work - A pinnacle of generalism I must admit, having written about this in the past.
Its timely to pause and reflect on the journey so far, which is often done in times of momentary peace - and the ability to pass judgement on outcomes. In this instance - not the best outcome as the bridge crumbles.
THE Chief of Staff
A fascination with generalism and the job role was an investigation that welcomely meandered into the nooks of military history. Much like treading on a warped cobblestones in a quaint French village and stumbling into a medieval bookshop.
Napoleon was famous for his Great Marshals - a topic that keeps drawing me in for far longer than it needs to be. His Marshals - Davout, Suchet, Lannes hold repute for being great generals on the warfront. But I was deeply and personally intrigued in Louis Alexandre Berthier - regardeds as one of the greatest administrators and possibly a co-father to the modern Staff Officer system that we see in contemporary militaries.
Between roles in Staffing, being a logistics officer (reservist), and a mild preoccupation with ruthless administration: I developed an intense, albeit short obsession with Berthier - whos history and insight I find frustratingly difficult to access.
Unlike the sexier Marshals, there are almost no books written about Berthier (certainly so in the english language), and if there was a reason for me to learn French, this would have to be one of them.
Napoleon in the dusk of Start-Ups
I drew some parallels of military administration in the context of modern start ups: Where the confluence of “great man” complexes, as well as the intensity and pace of effort, work and resources, dealing with ambigiuity, doubt.
In modernity, the modern Chief of Staff is slightly more visible in American companies, no doubt a culture transferred from the success of its function and role in the American Military too, as the Military Industrial complex evolved post world war II (veterans entering the private sector).
I was pleasantly surprised to hear it is feature in French companies as well - an epiphany - having now knowns the background and history above; sometimes known as Aide Du Camps (ADC) as well.
The Marshal system, is case study and a masterclass on dealing with people, their strengths and weakness transforming the political landscape of the time. With the complexity and circumstances of the time, it remains a well-written about and juicy topic of debate for modern historians.
In today’s context, a weak Staff system could result in minor offence, unproductive meetings, difficult moments. But to staff an emperor in the greatest war of its time should surely be more acute and pronounced with power, life & death at stake.
Defining a Chief Of Staff
It is remiss now, at a time of mourning where I see more clearly the failures, through a lens of self-analysis in the role. It is often heard that it is not a job for everyone. Indeed, I’ve found myself caught at the cross roads of being:
- 50% concerned with the key principal
- 50% concerned with principal number 2; in the absence of direct communication necessitating a proxy;
- 50% concerned with managing down (executors)
- 50% concerned with managing laterally (other senior management)
- and 50% being an individual contributor
Indeed the maths did not, and does not maths.
The ideal to me is one of Force Multiplication founded on trust: to amplify the strengths and minimise the weakness of any individual character. A role that demands fully and wholly a common ground brokered by mutual understanding; and yet, invariably, the complementarity and differences that makes two human beings radically different in approaches.
As to what the person really does: well, I’ve experienced it and now validated to some extent: that the COS’s role varies immensely, across time, across people, and across companies.
On Character and will
The uniqueness and rarity of what makes a good Chief of Staff makes it difficult to draw good patterns effectively, although I get a strong feeling that being a broad interdisciplinarian is needed. To work and understand (thrive? ha - good one) at this operating level demands a highly general way of thinking from top to bottom:
I was once told of a long standing HAIR framework - which I think still holds up against the test of time. I add my interpreted comments as well.
- Helicopter - Strategic understanding; big picture thinking
- Analytical - whether to convince or ifnluence
- Imagination - to believe in the vision and be creative in solutioning
- Reality - to execute and manifest the vision
In the absence of clear KPIs, the foundation of a COS can be summarised brusquely as being liked by the boss, and being liked by the rest. Undoubtedly a good soft skill to have, but lacks the nuance and difficulty to measure what value and worth the hours spent bring to the table.
It is difficult too, to disassociate the dependence of oneself on individuals rather than skill. Although a wise person once told me, that certain types of people will recognise such ability.
There are a few more that I would add:
- Psychoanalysis - especially so for intuitive principals - understanding underlying motivations and nuances in the what is said, against what is wanted
- Relentless self-drive - in the absence of instructions
On lessons learnt
- Its a full time job - the ability to excel as a peak generalist is not something that pairs well with focused work and specificity;
- On the contrary, Credibility is done by doing - and hence necessitates a second job. Therein lies some tension.
- Balancing the role as a proxy - requires deliberation on when to lean in and lean out, between authority and execution.
- Job description - The dearth of clarity requires both Assistant and Principal to be in lockstep, hence requiring the due attention and diligence of the first point.
Tools and Systems
Some not-very-new, but:
- EXCO meetings - minuting, tracking, project monitoring
- Townhalls - communication, stability, trust and rapport
- 1-1 catch ups - developing trust and rapport