Navigating different contexts as a chief of staff: lessons from the public and private sectors

The nature of public organisations is distinctive, and the reason it matters is that a chief of staff has to know how a public sector organisation functions, its mission, and responsibilities to deliver specific services, and in how to deliver the best and most equitable outcomes. Some scholars consider abiding by public values as a point of difference in the drivers that influence the nature of public leadership (Crosby and Bryson 2017, Getha-Taylor et al. 2011), while others point out that there are unique features of administrative leadership in the public sector (Van Wart 2013). Essentially, the context of the public sector and the responsibilities of serving the public places particular responsibilities on the chief of staff that influence how they navigate through organisational networks. While environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues are growing concerns in the private sector, they are at the heart of public service and significantly impact the day-to-day work of all public sector chiefs of staff. In recent years, the expectations of public leaders have evolved to include engaging with citizens beyond the traditional customer service-type interactions towards more authentic engagement (Denhardt and Denhardt 2015). For example, a chief of staff in a public service organisation might develop and enhance policy in partnership with the community, rather than simply ask stakeholders to confirm or approve developed proposals without their input along the way (as a chief of staff in a private organisation does). Ultimately, a chief of staff is well advised to keep in mind these words of wisdom from Leon Panetta: ‘I strongly believe that the purpose of public service is to give others a better life’ (Panetta 2021).

Ideally, a public sector chief of staff will be well-versed in understanding the interplay of the four pillars of public administration and will consider equity, effectiveness, economy, and efficiency in decision-making and negotiating policy and outcomes. While an in-depth discussion of these guiding principles is beyond the scope of this article, it is important to note that there are expectations of transparency and public access that interact with the work of the chief of staff in the public sector. For example, relating to equity of access to the legislative process in California, a public sector chief of staff must be well-versed in the Ralph M. Brown Act, which sets out parameters for open meetings for legislative bodies. As technology continues to evolve, chiefs of staff will play a pivotal role in ensuring that the public has access to elected officials and the legislative process.

In the public sector, the chief of staff role is commonly assumed to include the day-to-day operations relating to the administration of the office, the policy-making process, and strategy. In the private sector, however, the role appears to depend to a much greater degree on the needs of the principal. In his 2020 Harvard Business Review article ‘The case for a chief of staff’, Dan Ciampa identifies three levels of the chief of staff role and accompanying capabilities (Ciampa 2020). A chief of staff at level one focuses primarily on maximising efficiency and includes minimal organisational change, while a chief of staff at level two is expected to address more complex organisational issues, such as implementing strategy and managing some organisational change. Only at level three is the chief of staff expected to manage complex strategic decisions and oversee significant organisational changes (Ciampa 2020). Such levels or distinctions do not usually exist in the public sector.

From the macro-level perspective, in relation to decision-making and negotiating, timeframes in the public and private sectors can be vastly different, since in the public sector, the work of the chief of staff is impacted by election cycles and limited terms, and all strategic decisions must consider the cycles of public organisations and the boundaries of term limits. As one public sector chief of staff told me, there are different seasons for the public sector, such as the budget season and the campaign season, that shape the context. These dynamics impact the playing field relating to what a chief of staff has to consider with strategic planning, goals, what boundaries to navigate, and the stakeholders with whom they must negotiate.

While organisations in both sectors ought to have a work plan, a private sector organisation is likely to focus on deliverables that will impact a company’s bottom line, including increasing revenue and expanding the customer base. In the public sector, however, the ultimate goal is public service. While political and policy priorities affect the motivation behind decisions, consideration and discussion of these is outside the scope of this article. In negotiations, the chief of staff derives their authority or legitimacy from the elected official or the institution, while in the private sector, the authority to negotiate is more often granted by the chief executive.

Competing loyalties often complicate a chief of staff’s decision-making ability in a public sector context. As one chief of staff pointed out to me, in the private sector, most stakeholders defer to the top executive; however, in a political environment, loyalties to various causes and organisations can add great complexity to the work of the chief of staff. Staff rarely join public sector organisations out of loyalty to an individual: most enter public service because they care deeply about certain causes, which may include dedication to a range of issues from labour rights to environmental justice. The chief of staff must be adept at navigating these overlapping, and at times competing loyalties. As a chief of staff suggested, unless the conflicting loyalties between the chief of staff and the elected official are irreparable, the chief of staff will likely ‘stick it out.’ However, the key is for the chief of staff also to keep other staff in alignment with the elected official’s vision and the priorities for the office in the face of these competing loyalties.