Okay, Actually is a podcast for people who are working hard and starting to wonder if the problem is them. It's not.

Each episode, we dig into what's truly broken and figure out how to build a solution that can actually work.

In this episode, I'm joined by Rachael Goldfarb — adviser and former Chief of Staff — to talk about one of the most common ways organizations avoid solving a structural problem: they hire toward it. The Chief of Staff role gets used this way more than almost any other: not because the role isn't valuable, but because it's become the default answer to a question nobody asked out loud.

00:00 Officer of the Day

02:51 The Job Description Problem

10:19 Why This Role Specifically

15:15 The Workaround Problem

16:44 What to Ask Before You Hire

20:56 The AI Chief of Staff

About Rachael: Rachael Goldfarb is the co-founder of The Coul & Gold Group, an advisory services firm focused on leadership architecture for the C-Suite. They support senior executives, chiefs of staff, and teams to be as successful as possible through assessments, frameworks, operating systems, and deliberate design.

Find great resources and learn about how to work with The Coul & Gold Group at https://coulandgold.com/

Subscribe to their newsletter at: https://briefing.coulandgold.com/

Find me here:

OkayDoak.com

[email protected]

Get clear. Get sorted. Get going. Stay sane.

My mother was not a management genius, although I think she

2

actually would argue that point with me.

3

She was an educator with three kids and

a house and a need to get chores done.

4

And so she took that structural problem,

these chores that needed doing, and

5

these lazy kids who needed to step up

and contribute, and she invented a role

6

to solve for it, Officer of the Day

7

My oldest brother had odd days,

my middle brother had even, and

8

when my oldest brother left for

college, I inherited his shift.

9

The responsibilities were varied, usually

centered around doing dishes, but could

10

range based on whatever my mother had on

her mind at the moment, and in general,

11

were non-negotiable, although I did

successfully negotiate out of doing the

12

31st and the 1st back to back, uh, because

that was obviously incredibly unfair.

13

When all the kids left the

nest, the role ceased to exist.

14

It had done its job.

15

Organizations do the same thing, except

when they do it, it usually doesn't

16

work, which is surprising when you think

about the difference between salaries

17

today and allowances in the '90s.

18

There's a structural gap, something

isn't running right, and instead

19

of naming what's broken and

fixing it, they hire toward it.

20

I think the chief of staff role gets

used this way more than almost any

21

other, not because the role isn't

valuable, but because it's become

22

this default answer to a question

that nobody's really asked out loud.

23

I'm Karen Doak.

24

This is OK Actually, where we take a

problem and diagnose before we build

25

One of the voices working to clarify

the role of chief of staff and ensure

26

future chiefs of staff are set up

for success is Rachel Goldfarb.

27

And while Rachel's held past roles

in the White House and with the Gates

28

Foundation, I've known about Rachel since

the 10th grade, when my history teacher

29

said that I was, quote, "The new Rachel

Goldfarb," and I didn't know who that was.

30

But as I've gotten to know her over the

last couple of decades, I've learned

31

that that's mostly a compliment.

32

So today, Rachel runs Cool and Gold, an

advisory services provider that looks

33

at what organizations actually need when

they think they need a chief of staff and

34

overall leadership architecture, which

is exactly the kind of wrong problem

35

diagnosis I want to talk about today.

36

Welcome, Rachel.

37

Rachael Goldfarb: Thanks.

38

And I noticed that you prefaced the

that's a compliment with that's mostly a

39

compliment, which is probably accurate,

but I'm not sure you really needed

40

to include that word, but you did.

41

It's fine.

42

It's totally fine.

43

Karen Doak: I, did, and accuracy

is really important over here

44

on the OK Actually podcast.

45

Okay, Rachel, I know that you've written

and spoken on this topic extensively,

46

but just to start, when an organization

thinks they need a chief of staff, the job

47

description usually say, if there is one?

48

And what's the problem that you think

an organization thinks that they're

49

solving when they create that role?

50

Rachael Goldfarb: So

51

let's take the second question first,

which is the organization doesn't

52

know what problem it's trying to

solve, and that's part of the problem.

53

Typically, organizations will

think through and say, "Oh, you

54

know, the guy next door or two

floors up has a chief of staff.

55

Sounds really cool.

56

Should have that too.

57

I'm gonna go off and hire one."

58

I mean, there's no...

59

i, I find that very few people in

organizations sit down and say, "What's

60

the problem I'm trying to solve?"

61

And when they do put out a chief of

staff job description, it's amazing in

62

how it, it is very lengthy and wordy,

but it communicates absolutely nothing.

63

So

64

Karen Doak: So it's just

65

Rachael Goldfarb: who has a body

temperature of ninety point six

66

and, like, three active brain cells

could conceivably do this job,

67

Karen Doak: capacity to sell

who can hopefully do the stuff.

68

It

69

Rachael Goldfarb: they can do it,

but they're not gonna do it well.

70

Karen Doak: to

71

Rachael Goldfarb: so

72

Karen Doak: so

73

Rachael Goldfarb: the thing that

I always see in job descriptions,

74

which I just find hilarious, is

cross-functional communication.

75

Okay, who doesn't do that?

76

I mean, if you're not doing that, then

you're not working in an organization.

77

You're working by yourself in your office.

78

, My other favorites are when it's

like an appendage, right-hand

79

person, 'cause, you know.

80

Karen Doak: Yeah.

81

Rachael Goldfarb: or, uh,

82

Karen Doak: uh,

83

Rachael Goldfarb: a force multiplier,

which I've said is like the worst...

84

It's like the most bizarre

physics experiment, and it in

85

no way or shape or form relates

to what a chief of staff does.

86

So yeah, the job description

is an absolute complete

87

disaster wrapped in a fiasco.

88

Karen Doak: So I hear you, and I think

the, that lack of consistency is pretty

89

clear and, something you're seeing

across the board with chief of staff.

90

I've seen it in general with a lot

of roles where there's just poor

91

job descriptions, lack of clear

expectations, but it does feel like it's,

92

like the chief of staff role suffers

from that more than a lot of others.

93

So do you think there's a reason why

the chief of staff role is kind of

94

ripe for that level of confusion?

95

Rachael Goldfarb: Well, so

it's a couple of things.

96

First,

97

Karen Doak: say,

98

Rachael Goldfarb: and everybody knows it

really mostly from Aaron Sorkin's head

99

Karen Doak: some,

100

Rachael Goldfarb: Leo McGarry.

101

And the reality is that

actually is not the role at all.

102

And then what happened was,

103

Corporate America took this role

because it sounded sexy and really

104

didn't figure out what it was

actually meant to do and achieve.

105

Karen Doak: everything.

106

Rachael Goldfarb: and then

107

Karen Doak: and

108

Rachael Goldfarb: The tech industry

took it and screwed it up even further

109

Karen Doak: very

110

Rachael Goldfarb: because there was

111

Karen Doak: were

112

Rachael Goldfarb: guy who wrote an

article about having a chief of staff,

113

and this was in, I think it was 2019.

114

And he wrote about how the chief

of staff is supposed to make him,

115

the CEO, look like a superhero.

116

Karen Doak: working at home.

117

And I

118

Rachael Goldfarb: "Jesus Christ, you

know, this isn't Alfred from Batman."

119

I really don't know where they, they

get the idea, but it's clearly not

120

one that's rooted in any sort of

reality and that's been a huge problem.

121

Karen Doak: Well, I mean, I am

a Sorkin head, so I do have Leo

122

McGarry in mind at all times.

123

But in my experience in tech roles, I've

seen a couple of different things happen.

124

One is there's a legacy employee who knows

where the bodies are buried, but no one

125

really knows what to do with that person

126

Rachael Goldfarb: That's right.

127

Karen Doak: That person needs a title

that is worthy of the fact that they're

128

very valuable to the organization,

but at the same time, that person

129

hasn't worked anywhere else or hasn't

worked anywhere else in a while,

130

doesn't really know what they're doing.

131

Like,

132

Rachael Goldfarb: That's right.

133

Karen Doak: more of a special

projects lead than anything else.

134

And so I've seen that.

135

And the other one I've seen as a

theme , in larger tech companies is

136

a department head is like, "I need a

chief of staff," which I think you kind

137

of referenced at the start, , and just

creates a new kind of bottleneck, which

138

is run everything through the chief

of staff, but the chief of staff still

139

has to ask the principal a question.

140

So then you're just waiting and waiting

to go there, but it's not-- The, the

141

workflow is never designed to be more

efficient with that person in place.

142

Rachael Goldfarb: Well, so I'm

gonna push back on you a little

143

bit on that one because, um,

144

Karen Doak: Yeah.

145

Well, I think

146

Rachael Goldfarb: a real problem for

the chief of staff to do their job.

147

Karen Doak: probably

148

Rachael Goldfarb: But the reality is

if you have an executive that can only

149

meet with you, a member of the C-suite,

every, once every week or once every

150

two weeks, the reality is if the chief

of staff is set up correctly and if,

151

you know, executives understand what it

is that they're-- what it is that the

152

chief of staff is trying to accomplish,

then actually they're not a bottleneck.

153

They're the very opposite of it.

154

Because if you meet with this person

every day for 15 or 20 minutes at the

155

end of the day Then the chief of staff

can sort of source and push up a bunch

156

of questions, issues, concerns that

have come up throughout the day and

157

get answers almost immediately, so

you're not waiting for your one-on-one

158

as the, as a member of the C-suite.

159

So the idea is to, you know, have a level

of transparency, collegiality, sort of a,

160

a rhythm of, of work where the executive

meets regularly with the chief of staff.

161

They do check-ins throughout the day

or once a day, and that then helps move

162

information faster rather than slower.

163

, But you're right.

164

You know, most people sort of view

it as an additional layer that's

165

a problem, and they don't see it

as something that can really help

166

facilitate information flow and movement.

167

So that becomes the issue.

168

Karen Doak: I think maybe what

I was saying poorly is that when

169

the wrong person is in the role,

they're not able to operate as

170

autonomously as the person needs to.

171

Like...

172

Rachael Goldfarb: That's absolutely right.

173

But it's not just the

wrong person in the role.

174

It's the executive setting up the

wrong set of circumstances and

175

environment for even a person who's

in it and is the right person.

176

So there are multiple failure points

here that happen, and I think that's

177

in part why the chief of staff role is

so confusing, mired in sort of complete

178

blurry lines around role definition

and all sorts of other problems, is

179

because, you know, it's a, it takes

two to tango here, and you need an

180

executive who understands what the

role is and what to expect of it.

181

And then you need somebody in the

role who understands what it is that

182

they're doing and can really do it well.

183

Karen Doak: So building on that, I mean,

or you say-- is it fair to say rather

184

that when the hire goes poorly, there's

obviously multiple different ways that you

185

could see that manifest, but it's-- but

a most common cause is lack of alignment

186

or lack of understanding of the role and

its possibility at the principal level?

187

Rachael Goldfarb: Yeah.

188

I mean, I think that

that's a huge part of it.

189

And I, I've always said

that, you can kill this role

190

Karen Doak: of it.

191

And I, I think

192

Rachael Goldfarb: in a

matter of ten minutes.

193

Just in the introduction alone,

you can completely undermine it and

194

destroy any hope of sort of creating

an opportunity for this person to do

195

really important and substantive work.

196

Because if you introduce the chief of

staff as your right-hand person, or

197

if it over-indexes for you, and it's

not introduced as a role that benefits

198

the whole organization, y-you've just

created an environment where it's

199

almost impossible to recover from it.

200

Can you recover from it?

201

Yes, but it's really hard.

202

Karen Doak: How do you do that?

203

How would you recommend that

they introduce a chief of staff

204

so that they can be successful?

205

Rachael Goldfarb: So the first thing

is, I think having an understanding

206

of what the definition is is important

and agreeing to that in the beginning

207

Karen Doak: that's a really good

208

Rachael Goldfarb: before

you introduce anybody.

209

And then Suzy, Kool, and I both agree that

there are sort of three main components.

210

One is that you are an extender

of the executive's time.

211

You protect the principal,

212

Karen Doak: as a principal.

213

Um,

214

Rachael Goldfarb: in that

215

Karen Doak: in that, you

216

Rachael Goldfarb: you're

doing risk mitigation.

217

You're constantly playing chess and

figuring out what's gonna happen

218

four steps ahead so that my executive

doesn't get caught unawares of something

219

that really becomes cataclysmic.

220

So that's the first piece.

221

Karen Doak: to do

222

Rachael Goldfarb: we over-index for

that typically, and people believe

223

that the chief of staff is there

to serve the executive, when I

224

couldn't disagree with that more.

225

It's to serve the organization,

and by strengthening the executive,

226

you serve the organization.

227

The second thing is integrating,

coordinating, orchestrating the C-suite

228

because when you have more than one

person in the room, the chances for

229

major miscommunication is significant.

230

And so you have to have somebody who is

serving Across the organization while

231

you as the executive is managing up or

out or whatever it is that you're doing.

232

And then the third piece is broadly

advocating for the staff because while

233

you're not gonna sort of deal with,

"Oh, Nancy has this problem," or,

234

"Ellen has this specific issue," you

can walk into the executive's office

235

in a way that nobody else can and you

can say, "Houston, we have a problem.

236

This policy is about to create

havoc in ways that you cannot fully

237

appreciate, but I can because I

talk to the staff all the time."

238

So,, these are the three areas.

239

, The way in which you need to introduce

them is, "Look, this person is,

240

es-essentially an extension of me.

241

And, you know, as they get onboarded,

it's important for you to raise

242

issues with them, tell them what's

going on, because the more honest

243

you are with them, the clearer the

picture I have of what's happening

244

internally within the organization."

245

Right.

246

Karen Doak: What's also running through

my mind as you're talking about this

247

is just the need to make sure that

not only does that introduction happen

248

properly, but that the principal's

behavior then reinforces that every day

249

Rachael Goldfarb: Exactly, because

that often doesn't happen either.

250

This, you know, part of the problem

with executives is that they're

251

very reluctant to, uh, founders in

particular, but really any executive,

252

you know, they want some element of

control over processes and internal

253

machinations and everything that happens.

254

And the reality is there are only

twenty-four hours in the day, and

255

there are only so many ways in which

you can control everything that

256

happens in every moment at all times.

257

And so the chief of staff is sort

of designed to create opportunities

258

where you , as the executive, have

a better understanding of what's

259

going on within your organization.

260

But that means you also have to let

go, and that is something that a lot of

261

executives have a real challenge around.

262

It becomes very difficult when you're

micromanaging, and, chiefs of staff don't

263

do well in micromanaged environments.

264

Karen Doak: That makes perfect sense.

265

. So I know a lot of your work with

Suzy is really around making sure

266

that leadership teams are built more

intentionally, more deliberately.

267

And I guess I'm wondering, when structure

and roles aren't properly architected,

268

someone like a chief of staff, I mean,

technically any other role, but a chief

269

of staff in this case, can end up becoming

a workaround for a structure problem

270

that the org hasn't otherwise solved.

271

So I was wondering if you had any

examples, , of that that you could share

272

so people kind of see it in practice.

273

Rachael Goldfarb: Yeah, and, look,

again, this goes to the executive's

274

understanding of the role, right?

275

But also the expectations of both sides.

276

For me personally, I, I had

somebody who thought that I

277

was their personal assistant.

278

And you know, I, I'm a lawyer.

279

I, I clerked on not one, but two federal

courts, and when he asked me to go get his

280

dry cleaning, I, I pushed back and said,

"You know, I'm-" There are many things

281

that I'm really talented at, but getting

your dry cleaning isn't one of them.

282

And so, you know, it becomes a question

of how do both of you envision the role

283

moving forward, and how do you start?

284

And I think, just as an aside, there's

a fiction that the first ninety

285

days are going to be magical and

wonderful, and then you will figure

286

out this role, and it'll be great.

287

And the reality is, you won't

get good at this job until

288

month eighteen, at, at least.

289

Karen Doak: So something that, is

coming up here is that very obviously

290

people, they feel the need for help.

291

They might not know exactly

what that looks like, but they

292

know they need a resource.

293

They are looking for some level of

skill and, and strategic involvement.

294

so what are the questions that you think

team or a hiring team should be asking

295

before they hire a chief of staff so

that they can make sure the person has

296

the right remit in the first place?

297

Rachael Goldfarb: Right.

298

So I think you have to understand

what are the big challenges or pain

299

points that you're experiencing

during any given time, right?

300

Which is what are the problems

that you're trying to solve for?

301

Are you trying to solve for the fact

that your calendar is like the worst

302

version of a Tetris game, right?

303

Like that isn't a chief of staff.

304

The chief of staff is there

to review whether your time

305

is being used effectively.

306

But that's not somebody who figures

out like where what goes when.

307

It mostly is the chief of staff

will look at an invitation and

308

say, "Is this strategically

appropriate for us to participate in?

309

Is it a worthwhile use of time?

310

Does it align with the organization's

values, mission, vision, whatever?"

311

, You need an executive assistant if you

really want somebody to figure out your

312

calendar and how things are sort of

strategically placed and where do they go.

313

But the chief of staff is the one

that's sort of thinking about the

314

broader organization and how your

time is being used against that.

315

You know, it sort of depends.

316

I mean, I hate to say that 'cause

it's a pretty sort of broad way

317

to deal with this, but it really

does depend on what your needs are.

318

And if you are having issues across

the organization, and you find that

319

your COO and your CMO and your, you

know, CRO are all doing different

320

things, and it sometimes clashes

or there isn't an understanding

321

of what's going on across the

organization, you need a chief of staff.

322

You know, you need somebody who's gonna

sort of mind the shop and be agnostic

323

around which issue they care about, right?

324

I mean, part of the value of

the chief of staff is that

325

there isn't a P&L under them.

326

And the minute you put anything under

them, they're no longer Switzerland.

327

And when you don't have Switzerland , in

the C-suite, that can cause real problems.

328

, You need to have somebody who can sort

of step back and say, "Okay, here are

329

the sort of major priorities for the

year, and we have to focus on these

330

three things," not the three things

that the CRO wants to focus on, right?

331

Karen Doak: I

332

Rachael Goldfarb: So that's

where it becomes issue.

333

. , Karen Doak: I think the call out of

not having a P&L is a really big one

334

too, because whether people want to

admit it or not, when you own a P&L,

335

you become defensive of your P&L.

336

You protect your people,

you protect your resources,

337

Rachael Goldfarb: Absolutely.

338

Karen Doak: And being able to operate like

Switzerland is a really good call-out.

339

Rachael Goldfarb: Yeah.

340

Karen Doak: It does make me wonder

too, just if there's to be said around

341

maturity of an organization and just,

is there a tipping point in when a

342

chief of staff really isn't able to

add value because there's a lack of

343

maturity or size or scale isn't there?

344

Rachael Goldfarb: Sure.

345

It's when three people are in a room.

346

So, there's like a famous saying that

I thought Ben Franklin said, although

347

sometimes it's attributed to Mark

Twain, but I, because, I went to Penn

348

and I'm from Philadelphia, like you, I

care about Ben Franklin, and so we're

349

gonna say that Ben Franklin said this.

350

But it's, "If you wanna keep

a secret between three people,

351

two of them need to be dead."

352

And my point is that with chief of staff,

353

, If you have three people in a

room, miscommunication abounds.

354

It doesn't take much.

355

Karen Doak: boss.

356

And so you are

357

Rachael Goldfarb: with one other person

and you bring a third person in the mix,

358

Karen Doak: a

359

Rachael Goldfarb: you

need a chief of staff.

360

I'm actually of the mind that it doesn't

matter whether it's three people or

361

thirty thousand people, you generally

need a chief of staff in the room

362

and I think people underestimate

the value of having somebody who's

363

looking across the organization,

even if it's four people.

364

Karen Doak: So a little bit of a pivot.

365

I cannot open LinkedIn without

seeing at least two or three

366

posts of someone offering, the

correct Claude or ChatGPT prompt to

367

create your own AI chief of staff.

368

Rachael Goldfarb: Oh, yeah.

369

Karen Doak: and so I'm just

wondering, , recognizing that an AI

370

chief of staff is never gonna be Leo

McGarry, what do you think people

371

think they're solving for there?

372

And how do you think that

actually affects the role?

373

Rachael Goldfarb: So first of all, it

dilutes the role, of course, right?

374

This is the classic problem, is that

when you keep using words to define

375

things that aren't true, then it

becomes very confusing as to what

376

the words are actually defining.

377

You know, look, AI is

coming for every job.

378

I am not one of those people who believes

that the chief of staff function is above

379

and beyond what AI could reasonably do.

380

, I think what's true of everyone is

that AI is coming for portions of your

381

job, and if you don't understand how

to use a tool, this tool as sort of

382

part of your arsenal, then you're not

thinking about it in the right way.

383

And so it's not that I object to AI

as a, as just a broad technology tool.

384

I think it's the Gutenberg

Bible moment of this era.

385

Like, it's really gonna radically

transform the way people think and work

386

and behave and all of those things.

387

But the idea that you're calling somebody

who-- or something, 'cause it's not a

388

somebody, it's something that organizes

your calendar, is your AI chief of

389

staff or even gives you a briefing.

390

Okay, but that's not what

a chief of staff does.

391

That's actually what a mediocre

assistant would do, right?

392

I mean, executive admins, I would

argue, are actually also way more

393

sophisticated than what an AI

chief of staff is claiming to be.

394

, But I think that it's this idea of like

a computer can sit there and generate a,

395

a daily briefing and, you know, remind

you of some emails and maybe get you to

396

like think through your calendar a little

bit before you jump into a meeting.

397

That's not what a chief of staff does.

398

A chief of staff is trying to coordinate

and organize across the organization.

399

They're doing risk mitigation.

400

They're interviewing staff.

401

They're trying to figure out what's

going on, where are the problems, where

402

are the gaps, how do we fill them?

403

I mean, it's not just, "Oh, here

are a bunch of problems that I've

404

sourced for you, and now go and

figure out how to deal with it."

405

I mean, chiefs of staff bring

the solutions with them.

406

That's the whole point of the role.

407

And so I'm legendary on LinkedIn now

so people will tag me in comments

408

and say, "Can you believe this?"

409

And then I go on a complete rant about

how this couldn't be further from a chief

410

of staff, and you have developed, again,

a lovely assistant who like won't get

411

you coffee, but that's pretty much it.

412

But I think that executive

admins are thinking about time.

413

They're thinking about

how this person behaves.

414

Where do they get their energy from?

415

How do I ensure that that's in

the calendar on a daily basis?

416

Chiefs of staff are thinking about

strategically, again, your time.

417

Where do you need to be because

it's the most important invitation

418

you've gotten all month?

419

And where are invitations that

are just throwaways, right?

420

Like, it's nice to show up to them,

but it's not important, and it

421

doesn't serve the organization well.

422

When you think about executive support,

it's just a fundamentally different,

423

endeavor when it doesn't involve AI.

424

I really do think it's, again, tech bros

out there that are like coming up with

425

a very sexy name for something that is

pretty boring and sort of straightforward.

426

, And so I hate that they're using this.

427

It's driving me bananas, and I'm really

trying hard to push back on it because

428

it just, like an oxymoron in terms.

429

Karen Doak: The theme of this conversation

, and what I think is directly related

430

to AI, it's that, the inputs matter.

431

Being able to make sure you know what

you're actually trying to tackle and

432

how you wanna approach it, that's

what has to drive solutioning.

433

That's what has to drive the role.

434

That's what has to drive everything else.

435

And we know that that's mission critical

with AI, is making sure that your prompt

436

is accurate and that you're giving the

kind of information that you need so

437

that it's not garbage in, garbage out.

438

And you have a role that we've already

said is poorly defined with terrible job

439

descriptions, and someone is just telling

Claude, "Be my right hand and a thought

440

partner," I don't know, , I don't know

what you could possibly be getting back.

441

, So I can completely see how it's

just perpetuating the same problem.

442

Rachael Goldfarb: When the iPhone was

introduced in two thousand and seven,

443

Karen Doak: 2007.

444

Rachael Goldfarb: that this was going to

be the end of communication, conversation.

445

That, that, you know, people would have

their heads down so much in a device

446

Karen Doak: their

447

Rachael Goldfarb: that they

wouldn't be able to look up and

448

see what's going on around them.

449

I mean, what's happened

450

Karen Doak: And

451

Rachael Goldfarb: the iPhone,

nobody could have predicted that.

452

And I think the same is true of AI.

453

I have no idea what AI is gonna be

like in ten years or even in five.

454

But I know it for right now, where we are,

there's no way that this This technology

455

replaces judgment, assessment, figuring

out people's body language, understanding

456

Karen Doak: thought

457

Rachael Goldfarb: where there are inherent

tensions because of politics, little P, or

458

whatever's going on in the organization.

459

Karen Doak: This has been a really

great conversation today, Rachel.

460

Is there any other kind of key point

about- role that you want to make, and

461

I guess most specifically, if someone

is listening to this and they're

462

currently in a role that they think

is poorly defined or is being created

463

as a workaround to solve the right

problem, , what kind of information

464

do you think they need to know?

465

Rachael Goldfarb: So I think

that there are a couple of

466

things that I wanna point out.

467

One is, , if you're in a poorly defined

role where you think you're doing some

468

strategy, some tactical, you can't

figure out what it is, you should

469

definitely get in touch with us because

Suzy and I have created, , a number of

470

assessment tools , that sort of evaluate

and understand how people, whether

471

they're wired for this or not, because

it really does require sort of wiring.

472

Also, for, you know, leaders and people

who are trying to think through this,

473

Karen Doak: through

474

Rachael Goldfarb: there is

475

Karen Doak: is a website, um,

476

Rachael Goldfarb: building it.

477

And there will be resources on there.

478

Karen Doak: in their more frequent format.

479

Rachael Goldfarb: should

come and visit us.

480

It's Cool, C-O-U-L, and Gold, G-O-L-D.

481

And here's what I'll also say about

the chief of staff role, which is,

482

right now, I think that there are

more men who are coming on the scene,

483

but fundamentally, this is largely

a role that is occupied by women.

484

And in my mind, since,

485

Karen Doak: when we think about what

486

Rachael Goldfarb: you know, the two of

us went to the same all-girls school,

487

Karen Doak: an all-girls

488

Rachael Goldfarb: I think it's important

to sort of highlight that part of

489

Why I'm very passionate about

this role and doing it well

490

Is because I see this as a

women in leadership problem

491

as much as anything else.

492

And I think that

493

, When you're leveraged correctly and

you're used properly, then you have the

494

influence and authority to go in and

change workplace policies and behaviors

495

and all sorts of things in order to

build a stronger and better culture.

496

And, when that happens,

497

Karen Doak: happens, there's

498

Rachael Goldfarb: work becomes workable.

499

Karen Doak: I'm really glad

that you called that out,

500

Rachael Goldfarb: Thanks

so much for having me.

501

Karen Doak: Thanks so much for having me.

502

Thank you, Rachel.

503

We will put links to Coul and Gold's

website as well as your amazing

504

newsletter in the show notes, and

I'm so grateful for your time today.

505

Rachael Goldfarb: Thank you.

506

This was great.

507

Karen Doak: Thanks again

to Rachel for her time.

508

You know, every bad or incorrect chief

of staff hire starts the same way, which

509

is someone felt something was broken, and

they thought they could just take a highly

510

capable person and use them as a Band-Aid.

511

And the role on its own isn't the fix.

512

, Figuring out what's

actually broken is the fix.

513

That's true of the chief of staff,

but it's true , of most of the other

514

decisions we keep making on autopilot.

515

So before I let you go, if you've

ever been the person brought in to

516

fix something that nobody could quite

describe, I wanna hear about it.

517

Did you figure out what

the actual problem was?

518

And if you did, were you

able to do anything about it?

519

You can email me, find me on LinkedIn.

520

All of my information

is in the show notes.

521

No need to name names.

522

I will protect my sources.

523

I'm Karen Doak.

524

This is Okay, Actually, the

show where we get clear, get

525

sorted, get going, and stay sane.

526

Thanks so much.