Staff and Support: The Behind-the-Scenes Roles That Keep the Organization Running

By Dr. Mathias Baitan, Executive Director of the ISFB

In 2009, I took on the role of Chief of Staff at BCGE’s Executive Management at the age of 32. At that age, being closely involved in day-to-day decision-making offers a rare opportunity to understand how a bank operates from the inside.

There, I learned how a leader analyzes a situation, weighs various options, and balances perfectly legitimate—though not always aligned—interests. In a bank, the relationship between business development and risk management provides a fairly natural illustration of this.

But what is the purpose of a general staff, after all?

People are quick to assume that staff functions operate in the leader’s shadow, as if they were directly involved in shaping the leader’s strategic thinking. Let’s not be fooled. A leader does not need his or her staff to think for him or her, define his or her strategy, or exert influence: the value of the staff is often far more operational than we care to believe.

His role lies elsewhere: to enable the executive to focus on what truly falls within the scope of his responsibilities.

He prepares the information needed for decision-making, documents cases, organizes decision-making processes, structures relationships with the ecosystem, and follows up on decisions. Above all, he protects a particularly scarce resource: the executive’s time. Executives should be able to devote most of their energy to thinking, deciding, and making judgments, rather than having to set up the systems that enable them to do so themselves.

The staff thus becomes the guarantor of a rhythm—the daily rhythm, to ensure that matters move forward, but also the long-term rhythm, to prevent urgency from constantly overshadowing what is important. It maintains the mechanism without producing its content.

This distinction is essential. Confusing a close relationship with a manager with the actual exercise of management is likely one of the primary risks of the profession.

There is another one: influence.

The chief of staff must frequently advance issues with people over whom he has no hierarchical authority. Social psychology offers us an interesting framework for understanding this. The work of French and Raven distinguishes between different bases of social power, notably legitimate power, referent power, and expert power, to which informational power is subsequently added.

At first, the staff inevitably derives some of its influence from the leader to whom it is attached. But that legitimacy is not enough. Over time, it must build its own.

If he can demonstrate that going through him allows for better preparation of a case, saves time, or moves a decision forward more efficiently, the nature of his influence changes. He gradually gains two kinds of trust: that of top management and that of the rank-and-file. Without it, he quickly risks becoming what he should never be: just another bureaucrat.

This role therefore requires a remarkable ability to work across disciplines. Understanding strategy without being the strategist. Understanding risks and compliance without being the Risk or Compliance Officer. Knowing how to lead a project, manage a crisis, analyze processes, and communicate a decision without overstepping the boundaries of the business units.

This cross-functional approach, moreover, does not apply solely to the Chief of Staff. It more broadly characterizes the staff and support teams, each of which contributes, at its own level, to preparing briefings, coordinating stakeholders, organizing information, and ensuring continuity between decision-making and implementation. Their influence may sometimes be less visible, but their unique position requires the same ability to understand issues that extend beyond their own area of expertise. Working in a staff office means, precisely, learning to view the organization beyond one’s own function.