Three weeks before a key hire fell through, the Chief of Staff already knew the signals were off. She had watched the candidate’s energy shift in the second interview, heard the hiring manager hesitate in how he described the offer call, noticed the CEO had not asked about the process in over a week, unusual for a role he had been treating as a priority. She said nothing. She was waiting for more certainty.
There is a kind of information management that looks, from the outside, like professionalism: not spreading unverified rumour, not raising alarms before you have anything real, exercising the discretion the job seems to demand. Sometimes that is exactly what it is. And sometimes it is avoidance with a better vocabulary. The Chief of Staff role runs on information the way an organisation runs on trust. You get updates from nearly every function, you sit in rooms where things are said off the record, you pick up the sidebar the CEO was never part of. What you do with all of it is, technically, the job, and nobody teaches you how to make the call. Most Chiefs of Staff build a rough instinct over time, calibrated partly by experience and partly by the memory of the last time they said something early and watched it land badly. The result is a filter nobody ever designed, living in one person’s judgement, working invisibly, with real costs in both directions.
The pattern that fails
Most Chiefs of Staff err toward too much silence, not too much noise. You learn quickly that there are categories of information the principal does not want informally, not yet, not in the middle of a Tuesday, so you hold things back until you have the full picture, until there is a solution to go with the problem, until the moment feels right. The right moment often never comes, because the full picture is also still arriving. In a May 2025 PwC survey, 57% of executives said they were missing opportunities because they could not decide fast enough.1 That is almost always read as a decision problem and rarely as an information-flow one, though the two are joined: a Chief of Staff who is systematically under-surfacing, with the best intentions, is compressing the decision window for the person they are paid to support. West Monroe found 73% of leaders estimate their organisations lose up to 5% of annual revenue to slow decisions and delayed execution.2
What to surface as Chief of Staff
Knowing what to surface as Chief of Staff, and when, is the central judgement call most people in the role answer on instinct. It does not have to be. The question is not only what you know; it is what your principal would need to know, and whether they could still act on it by the time you tell them. Four categories:
- You both know it. Do not report it back. It is shared context, and naming it wastes their time.
- You know it, they do not. This is the decision point. Run two tests. Timeliness: if they found out in three weeks, would there still be time to act? If not, it goes up now. Relevance: does it touch something they have flagged as a priority, a risk, or a relationship that matters to them? If yes, it goes up, even with the picture incomplete.
- They think they know it, but what they have is wrong. The one most people dodge. Correcting a principal’s understanding is uncomfortable, more so when they got it through another channel. Let inaccurate information travel uncorrected and you are managing your own discomfort at the cost of their accuracy.
- Neither of you knows yet. You have a signal you cannot quite read. Name it anyway: “I am not sure what this means yet, but I am watching it.” Certainty is not a condition for flagging uncertainty.
What to do this week
Look back over the last three weeks and find three pieces of information you absorbed without surfacing, not gossip, not operational noise, but real signal. For each, ask what you were waiting for: certainty, a solution, or for the conversation to feel safe. Then ask whether saying it sooner would have changed anything. The aim is not to swing the filter wide open. It is to understand your own system well enough to know when it is serving the work and when it is serving your nerves.
The Chief of Staff who protects the principal from every uncomfortable conversation is doing an easier version of the job than the one they were hired for. The sharpest information hygiene in this role lives in the gap between what you know and what you choose to say, and in being honest enough with yourself to tell when that gap is discretion and when it is something else.
Sources:
