[upbeat music] Hey, it's Tristan. It's really nice to have you here. I'm the new guest host on the pod, so I thought I'd quickly introduce myself.
I was previously the chief of staff at Comscore, a Series B community analytics company.
These days, I do coaching and fractional work through my company, Beyond Founders, where I help operators and leaders lead with more clarity and purpose.
I'm part of the Chief of Staff Network community, and I'll be guest hosting a few episodes this year.
I'm based between Berlin, Kuala Lumpur and Singapore, and you'll find me bringing on chiefs of staff from across Asia and Europe onto the pod. I'm really excited to share today's conversation with you.
My guest is Priyanka Piramsetty, engineering operations director at Crunchyroll.
Priyanka is a seasoned operator whose career has taken a few turns, from civil engineering to product solutioning, to community, to being a chief of staff and customer excellence.
In this episode, we'll talk about how Priyanka thinks about integrity and why it matters in the chief of staff role.
Also, how she spotted signals of high performer attrition super early, and what a chief of staff can see by being in this role.
She's also got a simple five-step way to figure out how the most strong-willed leaders can see eye to eye. That's something she's been working on for many years.
And last but not least, we'll be talking about how a zigzagging career can actually be an advantage as you grow into the more complex operator career.
Priyanka is thoughtful, practical, and extremely candid about the hard parts of this role. I think you're gonna get a lot out of this one. I'm excited to be here, and let's get into it. Hi, Priyanka. How are you doing?
I'm really excited about this conversation. So, yeah. Super, super excited to have you on the podcast. I think we could just kind of dive right in.
The question I wanna start with is, what is some early context that will help me and us and everyone listening to understand who you are today? Who is Priyanka?
I can start what I am on a resume, and then I can also give you like a sense of who I am as a person. I am the engineering operations director at Crunchyroll right now.
And Crunchyroll is a major anime streaming services owned by Sony Group.
I've studied engineering, civil engineering, and then I've done my post-graduation in liberal studies, so this is someone who didn't want to build bridges for the rest of her life and then was really fascinated by how cool it is to, you know, to solve problems from an interdisciplinary approach.
I think I've done a bunch of roles in different stages of the companies in, you know, in different functions.
Like, I've done growth partnerships, product solutioning, community, chief of staff twice, and customer excellence, you know, before this.
And mostly, you know, I figured out, you know, things by doing and picking up, you know, roles that involved me punching up on some level because I don't have the traditional MBA to make me feel ready for these roles.
Personally, um, I'm a multiple hobby enthusiast. I enjoy sport.
I'm one elder, elder daughter, grew up in a small town, so there is also this whole hunger, you know, to prove yourself and resilience to, like, figure it out all by your own.
So that pretty much give you a sense of, you know, say, who I am as a person. How does, I guess, the resilience and wanting to prove it and make it, how does that show up in your career and life?
You end up being the person who would not give up easily. Like, of course, you'll try to... You'll question yourself, you'll question your ability.
You'll figure out even your ways, you know, to solve a particular thing or attempt a particular thing. So I think the way it has manifested for me is, I think, to be a lot more courageous in my choices.
There's almost a sense of, you know, "Hey, uh, there's nothing to lose." You know, like, "What would I lose by trying this? What would I miss out on, you know, say, by not attempting something?" Right?
So I think, like, this whole sense of wanting it all, you know, like, "I wanna see where this goes or where this takes me," and that resonated with, I think, like all of the career choices that I've done and all-- in fact, all of my personal choices as well.
So I think you just refuse to give up. [chuckles] So currently you're the engineering operations director at Crunchyroll, um, in India.
What I'm hearing is like, hey, it was not a clear path and you're kind of changing departments often, changing job scopes often. How did you land here today at Crunchyroll?
This is the easiest to answer because it's retrospectively everything makes sense, right? Like, while, while you're figuring it out, you're like, "Uh, am I doing the right thing?"
But I'm glad I'm able to look at it with a much kinder lens now. I've been a B2B SaaS operator all of my life.
Fortunately, also for product-first and tech-first companies, and like I mentioned, right, like working in multiple roles and different functions in these-- in this context, I think predominantly prepared me, you know, to look at cross-functional problem statements and, uh, pick that with the confidence that only generalists would have.
The other part of it also is companies are like willing to take a bet on generalists, you know, because these are intersections. These will require nuance.
These probably are not necessarily the area of expertise of, you know, say, SMEs, subject matter experts.
So they wanted someone who would, you know, walk in, understand the problem statements, look at the symptoms, be able to differentiate it with the pain points, and then come up with like the first draft of a solution again and again.
I think retrospectively it is that ability to context switch, look at a problem statement both from a thirty thousand feet and also like with like a nano scope of sorts, and be really be able to work with people and leverage, you know, like what individuals or teams and people, you know, bring to the work spaces and projects.
I think largely, if I were to put like an analogy, it's like the maestro in like an orchestra.
Like, you probably are not playing the violin, but like you would know when to pull in who and, uh, whose pace, you know, to pick up at a particular moment. I think it would be that. Yeah.
So like being able to have the-Overview of like all the different players, but also knowing the skill, I guess, of everyone that's in the orchestra.
You must be a good chief of staff if that's how you're seeing things and kind of able to have an overview of stuff.
I wouldn't say it's intuition, but I think it's just like the, the deliberate, immersive, you know, say, ways of working, right?
Like, you just don't know someone by their titles or their job descriptions, but like you work with people in the, in the root of, you know, say, problem, you know, like wherein-- Like, assume a typical war room scenario, right?
Like, everything's breaking. You really need to, you know, get to like an answer.
So you really try to observe different people's like their style of solutioning and usually arrive at like, you know, this level of, I think, intuition mostly by way of elimination.
Like, you would have tried everything, so like you now know this is what works and this is what lands. So, yeah. How would you think about the type of operator you are today versus like ten years ago?
I'm a lot more self-assured. I think I've now understood what operators like, say, meant when they said like, "Hey, I'm just winging it," right?
Like, there is no perfect answer, there's no perfect framework, and the nature of, you know, the problem changes every single day in certain circumstances.
So like I think I've become a lot more self-assured, be able to pause without running through the fires. And there's certain level of, I think, equanimity that also came through sitting through the fires.
I think like when you started out your career, you would not be able to differentiate a fire, you know, that, that can be doused easily and a fire that probably would kill a particular function.
[laughs] Like, you wouldn't know. Like, all you know is that like you're burning, so- Yeah. But now I think there is some sense of understanding that, okay, this fire could wait.
This fire, I could channel it, I could delegate, or let's say some other team, you know, can pick up this fire. And this fire, we've decided we will live with it.
So like, let's just like design better suits, you know, for us to sit through this. So I think that sense of comfort has come in, uh, I'd say. I think this fire analogy is extremely relatable for myself.
I know for a fact also many, many chiefs of staff which fire to prioritize.
You know, the common saying is like a chief of staff is a firefighter that's kind of going out and, you know, managing all these different fires.
After many years of being the firefighter, how do you think about which ones to prioritize and which ones to not prioritize?
I think you understand it from the stakeholders and the beneficiaries that you work closely with, right? Like, some fires are a function of a process that's loosely executed.
But some fires, in fact, some fires don't look as hazardous either. Like, for example, there has been like, say, a particular tech partnership, you know, that has been signed up. It's been working well for years now.
You've never gotten to define, let's say, what well means, right? Like, there are no success metrics.
Prima facie it looks all good, but when you start digging in, you realize, let's say there are problems that are much deep-rooted than, you know, like any of the metrics are showing you.
So that becomes like an indicator into which fire will consume us, you know, say now and which fire, you know, could just like kill us all in like three or four years, right?
So I think just the ability to dig in to stuff, I think like that's the only way I've figured out how you'd be able to differentiate, you know, which one is important and which one, let's say, is skippable.
Two, I think also a sense of how metrics show a particular picture, but then like the minute you, you know, you try to, say, take a step and you look at, you know, say if these, you know, say, data points are telling the story that we want to know or, you know, say, are these data points, say, telling a different story that we are not ready to, you know, to ask ourselves, right?
There are certain products that work the way they are intended to. Everyone's happy. But as your business is changing, like none of us, you know, have paused enough to look at like, "Hey, do we even need this anymore?
Or do we need this in a different format? Do we need this to be automated?" You know. What's the ROI of this, right?
Like it's running well, but like is this, is this even something that will help us, you know, like leverage to a mode, right?
Like, so these are some of the things that you need to be very curious about, inquisitive, you know, like ask those questions.
And, and I think a good hack would be, you know, just like ask why this and why now every, like, say, three, four months. Like the three, four month window has come down to like a monthly affair.
Things are changing that fast.
But I think just revisit, you know, to your why and, and the importance of that now is a good way to understand what's a fire I need to care about and what's a fire, you know, like I'm willing to end it.
Do you have an example of a fire over the course of your career, an example of a fire that didn't seem that important turned out to be really, really important?
So I think this is from one of the chief of staff stints that I had. There were, I think, high performer attrition that we started to observe.
This is, you know, when the company was going through a very interesting, you know, say, transition.
And as a chief of staff, because I did end up, you know, like owning all the special projects, all the zero to one, you know, say mandates, worked very closely with the leadership and their minus ones.
So there was a very interesting vantage point into who's invested in these projects and who's understanding the why, who's moving at the pace, you know, say that these projects or these mandates required, and who was, you know, getting disengaged, right?
Like, who didn't share the urgency or, you know, who didn't share the why of, you know, say why we're doing these things.
There were, I think, like a few conversations of, you know, retaining a few high performers, and I think on the surface level, it just felt like, "Hey, this is just like one or two people."
There've been time you all, you know, say it's, it's just the right time for them to move on.
But I think what I did as a fun activity is, you know, say, if this person is thinking this, who else in the org could be thinking this, right?
So like I made like a list of people who looked disengaged, who were known for a particular style of working earlier and then, like, there was a visible, noticeable change in, you know, how they brought themselves to work.
Like literally almost like a attrition prediction list of sorts, right? So I made a list of that and then like, you know, shared with my principal and-We had those conversations on that exact owner.
Like, it, it was freaky to believe, you know, like these people were thinking.
But I think the way I feel it was rightly understood is because, like you are probably as a chief of staff, you're probably the only person who's sitting through the meetings at the senior leadership level, at their minus ones and their minus ones as well.
So, like you probably are the only person, you know, like, who would have that vantage point into how a particular org OKR is defined, how leaders own it, and how, you know, say, delivery teams execute it, and what are the roadblocks that each of these levels, you know, like will face.
So I think that was an interesting example of, you know, how a chief of staff also will have to be the person to preempt situations like this, and probably no one else is thinking about these problems.
Like, hey, will we, will we still have the, the high performers that we once had for us, you know, to take us through the next phase of this company's growth? And it's not even a problem statement to think of it, right?
Like, but like the, the fact that you are able to, you know, just look at these signals and then, and then sense something feels off here, let me just like go and double tap on that.
How important then is the relationship you have to your principal in being able to do that exactly? High trust environment.
Like, the fact that you could be delegated to, you know, to pick on these cues and not be perceived in-intrusive, I think it is a non-negotiable.
Like, I think what I recommend is, I think like the first thirty days, I think like of you being a chief of staff, your principal really have to echo the sentiment with his or her leadership.
You know, saying, "Hey, this person is a proxy, you know, to how I think and how I execute. And if this person's asking for something, assume I'm asking for this." Right?
Like, so it is a non-negotiable, like people will have to really perceive you and then like engage with you as a proxy to the principals.
Second really is, I think you also got to understand that you are not someone who's not a class monitor who's just like asking for performance reviews of, you know, say, different leaders, right?
But in fact, you are someone who they can trust to, you know, to work with them. You're trying to, you know, say move things together.
You're being a catalyst, you know, say for things that they probably don't have the time and bandwidth, you know, to pull in together. That would be second.
Like they need to understand that you are with them and you're not against them. The third thing would be really to not carry a particular bias.
You need to have like a surgical level of, I think, a neutrality when you look at the organization, right?
Like this looks good, but this is a great performer, this is, uh, this is an okay leader, but then like what does this really matter, right? Like, how are they translating into actions?
How are they translating into outcomes? The whole dissonance between efforts versus, you know, say, endgame, right? Like, what does this mean in the day-to-day?
And then like what are some of the risks that we can foresee from, uh, from here? I'd say these three things would be the top.
As your career has progressed and as you've maybe prioritized the wrong fires sometimes and overprioritized the wrong fires and, you know, didn't have that instinct, how has your understanding of the role, I guess, and the importance of the relationship with your principal change over time?
You would fail a lot more than you would succeed, so like it's a given, right? Like, there are more things that you probably would have initiated, would have, you know, like failed.
There are a lot of things that you think...
Like, you're almost like tuning your brain to, you know, how your principal thinks and works, because the first thirty, sixty, ninety days is really trying to embody, you know, say, their spirit of sorts, right?
Like it's their brain acting through a different person. It really is like that. Like you start to, you know, like think like them, you start to write like them. So that is a journey that you'll anyway go through.
But I think in that process, you would also find yourself conflicting between like, "Hey, what would I do in this scenario versus what would my principal do?" I think the biggest, biggest internal struggle would be that.
And it's a catch twenty-two, right?
Like, a chief of staff is someone who's expected to be extremely opinionated, has a very strong point of view of their own versus, you know, say they're also expected to, you know, to think on behalf of someone.
So there is, there is going to be a clash of the styles of working sometimes. So I think like that took me the longest time to be able to differentiate that and then don both of those hats in different scenarios.
It's not like I'm losing one of them for the other. The second attribute I think I would say is to really not punch myself on scenarios where I have been wrong, because it is the entire org's context.
There's a history of, you know, say, movements and developments that I'll have to internalize when I walk into a role. So it's not-- It will take time.
So I think like one has to be patient and not question the intent with which, you know, you're getting to these conclusions.
You will get there, it's just going to take some time, and it's going to take a ridiculous amount of, I think, context filling in by your leadership and your principal.
Like, without them validating what you're thinking and like how you're processing this could take years. So it is very important, you know, like that you have like as and plus like a no agenda conversation every day.
You know, like this is how, how I am looking at it. Is this the right way to look at it? This is my impression of, you know, say, this leader. Is this the right lens?
So I think like this constant back and forth and the validation of sorts, those really do help. Yeah.
You know, I've spoken to many chiefs of staff and also when I was a chief of staff, I noticed that the quality of the relationship, the amount of trust between my principal and me and any chief of staff and their principal, how much you are championed in the company and how much you are championed by your principal or the executive team can really change your experience as a chief of staff.
Because when you don't need to, let's say, fight for your right to be there, especially if you're kind of coming in from the outside of the org and suddenly you have full access to everything, which can be very disorienting for the team, right?
Suddenly this is new hire that's coming in and they on paper have more authority than I do, but I've been here for like ten years, [laughs] you know, and they're younger than me most likely.
[laughs] It is an interesting, uh, perception to fight for sure.
Like you said, they're like usually probably the youngest in the team, probably has the access to every possible document that you can think of in the organization.
You're looking at comp data, you're looking at, you know, say, projections. So like this is sensitive information.
Now, the caveat and the baseline for this is your integrity and accountabilityNeeds to be perfect, like near perfect. I think this is one of those roles wherein you cannot afford any scope of error.
Your integrity has to be unquestionable. A lot of trust also comes from that fact, right? Like, people are talking through their situations a lot more than you would expect.
So, like, without that discretion, I think, like, all of this is a failed endeavor.
But I think to your point also on how people don't feel threatened by the fact that, you know, hey, there's this person who's asking all these questions, or, like, she needs to know everything.
I think she needs to understand that, like, this access will help me to, you know, to put in the pieces together. It's not to evaluate someone's performance.
It's not to, you know, say, not to micromanage, not to be nosy without intent. That's not the idea.
But I think it, it is to really coherently understand the big picture, and as a function of that, like, to make their own lives easier. So I think that has to be the lens to look at it, and this needs reiteration.
Like, you have to reiterate this. Your leadership will have to, you know, like, emphasize this. Your principal will have to repeat this. You'll have to train that muscle. I like that you say the word integrity.
That's a really, really strong and powerful word, and really, really relevant for this role. What would it look like to do this role without integrity? Like, what is doing this badly versus doing it well?
You will be out of this, I think, in a week [chuckles] for sure. Let me take a step back and then define what I mean by integrity here, right? Like, one, imagine a pyramid, right?
Like the, the base is, you know, say you cannot gossip. You know, like you need to keep, you know, like sensitive information for yourself. You need to be accountable for your tasks.
You know, like, say, no one's, no one's gonna follow up with you, so you own your tasks, you own your principal's tasks, you own the leadership tasks, and their leadership's, you know, task. So that is baseline.
Now, a level above that is, I think, just have the discretion to see and share what's needed when and to who. Because you have the big picture, not everything needs to be known by everyone, and for a good reason, right?
Like sometimes information also passes through people before it's thought through, before it's presented in a palatable way for people, you know, to consume and then, like, to act on.
So knowing when, to who, and what, I think is the second level of integrity. And the third level is really this, right? Like, are you putting yourself and the team and the org above everyone else?
And this involves, you know, taking diff-difficult decisions. Like, you're probably saying no to a lot more things than yes, which means that, you know, you do not have a vested interest.
You are not carrying any active bias, and you are keeping the team's and the company's, you know, say, intents above everything else, I'd say would be like the, the top level of that pyramid, right?
So in this sphere, I think if you don't have integrity, at level one you'd be like a very bad project manager.
Like, imagine someone else is following up with the chief of staff and the things that they're supposed to close, right? Like, it's the most funny thing ever.
Level two, you will, you know, like, say you will add more chaos because you have context. So you're...
with your way of, you know, say, adding context to people, you're just gonna confuse more people than, you know, create clarity, so it's just more chaos. You're adding noise.
You're adding active noise, you know, to, you know, context and information. And on the third level, you probably are not doing anything meaningful.
You know, like if you're not asking the right questions, if you're not being the voice of reason, this role doesn't really add any value.
You know, like you could imagine, you know, say, principals and teams without this role and things would be exactly the same, so. Thanks for sharing that. I like the pyramid.
Did you just think about this now, or is that something- I did. I did. [laughing] I don't know why the whole Maslow's hierarchy has just like come to head.
I'm like, let me try to, you know, figure out [chuckles] if there is like a parallel. I value integrity as a value even as a, as someone, like, who's outside of work, right?
Like, I really think that makes you dependable.
I think even when I started this chief of staff role for the first time, right, like I think I realized people are not expecting you to be a subject matter expert, but people need to feel that they can rely on you.
I think integrity is at the core of this trait, right? Like, and it only has helped me because people have trusted me to say that like, "Hey, I'm actually failing in this project. Can you help me out?"
And you need those honest, you know, like, say, conversations, you know, to be able to fix things. So I think personally I also do, you know, like value integrity a lot. Interesting.
By having integrity, you know, as a chief of staff, you basically, you make yourself more trustworthy, so, you know, it's easier to hold sensitive information and there's more trust around holding that information because you conduct yourself with integrity in, you know, how you show up every single day.
I totally agree. I think that it's completely crucial because as you said, like if you don't do the things you say you're gonna do, then what's actually the point of your role? [laughing] You know?
Like, obviously that, that's true for like every role in the company, but I think especially the chief of staff. Yeah.
Once you have access to everything and you have all these ideas of how things can be better, but you don't do anything about it, then it's the same as, as if you, if you were not there.
The things would just exist anyway, you know? [chuckles] It's like a human version of an Excel sheet that nobody asked for.
[laughing] This also interestingly makes you though a very, very less threatening devil's advocate in these rooms, you know, because people are trusting you.
So even when you're asking these difficult questions, people don't feel threatened, which is the most important thing, you know, like when you're working, right?
Like you don't want people to be defensive when you're asking these difficult questions.
So I think like the fact that, you know, hey, if, if you're known, uh, to be as someone, you know, with integrity, like even when you ask these difficult questions, people will not take it personally.
They'll understand that she's asking, you know, this because it means something. And it just lets you ease through, you know, like a lot of, you know, like office drama that you don't want. Yeah, I love that so much.
I guess just like any role, right? Like any role in the company, you have the potential to lead through the way you show up.
And I think with the chief of staff, because you're under so much scrutiny, because, you know, you're championed by the founder, the executive team, there can be a lot of expectation of like who is this person?
And like an inquisition. It's like, you know, can they be trusted? Who are they? Why did they hire them? Are they gonna take my job?
And I guess conducting yourself with integrity, you know, it helps you slot in-into like this foundation, you know, of the company, as opposed to-Being the chaos maker [laughs]
which might be perceived, right, when you bring in a chief of staff. Like, is this a consultant? Like, why are we hiring a consultant to come in? [laughs] You know? I know, right?
Like, like me, like, why, why is this person saying the obvious? [laughs] Yeah, yeah, yeah. [laughs] Why are we paying this person to do this?
[laughs] Like, not, not that the chief of staff, you know, like, don't ask themselves this question, but like [laughs] it is what it is. Like, this role can feel pretty existential if not being done right.
So [laughs] makes the two of them. Since we're talking about the role, we have so many different ways to define what a chief of staff is, and that's, like, one of the things that we find it so difficult to land on.
I'd be curious, based on your career and your understanding and your experience, how do you define what a chief of staff is? So there is the whole... Imagine the whole universe, right? Like there is- Existential.
Very existential. [laughs] There's existential. Yeah. [laughs] It is, it is. Like, imagine your own Avengers of sorts, right?
Like, so there is the chief of staff, there is the founder's office associates, there is the entrepreneurial business, there is the executive assistant.
Now, different companies who like, say, pick and choose different attributes of these roles, you know, to make their own custom, you know, say chief of staff ninja of sorts.
But if you were to ask me, strictly a chief of staff who's expected to be a strategic and an operational advisor to a principal, he's just an extended arm to the CXO.
This person and this external arm with a muscle memory of, you know, say, how things are done.
You would take the first shot at, you know, say, the first version of, say, what a solution could look like for every problems. You are the one, you know, who's asking the difficult questions.
You're looking at if the interlocks are working as expected. You're the person who's looking at, you know, what makes this business relevant in three, four years? What should we be doing about it?
You're the person who's looking at keeping your eyes and ears very close to your customers, your competitors. You manage the investor relations. So, like, you really are the extended arm to your CXOs.
And a chief of staff could be to the CEO, to, to the COO, CFO, any CXO, right? Like, and if you are a chief of staff to the CEO, then, like, your universe is, you know, like that much.
You know, like you're looking at every possible function. But if you're like a chief of staff to a particular function, then you, you dig deep.
You dig deep into, you know, say, every process, every silo, every team part within that function and then, like, you know, try to make it easy. Now, the why of it is two ways, right?
Like, I think we've also seen, I think, like just like companies just, like slap a chief of staff role without intentionality and then like...
and, and they really don't succeed because companies and principals often are not clear on why they're bringing one in the first place.
There has to be certain level of, I think, readiness to understand that, like, "Hey, this is exactly why we're bringing one. And by bringing one, this is what we expect to be changed in our ways of working."
Like, you can't bring a chief of staff and then say, "Hey, let things be running as usual," right? Like, you're doing a disservice to everyone.
I think certain level of, I think, readiness needs to be understood from the people who are bringing in a chief of staff.
And the chief of staff really, you know, like will embody how the company, you know, like, and the processes and the teams work as is, and what can it be.
Now, depending on, let's say, how drastic, you know, the needs are required, you do it, you know, slowly or, you know, you... it's a peacetime or a wartime scenario.
So the chief of staff becomes the bridge between, let's say, what the company has been versus, you know, what it can be on some level. Ooh, I really like the bridge because, yeah, I think you're right.
Like there's this element of bridging the current state and then bridging to the future state, and that can also be applied to, you know, you work with your principal and they have a specific vision of what they're seeing, and that's the vision they're presenting to the board, you know.
And you're on those, those meetings, and then it's like, "Okay, great, we have this vision. We've got to do it."
[laughs] And then the chief of staff, you know, I guess this is another clear torchbearer for this next chapter of whatever the company is experiencing. And so, so the bridge, right?
The bridge between the CXO and the rest of the company in some senses, because the chief of staff role can traverse functions in a way. But it's like the messenger that kind of goes around, you know?
And it does happen, right? Like, there will be days where in on a particular quarter, you know, you'll, you'll have to figure out, you know, say everything that's broken between sales and marketing.
Move to the next quarter, you know, you can get, you know, say, product and engineering interlock. So, like, you are this traveling, you know, say, a nomad of sorts, right?
Jumping from one function to another function because different functions require interventions in different time points, right?
Like, so you, you will be that person who's, you know, like fluid enough, you know, to move from one P zero to another P zero.
But I think the idea also is that, you know, you're translating the org's context to everyone, you know, who's working. Really, like you are being the translator of, you know, say, your org OKRs.
You know, like, say, there are, you know, these five or six, you know, OKRs that you've promised to the investors. What does it mean in the day-to-day?
What does, you know, having X, you know, say, a jump of, you know, say, twenty percent jump in my MPS mean to the customer success associate, you know, who's sitting five levels below the CXO, right?
Like, so I think you really become that translator of why we're doing it and how do we do that. I know that you have a, another framework. [laughs] And the framework is around working with principals.
So I think in the earlier conversation that we've had before this call, you mentioned having like the kind of a playbook for aligning strong opinionated leaders who don't see eye to eye, which I think is very relevant for people listening on this, uh, podcast.
Could you walk us through at the high level, what is this framework? How did you develop it? And please help everyone [laughs] help the leaders see eye to eye.
I'm gonna tell you how important this is because I've been asked this question in every single interview.
So [laughs] this role, not just for the chief of staff, I think, like, as you grow, as you move into, you know, like mid-senior roles as well, like, I think this is the baseline of, you know, say how you work every single day.
Like, how do you work with, you know, say, strong opinionated leaders, right?
Like, so this, uh, me and my principal, you know, like we, we figured out, you know, like we were working with a few leaders, and we came up with this together.
So a five or a six step, like this is how it worked for me, right?One, imagine, you know, like, say you and, you know, say, the head of, head of, you know, finance really have a decision to make, and both of you don't see eye to eye.
So we're gonna have, like, a three-day conversation. Step one is, you know, I'm gonna take permission from the both of you saying, "Hey, I'm gonna take the role of a facilitator.
Do I have your permission to steer this conversation?" Then comes, you know, say, I'm gonna ask the both of you, what are your top two negoti-non-negotiables of this conversation?
Like, there could be a million things to be done about it, but what are the top two things that you need a decision on for this project without which you are not willing to leave this firm?
So what that does is it defines the boundaries of, you know, say, what we're gonna play into. Otherwise, it could just trickle into, you know what, five years ago, we did this, it still didn't work out.
Like, you've got to tie it up. You've got to fence this. And all through, a small hack, like, while this conversation is happening, I usually, you know, have my Notion, you know, screen up. I'm sharing my screen.
I'm typing things as they're talking, so people also know what they're committing to. It just makes it visual. People are a lot more intentional about knowing, say, what they're saying.
So it just becomes a very immersive exercise if you're not doing it in person. Then comes, you know, say, I'm gonna ask who the decision-maker for this problem statement is. And it's usually it's easy, right?
Like, whoever is the primary beneficiary of this particular project can be the decision-maker. But, like, what this also does is, you know, say, one person will have to back down or, you know, find a midway.
So you're telling, you know, like, who is the person who is responsible for this decision. So it just makes it that much easier. Then you come to the basics, right? Like, now you feel the conflict. What's the problem?
You know, like, what about it is, you know, say, uh, the burden here? The what, why, how and who, right?
Like, you cover the trade-offs, you understand the implications, you understand the historical, you know, say, baggage of, say, why, why this didn't work.
The fears for, say, what could happen if, you know, we were to do this. You now, like, say, you feel the entire thing, right?
And the last step really is now that we've understood all of this, now that we know the top two non-negotiables, what is a minimum loved solution that we'll say that both of us are willing to, you know, say, move ahead because we can't keep running in circles.
What are the top two next steps that we do? Who are the people who will bring this decision through execution to life? What are the timelines? And then you're done with the call.
I think what this has done historically is, one, you fence the conversation to a problem and not a person, so it doesn't get personal. People don't feel defensive to justify their point of view.
Two, you're understanding what's important for both the stakeholders. And I can't emphasize on this enough, right? Like, you're hiring these leaders to be opinionated because they are very good at what they do.
So you need to understand why they are, you know, say, emphasizing for certain things instead of, say, just, like, brushing, like, everything with, like, a, you know, like, a wide paint.
You need to understand why a particular leader wants a particular thing to be done a particular way. So this, I think, has helped me, one, get into a solution seeker, but also I'm an empathetic facilitator.
I understand why you need this or what's the best way, you know, that we could all agree to so that we all move ahead. I'm not making this up. I actually have these five steps drafted.
[chuckles] I keep going back to this because I think you would work with leaders with conflicting opinions probably every single day. You need to figure out a way that works for you, and this has been working for me.
Okay, so we have step one is make sure that you get permission to kind of take on this role as a facilitator, which really is kind of like, as I understand it, asking for consent to be in this role.
Step two, we have what are the non-negotiables that are on the table and document this so everybody knows the minimum that people want out of this or rather where they're not willing to make any concessions.
Step three, we have agree on who the decision-maker is, so that's also something we agree on as opposed to this kind of going on and on. We have step four, peel the conflict back to the basics.
So this is digging into it.
So understanding the how, the why, the what, the who, and something you said was like, hey, you have the Notion page screen shared so that all this is written so that we have the same understanding of, um, the source of truth.
And then after that, we understand the trade-offs and implications from peeling things back, and then we can decide, you know, what are the next steps. This took time.
This took multiple, I think, deep dives like this, you know, to where I went to say, "Okay, is this comprehensive enough?"
I'm pretty sure I think as I put myself into more complex scenarios, the playbook might evolve, but this has been a skeleton version that has been working so far.
I really, really love that this is something that took time and it's crafted from, like, real experience, which I guess maybe step two is different or step four is different or maybe there wasn't a step two or four, and then you've kind of added those in.
What is it like to do step one, which is to get consent that you will be playing this role? It is literally that, right? Like, say, I'm gonna say, "Can I, you know, like, have the permission?
Do I have your consent, you know, to be the facilitator, which means that I'm gonna be asking a few discovery questions. I'm going to be playing a devil's advocate. I'm going to be asking for data points.
I'm going to be asking for your why of, you know, say, why the solution is, you know, is what you prescribed. So I'm going to be the person who's going to do all of this. So do I have the permission?"
What that also does is, you know, sometimes you also can't be self-absorbed as a chief of staff, right? Like, that also brings out saying, "Hey, probably I will need one more person."
You know, like, there needs to be another person who is needed for this conversation.
So that also enables, you know, like, for you to, one, not pull twenty people in a team, you know, like, say, to arrive at a decision, but you're only pulling in the people who are extremely needed, who have the full context, and then, you know, move to the decision faster.
So I think that process of, I think, taking consent just I think takes away any ego, any conflict, any sort of, like, a threatening sense in, you know, who's this person, you know, like, walking in and asking me these questions.
So that takes away all of that out of the room. So now it's just like three people who are just curious, you know, to solve the problem. It makes it extremely objective.
And who in your experience, like-- So context is, like, I'm thinking of situations I've definitely been inI'm wondering who normally is...
Yeah, in the situations you've been in, like, are you the one to initiate even step one, or is your principal the one that's like, "Hey, let's bring, uh, Priyanka in?" It's both of them.
So usually, you would have a sense of, you know, "Hey, this particular project is not moving the way it's supposed to be," so you would summon a meeting. You could ask, you know, say, "Hey, this is what I've...
And these are what have been my observations." You've probably given a preview saying, "These have been my observations. This is what, you know, say, is alarming.
We need, you know, say, one, two, three decisions, you know, to be taken so that the team's feeling more clear and aligned." So you could be the one who's initiating.
It could also be, you know, say, the, the principal knows that, you know, "Hey, this is a problem that we've not been able to fix. I need a third person.
I need a neutral facilitator to assist," because there could be the blind spots on the principal as well. So then you would be called upon, you know, "Hey, can you, you know, say, facilitate this conversation?"
Because they really need an objective, you know, say, next step from here on. So it could be either of those.
Like, your own curiosity will lead you there or your principal's, you know, say, summoning also could lead you there.
And how have those conversations gone when you've played them out in the many different times that it's gone? I think this playbook largely has been successful.
Probably people would hate you during these conversations because you're, you're just asking the most difficult questions, right?
Like, for example, an outcome of a conversat- of conversation like this is usually, you know, you're gonna pull the plug on a project that didn't serve anyone. Now, this is not an easy conversation, right?
So I think during this process, it might feel like, "I don't like this. I don't like where this is going." But I think all of these conversations have been well-processed and understood, I think, in a quarter's time.
People then understand, yeah, like this-- that was the right decision to take. That was an important, you know, say, alignment to happen.
So usually you will not see immediate effects of this, the unfortunateness of this. But I think this will really be the point of, like, this will prepare you to a version of future that you want the company to be in.
Fortunately, I think, like, most of the conversations I've had like this, I think, like, have been understood a quarter from then on.
But I think as a chief of staff you need to hold your ground and have the patience to wait that out.
Some of the, um, themes and words that have kind of come up as we've had this conversation today have been, like, right now, facilitator. So, you know, chief of staff potentially being a facilitator of conflict.
I think another one we had was around- Like a bridge. A bridge. Maybe, maybe the bridge. The bridge, yes. Yeah, yeah. That's the one. That's the one. So being a bridge, you know, being the facilitator.
In the context of the bridge, we talked about bridging where we are now versus where we wanna go. Facilitator, it's in a way it's the same, right?
It's like where we are now, which is we're not seeing eye to eye, and where we wanna go, which is clarity on what the situation is.
My thought is that great chiefs of staff, which it sounds like you are a great one, understand this dimension well.
They understand and embody this dimension and take on with enthusiasm, I guess, like, this side of being a chief of staff.
I think there's, like, the executing side, which is you're competent, you have high integrity, you're very skillful in performing, like doing the task.
And then there's this other part, which is you're able to interpret the different contexts which you are in and understand which fires to prioritize.
And I think great chiefs of staff understand which fires to prioritize because they integrate what they're seeing and learning from the different contexts.
And the better you can do that, then the better you can serve the principal, you know, the company.
You coming up with this framework of the different five steps, and the fact that this has been evolving over time, it tells me that you have been growing on this side of it. Like, unders...
how to actually be better at absorbing context and applying that to how I show up every single day.
I really like the way you put it because early on I've also realized, and this is most journalists would also relate to this, right?
Like, because you're not a subject matter expert, you really have to play to your own strength, right?
Like, I've learned early on that, like, you don't necessarily have to become the average of being decent at everything, but then really leverage what you're really good at and then, like, be really good at just that.
That, that is a differentiator, right? Like, for me, I've always been someone, you know, who's understood, you know, say, the way people operate.
I've always, I've always been curious about what people's motivations are, right? Like, I see people as people and not job descriptions or titles at office.
So what that does is, what's in it for this team, you know, to, to collaborate, right? Like, what would they need? And what's the blocker, you know, like, for this particular thing to happen? Is it a person problem?
Is it a budget problem? Is it a buy-in problem?
So I think I've realized if you are someone, you know, who's very good at a particular style of, you know, solving problems, a chief of staff really helps you flourish in that because it's all you.
It's a personality hire. And no two chief of staffs are similar, so, like, you really get to, you know, like, play your own version of who you want to be at a workspace.
This role really, really gives you a stage for that. I can't think of any other role which allows you to be this flexible, this fluid and this absorbing.
You know, like, you literally can go and say, "Hey, I wanna pick that project." The project is yours, right? Like, so it is really giving that way. Yeah, lots of agency, right?
Like, you have agency, but with great power comes a lot of responsibility. [laughs] Yeah. Um, 'cause the integrity piece. [laughs] Yeah. Yeah. It is true. I've really, really enjoyed today's conversation, Priyanka.
Would you be all right if we ended with some rapid-fire questions? Oh, done. Let's go.
All right, so tell me about a belief about careers that has completely changed or has been evolved, you know, as you've gone through your career. Being a career zigzagger is fine. In fact, that's recommended.
I think growing up, I've seen a lot of people who've spent decades or, you know, more in just a single job or an industry or a particular role, and was understood to be safe, stable.
But I think retrospectively, the fact that I was able to change multiple roles, I've not done the same role twice in the same industry.
The only exception has been a chief of staffI think that really served me because, like, you understood how businesses work, agnostic to the industry and agnostic, you know, to the stage of the company.
So I think being a careers examiner is okay, and I fully believe in that now.
In fact, I recommend that to people because that's the only way you'll be able to be prepared, you know, say, for how dynamic, you know, careers can look like. Yeah, I really like that.
What is one thing you wish hiring managers and/or recruiters better understood about a generalist? Don't ask them for attribution of work, and I'll tell you why.
I think, like, most recruiters are used to, you know, say, individual contributors or, you know, say, managers who have a quantifiable metric that they own. Chief of staff and generalists are catalysts.
Not all of your work translates into a metric. While we try to make it, the attribution is a little fluid, right? So, like, I think don't reject, you know, say, generalists based on the metrics that they're owning.
A good generalist and a good chief of staff probably is, you know, say, working behind the scenes. So, like, get into the ways of working. Ask them for a portfolio of, you know, say, how they solved a particular problem.
Don't ask them, you know, say, for what's the metric that you want, but, like, how did you solve for this? What were, you know, say, the risks that you've taken?
So I think, like, be a little more open about the qualitative aspects of, you know, say, uh, what their resume looks like. I think recruiters are not as forgiving as you'd like them to be.
Last one for you is, how has being a chief of staff impacted you as a person? It made me, as a person, really, I think it made me sit with chaos a lot more better. I think it helped me be a lot more composed.
It gives me a ridiculous sense of prioritization. Like, if there are twenty things that are happening, I'm like, "I'm gonna tackle these three today." [laughs] The rest can wait.
And two, I think a great sense of, I think, self-assuredness in the way I look at the world, the way I look at life. It makes me feel invincible. On some days it makes me feel, what am I even doing with my life?
I think like, but it really helped me be a lot more comfortable in my own shoes or heels, so to say. This role really gives you everything that it has. Like, it's the boot camp that nobody asks for.
It's a nightmare while you go through it, but it really does reward you at the end.
And bonus question is, when things are tough, you know, I mean, I think the cycles of being a chief of staff, the ups and downs can be so drastic.
When it's been difficult for you, what has helped you kind of come out of the ruts you've been in? One is give it time. A lot of these things change with the function of time.
Two, it's not the end of the world, and, and I can't emphasize this enough because I think when I was a chief of staff, I had trouble switching off. Like, twenty-four/seven you are a chief of staff.
Like, I was not able to minimize that tab that's running in my head all the time. But I think it... Time, you know, let's say, eases a lot of things.
And then this role will take time to be understood as a successful because trust takes time, impact takes time. Chaos, you know, say, uh, needs time, you know, to be understood.
Recommendations, you know, take time, you know, to be seen with the same level of urgency. So, like, it's, it's just a very patient game.
[laughs] So I think if I want, you know, to tell myself in like, uh, one message is, you know, like, "Hey, you know, you're doing this well, just be patient." [laughs] "Don't beat yourself up for this."
On that note, Priyanka, thank you so much. I really, really enjoyed our conversation today. Thank you for making the time. Thank you so much.
[upbeat music]