# Chief of Staff Case Interview: A 90-Minute Assessment for Strategic Operators

> A structured 90-minute Chief of Staff work sample with a 100-point scorecard, evidence-changing debrief and practical preparation framework.

- Canonical page: https://mtfinstitute.com/insights/chief-of-staff-case-interview-assessment/
- Content type: Article
- Editorial category: Guides & Frameworks
- Publisher: MTF Institute of Management, Technology and Finance
- Author: MTF Institute Editorial Team- Published: 2026-08-18
- Updated: 2026-08-18
- Language: English
- Topics: Leadership, Chief of Staff, Executive Careers, Hiring, Strategic Execution

## Chief of Staff Case Interview: A 90-Minute Assessment for Strategic Operators

A Chief of Staff interview creates an unusual assessment problem. The role can involve strategy, executive decision support, cross-functional execution, sensitive communication and operating cadence — yet a conventional interview often rewards polished storytelling more than the work itself.

A short, structured case can reveal how a candidate frames ambiguity, separates evidence from assumption, chooses priorities and communicates a decision. It should not become an endurance test, unpaid consulting project or imitation of the CEO's personal style.

This guide offers a 90-minute work-sample assessment for hiring teams and a preparation framework for candidates. It is an MTF-designed decision aid, not a validated psychometric instrument or universal hiring standard.

## What the case should measure

The assessment should focus on six capabilities that are close to the work:

| Capability | Observable question | Weak signal | Strong signal |
|---|---|---|---|
| Problem framing | Did the candidate define the decision, time horizon and success condition? | Repeats the prompt | Converts ambiguity into a decision statement and boundaries |
| Evidence discipline | Did the candidate distinguish facts, estimates and missing information? | Treats every number as certain | Labels assumptions and identifies the next evidence needed |
| Prioritisation | Did the candidate make trade-offs? | Produces a long task list | Selects a few actions using explicit criteria |
| Executive communication | Is the recommendation usable by a time-constrained leader? | Gives a chronological analysis dump | Leads with the decision, rationale, risks and asks |
| Operating design | Can the recommendation become owned work? | Says “align stakeholders” | Names owners, cadence, dependencies and escalation triggers |
| Judgment and trust | Does the candidate handle uncertainty and sensitive implications responsibly? | Overstates certainty or assigns blame | Surfaces risk without theatre and protects appropriate boundaries |

The purpose is not to find a candidate who already knows the company's private context. It is to observe the quality of their reasoning under a fair, bounded brief.

## The 90-minute case format

### Candidate brief: the situation

Use a fictional or sufficiently generalized business scenario. For example:

> A subscription software company has missed its growth plan for two quarters. Product, sales and customer-success leaders disagree about the primary cause. The CEO wants a decision within two weeks on whether to change pricing, narrow the target segment or invest in retention. You receive a short data pack and notes from four stakeholders.

Ask the candidate to produce:

1. a one-page executive decision memo;
2. a 30-day operating plan;
3. three questions they would answer before the final decision.

### Suggested time allocation

| Activity | Minutes | Output |
|---|---:|---|
| Read and frame | 15 | Decision statement, constraints and evidence map |
| Analyse | 25 | Main signals, contradictions and assumptions |
| Decide | 15 | Recommendation and alternatives rejected |
| Operationalise | 20 | Owners, milestones, cadence and risk triggers |
| Write and review | 15 | One-page memo plus 30-day plan |
| **Total** | **90** | Bounded work sample |

The candidate should receive the evaluation dimensions in advance. Hidden criteria create noise rather than realism.

## Build a balanced case packet

A useful packet is small enough to understand in the allotted time and rich enough to create a real trade-off. Include:

- a one-page company and decision context;
- five to eight relevant metrics;
- short, conflicting stakeholder statements;
- one constraint such as cash, deadline or customer commitment;
- one deliberate information gap;
- clear deliverables and permitted tools.

Do not include confidential customer data, current employee performance issues or a live project that the company intends to use without hiring the candidate. The case should test reasoning, not extract free work.

## A 100-point scorecard

Score the written output before the debrief to reduce halo effects.

| Dimension | Weight | Evidence expected |
|---|---:|---|
| Decision framing | 15 | Clear decision, scope, deadline and success metric |
| Analysis and evidence | 20 | Correct use of data, contradictions and uncertainty |
| Prioritisation and trade-offs | 20 | Coherent recommendation and explicit alternatives |
| Operating plan | 20 | Owners, sequence, cadence, dependencies and triggers |
| Executive communication | 15 | Concise memo with the decision first |
| Judgment and integrity | 10 | Responsible handling of gaps, people and sensitive risk |
| **Total** | **100** |  |

Use behavioural anchors rather than intuition:

- **0-1:** missing or materially unsafe;
- **2:** partial, generic or weakly supported;
- **3:** credible and role-relevant;
- **4:** unusually clear, evidence-led and operationally useful.

For a 20-point dimension, multiply the 0-4 rating by five. Require evaluators to cite one observed strength and one uncertainty for each score.

## The debrief: test adaptability, not defensiveness

After scoring the initial submission, run a 30-minute discussion. Introduce one new fact — for example, churn is concentrated in a previously profitable segment — and ask:

1. What changes in your recommendation?
2. What remains valid?
3. Which stakeholder should be involved next, and why?
4. What would you communicate to the CEO today?

Changing a view in response to material evidence is a positive signal. Uncritically abandoning the full plan is not. The interviewer is looking for calibrated adaptation.

## A worked mini-case

Assume the packet shows:

- new bookings at 82% of plan;
- gross revenue retention falling from 91% to 86%;
- customer-acquisition cost up 18%;
- one segment producing 48% of support volume but 22% of revenue;
- product research suggesting a new feature, but no quantified willingness to pay.

A weak response chooses “build the feature” because it appears in stakeholder interviews. A stronger response separates three questions:

1. **Economics:** Is the low-value segment creating a structurally unattractive service burden?
2. **Retention:** Which reasons explain the five-point retention decline, and are they controllable?
3. **Growth:** Is higher acquisition cost a channel problem, a conversion problem or a weak value proposition?

A credible 30-day plan might assign finance and customer success to segment economics, product and research to test willingness to pay, and revenue operations to diagnose acquisition efficiency. The CEO receives a weekly decision log and two predetermined escalation triggers. The recommendation is useful because it turns ambiguity into sequenced evidence rather than pretending the first packet resolves the strategy.

## Candidate preparation: the FRAME method

Candidates can use the same discipline without memorising a “correct” answer.

### F — Frame the decision

Write one sentence: “The executive needs to decide X by Y in order to achieve Z.” State what the case does not allow you to conclude.

### R — Read for conflict

Mark facts, stakeholder claims, assumptions and missing evidence separately. Contradictions are often the center of the case.

### A — Analyse alternatives

Compare at least two credible choices. Define decision criteria before selecting the recommendation.

### M — Make the work executable

Translate the recommendation into owners, first milestones, cadence and escalation conditions.

### E — Express the decision first

The first paragraph should state the recommendation, principal evidence, greatest risk and immediate ask. Supporting detail follows.

## Hiring-team safeguards

Before using the assessment:

- provide the same core prompt, time and scoring dimensions to comparable candidates;
- offer reasonable accommodations and an accessible format;
- confirm whether AI tools are permitted and apply the rule consistently;
- avoid criteria unrelated to the essential role;
- use multiple evidence sources rather than one case score;
- document conflicts of interest and evaluator reasoning;
- delete or retain submissions under a defined candidate-data policy.

Local employment, disability and privacy rules vary. Hiring teams should obtain appropriate professional advice for their jurisdiction.

## Practical conclusion

A Chief of Staff case interview should test whether a candidate can improve an executive decision and turn it into coordinated action. A bounded 90-minute work sample, transparent scorecard and evidence-changing debrief create a stronger signal than an ambiguous take-home task.

For a deeper view of the role, see MTF Institute's [Chief of Staff role guide](https://mtfinstitute.com/research/executive-careers/chief-of-staff/) and [Chief of Staff operating cadence](https://mtfinstitute.com/insights/chief-of-staff-operating-cadence/).

MTF Institute's [Executive Certificate in Chief of Staff](https://mtfinstitute.com/programs/chief-of-staff/) develops strategic execution, CEO partnership, influence and case-based application. It is a professional certificate program, not an academic degree.


## Citation

When citing or summarizing this material, link to the canonical HTML page: https://mtfinstitute.com/insights/chief-of-staff-case-interview-assessment/