- Key Takeaways
- Agree What the Role Is
- Execution Discipline Over Vision
- The CEO Relationship Decides the Outcome
- Draw the Boundary Explicitly
- Consider Whether the Role Is Needed
- What This Looks Like in Practice
- The Mistake Employers Keep Making
- Versions of the Portfolio COO Role
- The Bottom Line
- Related Reading
- Frequently Asked Questions
This reflects what we have learned at JRG Partners doing exactly this kind of work, the distinctions that matter and the mistakes that recur. The COO role in a portfolio company is defined more variably than almost any other, ranging from a genuine second-in-command to a functional operations head, and the mismatch between what the sponsor intended and what the CEO wanted is a frequent source of failure. Before assessing candidates, the firm and the CEO must agree what the role actually is, because the profiles required are materially different.
Key Takeaways
- The COO title covers several substantially different roles.
- Sponsor and CEO frequently intend different things by it.
- Execution discipline matters more than strategic vision here.
- The CEO relationship determines whether the role works.
- Define the boundary between CEO and COO explicitly.
Agree What the Role Is
A portfolio COO may be a deputy running the business day to day while the CEO focuses externally, a functional leader owning operations specifically, an integration and standardisation leader in a buy-and-build, or effectively a chief of staff with operational authority. These require different backgrounds and different relationships with the CEO. Sponsors sometimes install a COO to compensate for a CEO’s weaknesses without saying so, which produces a role neither party can define and a relationship that fails predictably. Being explicit is uncomfortable and necessary.
Execution Discipline Over Vision
Portfolio companies generally have a plan; what they lack is reliable execution against it. The most valuable COO characteristic is therefore disciplined follow-through: making sure decisions become actions, that initiatives have owners and dates, that performance is measured and addressed. Candidates who present primarily as strategic thinkers may be strong executives and are frequently not what the role needs. Assess for the unglamorous capability, running an operating rhythm, holding people accountable, closing loops, rather than for the ability to articulate a compelling direction.
The CEO Relationship Decides the Outcome
A COO succeeds or fails largely on their working relationship with the CEO, which makes chemistry a legitimate assessment factor rather than a soft consideration. The CEO must genuinely want the role to exist, be willing to delegate real authority, and be comfortable with a strong second voice. Where a CEO is ambivalent, the COO is undermined regardless of quality. Sponsors should establish the CEO’s genuine position before recruiting, and should treat visible reluctance as a reason to reconsider the role rather than to proceed and hope.
Draw the Boundary Explicitly
Even where both parties want the arrangement, the division of responsibility needs defining: which functions report to whom, who runs which meetings, how decisions are made when they disagree, and how the organisation should route issues. Ambiguity here produces confusion below and friction above. The most functional arrangements are usually those documented at the outset in plain terms, with both the CEO and COO agreeing what the boundary is, rather than allowing it to be discovered through overlap and collision.
Consider Whether the Role Is Needed
Sometimes the honest conclusion is that the company needs a stronger functional leader, or a different CEO, rather than a COO. Installing a COO to work around a CEO who is not performing rarely succeeds, since the underlying problem persists and the COO is placed in an impossible position. Firms serve themselves by asking directly what problem the COO is meant to solve, and whether a COO is genuinely the right instrument, before beginning a search that may address a symptom rather than the cause.
What This Looks Like in Practice
A sponsor defines the COO role explicitly with the CEO before recruiting, assesses candidates primarily for execution discipline and operating rhythm rather than strategic articulation, establishes that the CEO genuinely wants the role and will delegate authority, documents the responsibility boundary at the outset, and tests whether a COO is the right instrument at all.
The Mistake Employers Keep Making
The most common mistake is installing a COO to compensate for a CEO the sponsor is reluctant to replace. The COO is given accountability without authority, the CEO resists the encroachment, the organisation receives conflicting signals, and within a year the COO leaves with the original problem unaddressed.
Versions of the Portfolio COO Role
| Version | Profile Required |
|---|---|
| Deputy running day-to-day | Broad general management experience |
| Functional operations head | Deep operational and process capability |
| Integration and standardisation lead | Repeatable execution across entities |
| Chief of staff with authority | Organisational discipline and CEO proximity |
The Bottom Line
The portfolio COO title covers several different roles, so agree explicitly with the CEO what this one is, assess for execution discipline over strategic articulation, confirm the CEO genuinely wants and will empower the role, and consider honestly whether a COO addresses the actual problem. Hire for the specific demands of the situation, and the rest of the leadership equation gets easier.
Related Reading
For more, see How to Hire a CEO for a Newly Acquired Portfolio Company, Recruiting Executives Who Thrive Under PE Ownership, Recruiting Leadership for Distressed Asset Turnarounds.
Frequently Asked Questions
- Q: Why is the COO role so variable?
- A: Because it can mean a deputy running the business, a functional operations head, an integration leader, or a chief of staff with authority, each requiring a different profile.
- Q: What capability matters most?
- A: Execution discipline, ensuring decisions become actions with owners and dates and that performance is measured and addressed, rather than strategic articulation.
- Q: Why does the CEO relationship matter?
- A: Because a COO whose CEO is ambivalent about the role is undermined regardless of quality, which makes the CEO’s genuine position a precondition rather than a detail.
- Q: How should responsibilities be divided?
- A: Documented explicitly at the outset, which functions report where, who runs which meetings, how disagreements resolve, rather than discovered through overlap.
- Q: When is a COO the wrong answer?
- A: When the underlying problem is CEO performance, since installing a COO to work around it leaves the cause unaddressed and places the COO in an impossible position.
![](https://www.jrgpartners.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/tanya-gallardo.jpeg")
Tanya Gallardo
Managing Director, Executive Search & AI Talent Strategy
Tanya Gallardo is the Managing Director of Executive Search & AI Talent Strategy at JRG Partners, leading C-suite and Board engagements across key growth sectors including Technology, Financial Services, and Manufacturing.
With over 18 years of experience specializing in disruptive technology leadership, Tanya is recognized as a leading authority on talent architecture for future-focused executive roles, such as the Chief AI Officer (CAIO) and Chief Digital Officer (CDO). Her expertise lies in accurately assessing the cultural fit and technical depth required to ensure a high return on investment (ROI) for critical leadership appointments.
Prior to her role at JRG Partners, Tanya held senior roles directing global talent acquisition strategies at a major publicly-traded technology firm, advising on organizational design and succession planning for emerging executive functions. She is a recognized speaker and contributor to industry events, sharing data-driven insights on executive compensation, leadership development, and the measurable business impact of C-suite talent.
