Across multiple organisations this year, I have seen the same pattern
These organisations:
• Depend on exceptional administrative support
• Rely on their judgement, discretion, emotional intelligence, and operational leadership
• Know the business would wobble without them
And yet those same organisations:
• Refuse to define the role properly
• Refuse to benchmark capability
• Refuse to build career pathways
• Refuse to attach salary bands to impact
• Refuse to formalise the function
Because once you formalise it, you have to value it.
And some organisations prefer it informal.
Informal keeps it cheaper.
Informal keeps it controllable.
Informal keeps it invisible.
Let’s be honest about what this really is.
It is institutionalised under-recognition.
A system that says:
“Be extraordinary… but don’t expect structure.”
Deliver strategic judgement.
Operate at board level.
Manage risk.
Protect time.
Lead operations.
But do it inside a role that has no clear framework, no defined scope, no recognised levels, and no salary alignment to impact.
That is not accidental.
It is convenient.
We know that when Executive Assistants operate strategically, executives can reclaim around 25% of their time. That reclaimed capacity represents tens of thousands of pounds in redirected value each year. In many cases, the assistant’s salary is returned several times over in leverage alone.
When a function delivers measurable value but remains structurally undefined, that is not a performance issue.
It is a systems issue.
So the question for leaders is simple:
If you already rely on exceptional assistants, why would you choose not to formalise the function?
And the question for assistants is equally important:
If you are operating at a higher level than your job description reflects, why are you still accepting a structure that does not recognise it?
Structure is protection.
It is progression.
It is pay equity.
It is visibility.
Extraordinary performance deserves defined architecture.
Anything less is simply convenient.
