I want to take a moment to clarify something important.
In my opinion, with hindsight, the way we visually included the Chief of Staff role as a Level 5 on the Global Skills Matrix was a mistake. While the accompanying explanation stated that it wasn’t a natural progression for EAs, but we were including it to help alleviate confusion, I suspect many have seen the visual without fully reading the context.
Let me be clear: the Chief of Staff role is not a promoted EA role. It’s a high-impact, strategic position requiring advanced business acumen, financial literacy, people management skills and organisational oversight.
But in recent years, we’ve seen a troubling trend. Some are marketing CoS certifications to EAs, promising it as the next step in their career. This oversimplifies the complexity of both roles, creates confusion, and harms both professions.
The Global Skills Matrix defines the Level 4 EA as a critical business partner. This is a role with strategic oversight, managing projects, influencing decisions, and partnering closely with leadership. Yet, many of these Level 4 skills are being rebranded under the ‘CoS’ label.
If this continues, we risk undermining the senior EA role, pushing the top level for EAs back to a reactive, predominently task-based Level 3. This shift devalues the progress we’ve made in elevating the EA role and limits meaningful career progression.
LinkedIn reports that EAs have taken on 30% more strategic work in the past three years. This includes project management, data analysis, and research, while traditional tasks like email and scheduling are increasingly automated. We should be celebrating and building on this evolution, not confusing the path forward.
We shall be conducting our own research shortly to provide more detailed stats on how the Level 4 role has evolved since WA-Alliance first published the GSM in 2021.
The CoS role is a specialised function, not a rebranded EA. It requires a different skill set and is typically paid double the salary of an EA. By diluting this role, we create unrealistic expectations for EAs and reduce salaries for true Chiefs of Staff.
Executives and HR teams are left confused. Without clear differentiation between these roles, they risk mis-hiring, underutilising, or undervaluing both EAs and CoS.
We need instead to concentrate on promoting sustainable, rewarding career paths for assistants. The Level 4 EA role is an incredible opportunity for EAs to step into strategic, impactful positions without erasing the unique value of their profession.
For the small percentage of EAs who aspire to transition into a true CoS role, realistic, specialised training and mentorship are what’s needed.
The administrative profession is evolving, but we must guide that evolution with clarity and integrity. We need to focus on building pathways that honor the complexity and value of both roles, instead of selling a dream that undermines the hard work and progress we’ve made.
