One of the biggest contradictions in the administrative profession that assistants are often over-qualified for their job title, and under-recognised for the work they actually do.
The new Global Skills Matrix research shows a profession packed with degrees, certifications and continuous learners. Many assistants hold business, law, communications, psychology, management or technical qualifications. A significant number hold master’s degrees. Many have project management, governance, AI or leadership certifications.
This is not a low-skill workforce.
And yet, in many organisations, assistants are still graded, paid and described as if the role has not changed in decades.
How does that happen?
First, because organisations still misunderstand the role.
Many leaders and HR teams assess administrative work through a purely task-based lens. They see calendars, travel and meetings, and stop there. They do not see the role as it is now.
When the work is invisible, the skill behind it becomes invisible too.
Second, because there is no consistent career architecture.
In most organisations, there is no defined administrative ladder. No levels. No progression based on capability. Advancement is often tied to the seniority of the executive, not the sophistication of the work.
So assistants do what professionals always do when structure is missing. They upskill.
They study.
They certify.
They learn AI.
They take on projects.
They expand their scope.
But without a framework to translate that growth into recognition, the organisation continues to see the same title and assume the same level.
Highly capable people. Stuck in outdated job descriptions.
Third, because training is rarely linked to progression.
Many assistants pay for their own development. Not because they are chasing letters after their name, but because they are trying to future-proof themselves in roles that keep expanding without formal recognition.
Yet when qualifications are not tied to job architecture, pay bands or role design, they are simply personal assets.
The assistant grows.
The role does not.
And finally, because the profession has been trained to make everything look easy.
When an assistant is competent, nothing appears complex. That competence masks the level of skill required to create it.
So assistants become simultaneously over-qualified and overlooked.
Not because they lack ambition.
Not because they lack capability.
But because the system has never been designed to see them clearly.
This is not a problem that individuals can solve by working harder or collecting more certificates.
It is a structural issue.
Until organisations introduce clear role definitions, recognised levels of work, and credible administrative career pathways, assistants will continue to outgrow the titles they are given.
And until that happens, the profession will remain one of the most educated, capable and under-recognised workforces in modern organisations.
