If your IT team had to pay personally to stay current on cybersecurity, you would see it as a business risk.
If your finance team had to use annual leave to keep up with regulatory change, you would question your governance.
If your HR team had to fund their own professional development, you would not consider that sustainable.
Yet across the administrative profession, this is happening every day.
The latest Global Skills Matrix data shows that around one in five assistants pay entirely out of pocket for their professional development, and over half rely on free training or receive no training at all.
The survey did not quantify exact amounts, but respondents reference self-funding full certifications such as ACEA, CAP, PACE, Prince2 and AI courses, paying for conference tickets, covering travel and hotel costs, and purchasing their own learning platforms and materials . Depending on the programme, that can range from a few hundred to several thousand pounds per year.
In the written responses, hundreds also describe attending training in their own time, using annual leave, or studying in evenings and weekends because development time is not approved during the workday.
Now consider the direction of the role:
• Nearly 60 percent report increased responsibilities
• More than 40 percent are already implementing AI and automation in their roles
The administrative function is becoming more complex, more digital and more strategic.
LinkedIn’s latest research says assistants are doing 30% more strategic work than three years ago.
But the investment in development is not keeping pace.
That is a problem.
Organisations benefit from stronger decision support, better AI integration, improved operational flow and increased executive capacity. Yet the financial and personal cost of building that capability often sits with the individual assistant.
This is rarely intentional. It is usually legacy thinking, where administrative development was seen as discretionary rather than foundational.
But roles that directly extend leadership capacity are not discretionary.
When assistants develop, leaders gain time, clarity and leverage. Decisions improve. Risk reduces. Change becomes easier to manage.
Development in IT is infrastructure.
Development in finance is infrastructure.
Development in HR and marketing is infrastructure.
Development in executive support should be treated the same way.
Not as a perk.
Not as something someone funds privately.
Not as something someone sacrifices holiday to access.
But as part of the operating system that sustains leadership performance.
If the role is evolving, development must be built in, not bolted on. Because when assistants grow, leadership capacity grows with them.
