I’ve been developing my keynote on “The Future-Proof Assistant”. As I refine the content, something keeps nagging at me, a fundamental contradiction embedded in our very job titles as management support professionals.

We keep talking about “strategic partnership” while clinging to titles like “assistant” that position us firmly in the shadow of someone else’s authority. It’s like claiming you’re an architect while introducing yourself as a blueprint holder.

The language trap

Language shapes perception. And perception dictates opportunity.

Yes, I see the irony in the fact that my own platform is called “The Future-Proof Assistant” while I’m arguing that the term “assistant” is problematic. I chose this name deliberately, to speak directly to professionals where they are now and using terminology they identify with. But part of being future-proof is questioning the very frameworks that have defined us, including the language we use to describe ourselves. Sometimes you need to stand within a system to effectively challenge it.

When I worked as editor-in-chief at DeskDemon in the early 2000s, I was fully in charge of our editorial direction and content strategy. Despite running a professional publication that reached thousands of management support staff, I frequently encountered dismissive attitudes at industry events. “Oh, you run that secretary website,” people would say, instantly diminishing both the website and the entire profession it served with a single outdated term.

The word “assistant” creates an immediate cognitive frame that’s nearly impossible to escape. It positions you as auxiliary, secondary, a supporter rather than a creator of value in your own right. No amount of “strategic” or “executive” prefix can fully neutralise its effect.

I’ve watched brilliant management support professionals reframe complex organisational problems, design innovative workflow solutions and navigate impossible stakeholder dynamics, yet still describe themselves with language that miniaturizes their contribution.

The integration specialist reality

What we actually do bears little resemblance to what our titles suggest.

When my company implemented an AI-based document review system for workplace investigations, I wasn’t assisting anyone. I was mapping how information actually flowed during investigations (not how the process manual claimed it flowed), identifying critical gaps the technology implementation team had missed entirely and designing new governance frameworks that balanced efficiency with legal compliance.

That’s not assistance. It’s systems architecture.

When LinkedIn tells us that 59% of UK businesses are more likely to adopt AI than hire new staff while workers waste three working weeks annually switching between incompatible systems, it’s not highlighting a technology problem. It’s revealing an integration problem, precisely the kind that management support professionals are uniquely positioned to solve.

We don’t just support executives; we create the conditions that allow entire organisational systems to function effectively.

Beyond the peripheral perspective

The problem goes deeper than mere semantics. By positioning ourselves as assistants, we adopt a peripheral perspective. We view organisational challenges through the lens of someone else’s priorities rather than from the centre of the system itself.

I once supported a CEO who was frustrated by the constant friction between sales and operations. He spent months addressing symptoms: mediating conflicts, clarifying responsibilities, even restructuring reporting lines. Nothing worked.

As his “assistant,” I was expected to schedule the meetings and distribute the action items. But what I actually did was map the information flows between departments, identify the broken feedback loops and design a new communication architecture that finally resolved the underlying problem.

It was very similar to my later work developing online services: information architecture, service design, user journeys, flow charts. 

The solution wasn’t peripheral; it was systemic. Yet my job title perpetuated the fiction that I was merely supporting someone else’s work rather than creating original value.

The integration challenge

The workplace is fragmenting, physically through hybrid arrangements and functionally through technology adoption. This creates gaps that management support professionals are uniquely positioned to bridge, but only if we position ourselves correctly.

When I examine the most successful support professionals in my network, they don’t define themselves by their relationship to an executive. They define themselves by the complex problems they solve across organisational boundaries.

They’re not executive assistants; they’re integration specialists who:

1. Understand how information actually flows (versus how organisational charts suggest it should flow)
2. Identify connection points between seemingly unrelated challenges
3. Design human systems that technological solutions can enhance rather than disrupt
4. Translate between different organisational languages and priorities

This isn’t assisting, it’s architecting. And it’s time our professional identity reflected that reality.

From assistant to architect

I’m not suggesting we all march into HR tomorrow demanding title changes (though that conversation is overdue). I’m advocating for a fundamental shift in how we conceptualise our professional identity.

Architects don’t simply execute someone else’s vision. They create environments that shape how people interact with space and with each other. They balance technical requirements with human needs. They see patterns and connections that others miss.

When I transitioned from executive assistance to content design and strategy, I was struck by how differently people responded to my insights despite the work being remarkably similar. The same observations about information flow that were dismissed when I was an “assistant” were suddenly brilliant when I was a “strategist.”

Intellectual foundation

The tragedy is that many organisations are desperate for exactly the integration expertise that management support professionals develop, yet they fail to recognise or utilise it because of how the role is framed.

This architectural identity isn’t merely about changing titles. It’s about embracing systems thinking as your intellectual foundation.

When I worked with multinational teams, I discovered that my greatest contribution wasn’t managing my executive’s priorities but understanding how information actually flowed through the organisation versus how it was meant to flow on paper.

Observing the entire ecosystem

Systems thinking enables us to see patterns, connections and breakdowns that remain invisible to those working within hierarchical structures. It’s the ability to observe the entire ecosystem rather than a single relationship, to notice how changing one element affects everything else, and to design interventions that address root causes rather than symptoms.

This perspective is what makes us architects rather than assistants. We’re not simply supporting someone else’s agenda but actively designing and nurturing the invisible systems that allow organisations to function effectively.

Practical steps forward

If you’re nodding along but wondering how to actually shift this paradigm, here are some concrete actions:

1. Reframe your value proposition
   Stop describing what you do in terms of who you support. Start articulating the complex problems you solve and the systems you design. When someone asks what you do, try “I design communication systems that enable executive decision-making” rather than “I support the CEO.”
2. Document your systems work
   Most of us design dozens of organisational systems without ever recognizing them as design work. Start mapping these systems explicitly, from information flows to decision frameworks to communication architectures. This documentation makes your architectural work visible.
3. Speak the language of outcomes, not tasks
   Instead of “I manage the executive’s calendar,” try “I design time allocation systems that align with strategic priorities and optimise decision quality.”
4. Seek architect allies
   Connect with professionals who already occupy explicitly architectural roles, whether in technology, information or organisational design. These relationships can both expand your thinking and create pathways to role evolution.
5. Claim educational territory
   Professional development for management support roles often focuses on tools and tactics rather than systems thinking. Seek out learning in adjacent fields like knowledge management, organisational design, and systems theory.

The future belongs to the architects

The future of work isn’t about who can execute tasks most efficiently. It’s about who can make sense of complexity, who can see patterns across seemingly unrelated developments and who can design solutions that address root causes rather than symptoms.

This isn’t a comfortable transformation for many of us who built our careers on being reliable, efficient, and perpetually helpful. But it’s a necessary one if we want to remain relevant in a workplace where routine tasks are increasingly automated and traditional hierarchies are increasingly fluid.

The good news is that this evolution offers the opportunity to finally shed the limiting perceptions of our role and demonstrate the architectural value we’ve always provided but rarely received credit for.

The key is to stop defining yourself by what you do and start articulating the complex systems you architect.

Interested in exploring these ideas further? I’m developing workshops and speaking engagements on “The Systems Architect: Repositioning Management Support in the AI Era.” Connect with me to discuss how these concepts could benefit your organisation or event.