I had a fascinating conversation last week with an EA who’d been supporting board-level executives for fifteen years. She’d recently attended a workshop about becoming a more strategic business partner and while she found parts of it valuable, something wasn’t quite clicking.

“It felt like they were telling me to work harder at understanding my executive’s priorities,” she told me. “But that’s not the problem. I already understand his priorities perfectly. What’s frustrating is that I can see problems across the organisation that he can’t see, precisely because of his position.”

“But isn’t sharing those insights exactly what being a strategic partner is about?” I asked.

“In theory, yes,” she replied. “But in practice, the strategic partnership model still positions me as supporting his agenda rather than bringing an independent perspective. When I share what I’m seeing, it’s often treated as useful but secondary input. The model doesn’t recognise that I might actually have a more accurate view of certain organisational dynamics than he does precisely because I’m not at the top of the hierarchy.”

This conversation crystallised something I’ve been thinking about for years: the difference between networking and systems thinking, and why this distinction matters profoundly for the future of our profession.

“Isn’t this just networking with a fancy name?”

When I talk about systems thinking, I often get this question. After all, haven’t good EAs always been well-connected across their organisations? Haven’t we always had those informal chats by the coffee machine that keep things running smoothly?

Yes, but that’s only part of the picture.

Networking is about who knows whom, the relationships and connections that help information flow. It’s valuable and necessary, but it’s just one component of something much deeper.

Systems thinking is about understanding how organisations actually function beneath their formal structures. It’s seeing where information truly flows versus where it’s supposed to flow. It’s recognising which processes work in reality versus on paper. It’s identifying the invisible patterns that either enable or obstruct organisational effectiveness.

When I was at EA portal DeskDemon in the early 2000s, I observed countless organisations where beautiful process maps and org charts bore little resemblance to how work actually happened. The executives saw the formal structure. The EAs, sitting at the intersection of formal and informal systems, saw the reality but often lacked the language to articulate what they were seeing.

A concrete example

Let’s make this practical. Imagine an organisation that’s implemented a new approval process for marketing materials. On paper, it’s perfect: streamlined, efficient, with clear roles and responsibilities.

Six months in, a good networker might know that Jane in Brand is frustrated with Dave in Legal. They might smooth over this relationship with careful communication, making the process work better through personal connections.

But someone with systems thinking would notice something different: that four departments have secretly created workarounds because the official process doesn’t account for regional differences. That critical feedback is getting lost between steps three and four. That the entire process was designed around printed materials but is failing for digital content, which now makes up 70% of output.

These insights don’t come from knowing people (networking). They come from seeing patterns in how information and decisions move through the organisation. Patterns that may be invisible even to senior leaders because their perspective is necessarily constrained by their position in the hierarchy.

Not exclusive to EAs, but particularly relevant

It’s important to note that systems thinking isn’t exclusive to executive assistants. Office managers, operations professionals, HR specialists and many others who sit at organisational crossroads can develop this perspective. Sometimes they might have an even broader view depending on their position and remit.

What makes this particularly relevant for EAs isn’t that they have exclusive access to systems thinking, but rather the contrast between how their role is traditionally framed (as an extension of executive authority) and the actual organisational insights they often possess.

During my time at DeskDemon, I saw numerous examples of EAs who possessed extraordinary organisational understanding but lacked the language to articulate its value outside the executive relationship. Meanwhile, roles like operations managers were expected to have this systems perspective. It was built into how their roles were understood.

Why this matters now more than ever

For decades, the value of executive assistants has been primarily defined through their relationship with their executives. The better you supported your executive, the more valuable you were. The more strategic your partnership, the more irreplaceable you became.

This model made perfect sense in hierarchical organisations where power and information flowed primarily through formal channels. It makes increasingly less sense today.

As AI begins to automate the task-based components of our role, there’s an existential question facing our profession. If an EA’s value is solely derived from supporting an executive, and AI can handle many of those support functions, what remains?

The answer isn’t that EAs need to become mini-operations managers or pseudo-HR professionals. It’s that they need to articulate and develop the unique form of organisational intelligence they’ve always possessed but rarely been recognised for: systems thinking.

Why organisations need systems thinkers

The question isn’t just whether EAs can survive by developing systems thinking. It’s whether organisations can afford to lose this capability as AI takes over task execution.

Modern organisations face unprecedented complexity: hybrid working arrangements, matrix reporting structures, global operations and rapid technological change. In this environment, understanding how things actually function beneath the formal structure isn’t just helpful. It’s essential for organisational effectiveness.

When I spoke with business leaders during my time at DeskDemon, they would often express frustration that initiatives weren’t delivering expected results despite flawless planning. What they couldn’t see, but their EAs often could, were the invisible barriers embedded in how information actually flowed through their organisations.

This systems intelligence – the ability to see patterns across seemingly disconnected parts of the organisation – becomes more valuable as complexity increases. It’s not just about EAs making themselves indispensable. It’s about organisations recognising and cultivating a capability they desperately need but often fail to acknowledge.

The companies that thrive won’t be those with the most sophisticated AI tools or the most elegant org charts. They’ll be those that understand how work actually happens beneath these formal structures and can design interventions that address reality rather than theory.

EAs with systems thinking aren’t just securing their professional future. They’re providing something organisations increasingly cannot function effectively without, even if many haven’t yet recognised this critical need.

Why the strategic partnership model falls short

Let’s address the elephant in the room: In theory, the strategic partnership model should already incorporate the sharing of organisational insights. If you’re truly a strategic partner, shouldn’t you be sharing your unique perspective with your executive?

Yes, and many excellent EA-executive pairs do exactly this. But there’s a subtle yet important limitation in the framing.

The strategic partnership framework, as it’s commonly taught and practised, still fundamentally positions the EA as supporting the executive’s agenda. The flow of value is presumed to go primarily from executive to organisation, with the EA amplifying the executive’s effectiveness.

Even in the best partnerships, there’s often an unspoken hierarchy of perspective: the executive’s view is primary, the EA’s is complementary. This isn’t about executives deliberately dismissing EA input (though that happens too). It’s about a model that inherently positions EA insights as contributions to the executive’s agenda rather than as an independent form of organisational intelligence.

This distinction might seem academic, but it has practical implications. If your professional identity is defined primarily through your relationship with an executive, what happens when that relationship changes? If your value is framed as supporting an executive’s vision, how do you articulate the unique organisational insights you possess that exist independently of that relationship?

Moving toward a new model

As organisations become more networked and less hierarchical, this systems intelligence becomes increasingly valuable. The future might not be about being a better strategic partner within a hierarchical framework, but about developing a form of organisational value that transcends any single reporting relationship.

This evolution isn’t unique to EAs. Across many professions, we’re seeing a shift from roles defined by their place in a hierarchy to roles valued for their contribution to network effectiveness. For EAs, this shift is particularly profound because our professional identity has been so closely tied to hierarchical relationships.

Some of what I’m describing might sound like a Chief of Staff role, and there are certainly similarities. But even that framing doesn’t quite capture what I’m suggesting. Chiefs of Staff still primarily derive their authority from their relationship with a senior leader. What I’m describing is a form of organisational value that exists independently of any single reporting relationship.

Is this still the EA role as traditionally understood? Perhaps not. We may be describing an evolution so fundamental that it becomes something new entirely. But that’s precisely the point. The future of administrative support might look radically different from its past.

What this means for you

If you’re an EA reading this, you might be wondering what systems thinking looks like in practice. How do you develop it? How do you articulate its value?

It begins with shifting how you see your role. Instead of defining yourself primarily through your relationship with your executive, start paying attention to the patterns you observe across the organisation:

Where does information flow smoothly, and where does it get stuck? Which formal processes are working, and which ones are being bypassed through informal channels? What connections exist (or should exist) between departments that aren’t captured in the org chart? Where are the same problems being solved multiple times because the formal structure keeps teams separate?

These observations aren’t just interesting. They’re a form of organisational intelligence that becomes increasingly valuable as companies become more complex and technology automates routine tasks.

The challenge, of course, is articulating this value in a world that still primarily sees EAs through the lens of the executive-assistant relationship. This isn’t easy, but it’s essential if our profession is to evolve beyond the limitations of both the task-execution and strategic partnership models.

A new conversation

I’m not suggesting that EAs should abandon their executive support responsibilities or stop focusing on being excellent strategic partners. Those skills remain foundational.

What I am suggesting is that we need a new conversation about the future of our profession, one that acknowledges the unique form of organisational intelligence that EAs develop through their position at the intersection of formal and informal systems.

This conversation isn’t about competing with other professionals like operations managers or project coordinators. It’s about recognising and developing a distinctive capability that complements these other roles, a capability that becomes increasingly valuable as organisations become more complex and fragmented.

The future of executive support might indeed look quite different from what we’ve known. But I suspect it will be more essential, not less – just in ways we’re still learning to articulate.

And that articulation begins with understanding the profound difference between networking and systems thinking, between supporting an executive and seeing organisational patterns that may be invisible even to them.

The strategic partnership model took us beyond task execution. Systems thinking takes us beyond strategic partnership. And in that evolution lies the future of our profession.