When I started my career as a male secretary in the early 90s, the professional landscape in executive support was straightforward. You knew exactly where you stood in the organisational hierarchy, and the career trajectory was crystal clear: secretary to personal assistant to senior PA if you were exceptional.

Fast forward to today, and a quick look at LinkedIn and other job boards shows that we’re swimming in a sea of increasingly grandiose job titles. Executive Assistant. Chief of Staff. Strategic Business Partner. Executive Business Manager. With each passing year, it seems we invent new ways to describe what executive support is, at its core, the ancient art of making busy leaders more effective.

But what’s changed? Has the nature of supporting executives fundamentally transformed, or are we simply playing a sophisticated game of professional rebranding?

Shift from Personal Assistant to Executive Assistant

The truth, as always, lies somewhere in between.

The shift from Personal Assistant to Executive Assistant wasn’t merely cosmetic. As technology eliminated many administrative tasks, the executive support role expanded to include more strategic elements.

Today’s EA is often involved in project management, internal communications, and even representing the executive in certain contexts.

What many don’t acknowledge is that exceptional PAs have always done this. The best secretaries and PAs of previous generations were strategic partners who lacked the title to match their contributions.

I’ve known brilliant senior PAs from the 90s who managed complex stakeholder relationships, influenced decision-making processes, and effectively served as gatekeepers to entire organisations, all without the benefit of today’s elevated executive support titles.

Chief of Staff role

Then we have the Chief of Staff role, arguably the most significant addition to the executive support ecosystem. Increasingly common in UK businesses (though still more prevalent in American corporations), this position supposedly represents a step beyond the Executive Assistant: more strategic, more involved in business operations, more everything.

In reality, the lines are embarrassingly blurry. I’ve encountered Chiefs of Staff who function primarily as glorified EAs, and Executive Assistants who are deeply embedded in strategic decision-making.

The distinction often has less to do with actual responsibilities and more to do with background, compensation expectations, and frankly, gender dynamics.

Primary differences

Let’s be honest about something: when organisations replace a seasoned EA with a Chief of Staff (typically recruited from management consulting or with an MBA), they’re often willing to pay substantially more for largely similar functions.

The primary differences? The Chief of Staff is more likely to be male, more likely to come from a traditional business background rather than the EA career path, and more likely to be viewed as on a leadership track rather than in a support function.

This isn’t to say genuine functional differences don’t exist. A well-designed Chief of Staff role focuses more on strategic initiatives, cross-functional project management and internal alignment than traditional Executive Assistant responsibilities.

But in practice, these boundaries are often painfully unclear, creating confusion, territorialism, and unnecessary complexity.

Expectations and responsibilities

For those of us in the UK and broader European context, it’s worth noting that these American imports sometimes sit awkwardly within our organisational cultures.

European businesses have traditionally favoured flatter hierarchies and less title inflation than their American counterparts. The Chief of Staff title, with its militaristic and political connotations, can feel particularly foreign in certain European contexts.

What matters far more than titles is clarity around expectations and responsibilities. If you’re currently navigating this landscape, whether as an EA, aspiring Chief of Staff, or executive trying to structure your support team, focus on defining what you actually need rather than getting caught up in trendy titles.

Your experience is incredibly valuable

For those with Executive Assistant backgrounds considering a move into Chief of Staff territory, recognise that your experience is incredibly valuable.

The deep institutional knowledge, relationship management skills and executive communication abilities you’ve developed are precisely what make effective Chiefs of Staff.

Don’t let anyone convince you that your EA background is somehow less valuable than a consulting pedigree.

Conversely, if you’re content in an EA role, recognise that your contribution isn’t diminished by the emergence of these new executive support titles.

A brilliant Executive Assistant remains one of the most valuable assets any leader can have, regardless of what adjacent roles might develop.

A fundamental truth

The evolution of these executive support roles reflects genuine changes in how organisations operate and what leaders need from their support systems.

But beneath the shifting terminology lies a fundamental truth: exceptional executive support has always been strategic, always been crucial and always been worthy of recognition, regardless of what we call it.

Perhaps instead of focusing on title distinctions, we should be advocating for organisational cultures that recognise the strategic value of all executive support functions, compensate them accordingly and create meaningful development paths that don’t require constantly inventing new titles to justify basic respect and fair compensation.

After all, the best executive support professionals have always known that their value lies not in their title, but in their ability to make others successful. And no amount of title inflation will ever change that fundamental truth.