I received an email today that perfectly encapsulates the fundamental misunderstanding of how our profession is evolving. A virtual assistant provider proudly listed their services as “tedious day-to-day tasks” including lead generation, cold calling, database management, and administrative work.

The irony wasn’t lost on me. On the one hand, this provider was trying to sell me on the value of virtual assistance. On the other, they were explicitly positioning these professionals as people who handle work that’s tedious, work that, by definition, is prime for automation.

This disconnect isn’t unique to virtual assistant services. It reflects a broader failure to recognise how profoundly the management support profession is changing. It’s the equivalent of trying to sell typewriter repair services just as personal computers were becoming ubiquitous.

The virtual assistant paradox

As the editor of DeskDemon in the early 2000s, I observed the gradual emergence of virtual assistance as a distinct profession.

The promise was compelling: organisations could access specialised administrative support without the overhead of full-time employees, while professionals could work flexibly across multiple clients.

But from the beginning, there was a tension at the heart of the model. Virtual assistants were marketed primarily as task executors, people who would handle the routine work executives didn’t want to do themselves.

This positioning made perfect sense in an era when administrative work still required human execution. It makes increasingly little sense in a world where AI can draft emails, schedule meetings, manage databases and even make initial client contact.

I’ve observed some brilliant virtual assistants over the years. The ones who truly add value aren’t those who simply execute tasks efficiently (though that matters). They’re the ones who understand the broader context of their clients’ work, who can anticipate needs that haven’t been articulated, and who can navigate complex organisational dynamics despite being physically removed from the workplace.

In other words, they succeeded despite the task-execution model, not because of it.

The four shifts and virtual assistance

The email I received today prompted me to think about how the four seismic shifts transforming the management support profession apply specifically to virtual assistants. The implications are profound.

From information gatekeeper to information curator

Traditional virtual assistants were often positioned as email managers and information organisers. But in a world of information overload, the real value isn’t in organising information but in curating it: identifying what matters, providing critical context and ensuring it reaches the right people at the right time.

Consider a virtual assistant who reviews industry publications for a client. Initially, they might simply forward articles they think relevant. The value here is minimal; the client still does the cognitive work of determining significance. But imagine if the assistant shifts approach, providing brief summaries that connect each article to the client’s specific strategic challenges. Suddenly, the service becomes invaluable, not because they’re finding information (technology can do that) but because they’re contextualising it in ways that make it immediately actionable.

Virtual assistants who remain in the information organisation business are competing directly with increasingly sophisticated AI tools. Those who evolve into information curators are providing a service that technology still struggles to replicate.

From task execution to problem solving

The list of tasks in the email I received reads like a catalogue of functions that are rapidly being automated: lead generation, CRM management, database maintenance, basic accounting. What unites these functions is their procedural nature. They follow defined steps toward clear outcomes.

Yet the most valuable work in today’s organisations isn’t procedural but adaptive. It involves identifying problems that aren’t yet fully articulated, creating solutions where no playbook exists and navigating ambiguous situations where the path forward isn’t clear.

Consider a complex international project supported by a virtual assistant. If they simply executed assigned tasks, the project might well fail. What would make them truly valuable would be their ability to identify problems before they become critical, noticing when stakeholders are disengaged, when information isn’t flowing properly, when cultural differences are creating misunderstandings. None of these issues would appear in their job description, yet they would be far more important than the administrative tasks that do.

The future belongs to virtual assistants who position themselves not as task executors but as problem navigators, professionals who help organisations address the messy, complex challenges that resist procedural solutions.

From technical proficiency to technological adaptation

Many virtual assistant services emphasise specific technical skills: proficiency with particular software, platforms, or systems. This made sense in an era when these tools were relatively stable. It makes less sense when the tools themselves are changing rapidly.

I’ve encountered virtual assistants who build their entire business around expertise in particular software systems. When asked how they’re preparing for these tools’ inevitable replacement or obsolescence, many seem genuinely surprised by the question. They’ve invested so heavily in technical proficiency that they haven’t developed the more fundamental capability of technological adaptation.

The most valuable virtual assistants won’t be those who have mastered today’s tools but those who can rapidly evaluate, adopt and integrate tomorrow’s. They’ll help clients navigate technological change rather than simply operating within existing systems.

From hierarchical support to network leadership

Traditional virtual assistance is built on a clear hierarchical model: the assistant executes tasks assigned by the client. This model assumes that value flows primarily through formal authority relationships.

But in today’s networked organisations, value increasingly comes from connecting disparate parts of the system that formal structures keep separate. This is particularly challenging for virtual assistants, who lack the physical presence that facilitates informal connections within an organisation.

In organisations with teams split across multiple countries, a virtual coordinator can create immense value not by managing upward but by facilitating connections across the network. They might identify when teams are working on similar problems without knowing it, when resources in one location could address challenges in another, when communication breakdowns are creating unnecessary friction. This work rarely appears in formal responsibilities, yet it can create far more value than the administrative tasks that do.

The future belongs to virtual assistants who understand how to create value through network leadership rather than hierarchical support. Those who see their role not as serving individual clients but as strengthening the connections that make organisations effective.

Beyond the transactional model

What struck me most about the email I received was its fundamentally transactional framing. It positioned virtual assistance as a straightforward exchange: the assistant performs tasks the client doesn’t want to do, and the client pays for this service.

This transactional model made perfect sense when administrative work required human execution and couldn’t be easily automated. It makes increasingly little sense in a world where AI can handle many routine tasks more efficiently and consistently than humans can.

The virtual assistants who thrive won’t be those who compete with AI on task execution but those who evolve beyond the transactional model entirely. They’ll position themselves not as task performers but as capability enhancers, professionals who help clients navigate complexity, solve problems, and create connections in ways that technology alone cannot.

There are emerging stories of virtual assistants transforming their businesses from task execution to what we might call “executive effectiveness enhancement.” Rather than simply handling administrative work, these pioneers help clients identify and address the systemic issues creating administrative burden in the first place. They’re not just managing email; they’re helping redesign information flows. They’re not just scheduling meetings. They’re helping create more effective collaborative processes.

Her business was thriving not despite the rise of AI but because of it. As clients increasingly recognised that routine tasks could be automated, they were more willing to invest in the higher-level capabilities that technology couldn’t easily replicate.

Philosophical questions about the future

This evolution raises profound questions about the very nature of virtual assistance as a profession. If we’re philosophical about what might emerge, we confront some fascinating paradoxes and possibilities.

First, there’s the economic question. The current business model for virtual assistance is fundamentally transactional: hours exchanged for task execution. Yet the highest-value work virtual assistants could provide transcends this transactional framework. How might this tension resolve itself? Perhaps through retainer models based on outcomes rather than inputs? Through hybrid approaches that evolve as trust develops? Or perhaps through the emergence of an entirely new profession that combines elements of assistance, coaching, and systems consultation?

Second, there’s the identity question. If virtual assistants evolve beyond task execution, at what point do they become something else entirely? The boundaries between professional categories are often more fluid than we acknowledge.

We’ve already seen executive assistants evolve into operations managers, chiefs of staff and workplace experience directors. Might we see virtual assistants undergo a similar metamorphosis, perhaps into something we don’t yet have a name for?

Third, there’s the technology question. As AI continues to advance, the boundary between human and technological capabilities will shift continuously. This isn’t a simple case of automation replacing human work; it’s a complex, ongoing negotiation where the most valuable human contribution constantly evolves. How might virtual assistants navigate this shifting landscape, continuously identifying the domains where human judgment, creativity, and relationship-building create the greatest value?

These questions have no simple answers. They invite us to imagine multiple possible futures and prepare for a range of evolutionary paths. What seems clear is that the current disconnect between how virtual assistance is marketed and where genuine value lies cannot persist indefinitely. Something will change. The only question is what and how.

For virtual assistants contemplating these shifts, perhaps the most important capability isn’t any particular skill but rather adaptability itself, the capacity to sense emerging possibilities, experiment with new approaches and continuously redefine one’s value proposition as the landscape evolves.

And for clients of virtual assistants, perhaps the greatest opportunity lies not in offloading tedious tasks but in imagining entirely new kinds of collaborative relationships that transcend traditional notions of support work altogether.

The future may not be task execution, but it holds tremendous possibilities for those willing to explore beyond the boundaries of how we’ve traditionally defined assistance.