Researching Role-Based Access for Executive Assistants

Published October 12, 2026.

Executive assistants need broad coordination visibility but rarely need every permission available to the executive. This review asks how an organization can model access by task, information, time, and evidence rather than copying the executive’s identity.

Framework evidence

NIST access-control guidance covers account management and least privilege. CISA’s zero-trust model emphasizes access to the right resource for the right purpose. FTC business guidance supports inventory, minimization, protection, and secure disposal of personal information. These sources are guidance, not a universal private-sector role catalog.

Task-to-access mapping

List recurring tasks—calendar coordination, inbox triage, travel, expenses, board logistics, vendor administration—and identify read, draft, send, approve, export, delegate, and administer permissions separately. “Full access” hides distinctions that systems may support.

Lifecycle controls

Grant named access with an owner, purpose, effective date, review date, and expiry for temporary coverage. Review when the assistant, executive, vendor, or job scope changes. Confirmation should come from current system state, not only a closed request ticket.

Shared identity risk

Shared passwords weaken accountability and complicate revocation. Where a system lacks delegation, document the limitation and approved compensating controls. Do not normalize forwarding codes or personal-device access as an operational shortcut.

Limitations

Platform capabilities, sector obligations, contracts, and threat models vary. This research supports a role-mapping method; security, privacy, legal, and system owners must approve actual permissions.

Sources

• NIST access controls
• CISA Zero Trust Maturity Model
• FTC information protection