Administrative staff in higher and health professions education have been described as invisible and been characterized by what they are not: non-academics, non-teachers, non-faculty and non-professionals. Staff appear as passive objects in literature and minimized in institutional reports. These characterizations contribute to the undervaluing of staff and can lead to inefficiencies or tensions in the working environment within health professions education. This study sought to identify discourses connected to the undervaluing of staff work.This study used a Foucauldian-inspired critical discourse analysis approach within the context of a single Canadian Faculty of Medicine. Data collection involved compiling an archive of published literature and institutional archival documents extending approximately 150 years, interviews with twelve staff members and nine faculty members, and the author's lived experience as staff.Three primary discourses of staff were identified: staff as caregiver, matriarch, and professional. These discourses regulate staff (and their relations with faculty) differently, creating differences in what staff and faculty can do, be, or say (or not do, be, or say). While in the first two discourses of caregiver and matriarch, staff power is largely absent or obscured, in the third discourse, differing constructs of the concept of "professional" used by faculty and staff demonstrate a rise in power of staff and the declining authority of faculty.Writing administrative staff back in and centring staff voices can help provide agency to staff and reduce or help navigate possible tensions in the workplace.