This paper uses a framework analysis to explore the opinions a cohort of Australian academic staff hold towards professional staff. Five indicative themes were identified from the extant literature on university professional staff: the professional other; managerialism; an expensive bureaucracy; complementary agendas; and the third space and beyond. These five themes formed the basis of an online survey and semi-structured interviews that gathered data on academics' opinions towards professional staff at both the local, departmental level and of those in central, divisional units. The interview and survey results revealed that the academics involved in this project held departmental professional staff in high esteem but that there was ambivalence directed to those in central units. The second part of this paper uses Sharrock's "Four Agendas" model to consider ways in which institutional leaders can capitalise on the existing strengths in the academic-professional working relationship towards fulfilling their strategic goals in a rapidly changing environment.