"Office Manager" is a good percentage of the role, but in a chaotic startup environment, settling on the narrower job expectations that come with that title is limiting. Our d-i-a-o-a's were doing usability studies, guerilla marketing, recruiting and other things way beyond the tranditional scope. In a startup, it is good to have generalists and people willing to stretch and do whatever it takes (even for engineers...imagine if one of your devs said "um, sorry, i only do OO, if you need a shell script for XYZ, that work is below me" or whatever...disaster)
I often see this role filled by what everyone calls a "secretary" or "assistant". They tend to be very highly valued by everyone in the company [below exec level] and tend to go all the extra-miles to babysit same execs. Even moronic extra-miles such as re-booking hotel-rooms on a saturday because the CEO didn't like the furniture, or organizing company-events in their off-time because the CEO "asked" (read: demanded).
Sadly, more often than not, at least in my experience, aforementioned execs take all that for granted and the secretary remains a secretary in terms of pay and appreciation.
It's one of those stereotypes that I keep seeing over and over again that pisses me off every time.
> Sadly, more often than not, at least in my experience, aforementioned execs take all that for granted and the secretary remains a secretary in terms of pay and appreciation.
True story:
A friend of mine is a broker to a guy who is/was a major real estatement developer. Billions of dollars of developments. The guy is a maniac too, he'd develop multiple sites in different ways at the same time and he had a pretty small staff. Just infinite amounts of work and energy. Immigrant parents, came up from nothing, developer was just a pretty amazing guy.
My friend was one of the brokers he used. One year, secretary's day was coming around. Normally, the developer would give his secretary like a $200 gift certificate for Tiffany's or to a fancy restaurant or something like that.
This year, he thought - you know, my secretary has been with me for 20 years, she's been amazing, I should do something really special for her. My friend was just about to trade his car in and get a new car, and so he sold it to the developer for a pretty good bargain - something like $12,000. It was a nice sports car, only a few years old.
So he gave her the car, and she was thrilled, really really happy. Very grateful. After a couple weeks, the thrill wore off, and it was just business as normal, and she was still the very good secretary she had been for years and things were going well.
Next year, secretary's day rolls around again, and he gives her... a $250 gift certificate for Tiffany's. Like every other year.
And she was TICKED. Very upset. Her work quality suffered. She'd been very excited about what she was going to get, and then a slightly bigger than normal gift certificate was very upsetting.
Long story short - many people have thought the same way as you and tried to rectify it, often with undesired results. Everyone in the world isn't necessarily stupid - if something is done almost everywhere a certain way, it might because that way works the best. When deviating from the normal way, things should be thought through carefully. I do agree that a top notch assistant is invaluable though, and often times underappreciated.
I've heard several similar anecdotes and I think that Dan Arielly (behavioural economist / writer) talks about this as well. Bonuses quickly become part of your compensation and you consider them your due.
But this whole area is full of irrationality. A 12,000 car bonus probably felt like a huge thing at the time. A $75 p/w raise probably would have felt like nothing out of the usual. You wouldn't have even mentioned the story if the secretary had expected another raise in a year or two.
Giving a one-time gift is not "rectifying" a fundamentally inequitable situation. Employees should feel like their work is appreciated and correctly valued all the time, not just in a burst of mania every few years.
> Giving a one-time gift is not "rectifying" a fundamentally inequitable situation.
I was a little lost for a second when you put "rectifying" in quotes and assumed an inequitable situation - I looked if the original poster used it; nope, he didn't. Did I? Nope, I didn't. I was responding to "aforementioned execs take all that for granted and the secretary remains a secretary in terms of pay and appreciation" - which I noted many people have thought before, and sometimes acted a little too hastily after thinking. So, I shared a story as a word of caution to people who think, "Yeah, my secretary does a lot! I should show more appreciation!" Well, yes you probably should, but you should probably think through the best way to do so before doing so.
Also, I should note she was paid quite well. I forget the figures, but it was over market - this guy paid everyone well, my friend did like half his business just being one of his brokers. He paid way over market - which, stereotypes be damned, seems to actually be common among high performing people. They tend to compensate well from my firsthand experience. But I digress, she was paid quite well, so I was referring more to the "appreciation" than the compensation. The gift really was meant to be a gift and to show his appreciation, not as a rectification or a makeup or anything like that.
> Employees should feel like their work is appreciated and correctly valued all the time, not just in a burst of mania every few years.
> Long story short - many people have thought the same way as you and tried to rectify it, often with undesired results.
I am obviously not familiar with the particular situation, so I was speaking in generalities: secretaries and assistants are I daresay as a rule vastly undercompensated in comparison with their bosses (and many other professions). In those circumstances, giving some lavish one-time gift or bonus is probably the worst kind of an incentive.
Overall, I think we are in agreement...as you say:
> Well, yes you probably should, but you should probably think through the best way to do so before doing [showing your appreciation].
This may be one area in which big corporate business is better than startups/SMB. The Exec assistants in the large companies I've worked for have been very well respected, well treated, and often made more money than the average IT guy.
The departmental assistants, not so much. But the ones who truly supported the execs did quite well.
He's young. One of the benefits of that condition is the right to reinvent the wheel now and then, and coin new words for old things. Note I am not being sarcastic, merely pointing out the truth.
With all due respect, this is totally different from exec admin or exec babysitter. When we were 12 people in a small room coding and focused on our product, our do-it-all-office admins were absolutely strategic, important and appreciated by everyone in the company....and they allowed everyone to focus without distractions. And when we were acquired, our d-i-a-o-a were doing due diligence and holding their own with multiple execs and about 5 laywers. They were incredible. I'd lay down on the tracks for them now. Their job was anything but "baby-sitting". And it got each of them into top schools pursuing law and business degrees. By the way, not bad for a first job out of college.
Never said anything negative about the role(s). I think it's important, and takes a load off the folks doing the more core business-specific tasks which are vital to startup takeoff.
This is kind of the general equivalent of letting someone sign your checks. I don't want anyone else signing my checks, and I don't want anyone doing anything else on my behalf.
No _startup_ CEO's time is so valuable or so scarce that they don't have time to order a fridge or a laser printer. This is for the lazy guys that enjoy having an assistant because delegating makes the feel like A Real Businessman.
I bet I could follow around any startup CEO for a day and point out 50 times he's got 20 minutes to order a fridge, or whatever.
Steve Jobs or something, sure. He really could be entirely booked up every single day all day.
I worry about the startup whose CEO cares a single second on what kind of fridge they have. Wrong priorities. Spent that extra 20 minutes on hiring, product planning, sales or coding.
touché. So we agree, shouldn't care about the kind of fridge and it's not beneath them to order it. Btw, hopefully the people in the company care more about the quality of the people, the work and the direction that what is IN the fridge.
When our computer science department was founded, Fred Brooks (the founder) insisted that the university provide funding for a department secretary from the outset. He went through a lengthy process of selecting the best person he could find, and to this day she is revered in the department (one of our classrooms is named in her honor). It's not a matter of considering some tasks to be "below" you, it's about maximizing your productivity by dividing labor.
From the department history [1]:
"Professors and administrators may be loath to admit it, but no one knows better than they who runs a university: the department secretaries. [...] He was fortunate to secure the services of Sara Elizabeth ("Lib") Moore, a graduate of the University who had worked in the chancellor's office before moving to Duke University. Lib ran the Department for 16 years."
Indeed. One of the things I've learned as a graduate student is that the department secretary is the single most important person in the department, at least for a student. They will likely be the one to schedule your exams, order your supplies (including chemicals!), get you time with faculty, coordinate meetings with your committee, and generally keep things running smoothly. Woe to the student who gets on their bad side.
Having an office admin isn't about offloading tasks which are "below" you: these tasks often require experience and excellent people skills, and it's about an effective division of labor.
23 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 45.3 ms ] threadSadly, more often than not, at least in my experience, aforementioned execs take all that for granted and the secretary remains a secretary in terms of pay and appreciation.
It's one of those stereotypes that I keep seeing over and over again that pisses me off every time.
True story:
A friend of mine is a broker to a guy who is/was a major real estatement developer. Billions of dollars of developments. The guy is a maniac too, he'd develop multiple sites in different ways at the same time and he had a pretty small staff. Just infinite amounts of work and energy. Immigrant parents, came up from nothing, developer was just a pretty amazing guy.
My friend was one of the brokers he used. One year, secretary's day was coming around. Normally, the developer would give his secretary like a $200 gift certificate for Tiffany's or to a fancy restaurant or something like that.
This year, he thought - you know, my secretary has been with me for 20 years, she's been amazing, I should do something really special for her. My friend was just about to trade his car in and get a new car, and so he sold it to the developer for a pretty good bargain - something like $12,000. It was a nice sports car, only a few years old.
So he gave her the car, and she was thrilled, really really happy. Very grateful. After a couple weeks, the thrill wore off, and it was just business as normal, and she was still the very good secretary she had been for years and things were going well.
Next year, secretary's day rolls around again, and he gives her... a $250 gift certificate for Tiffany's. Like every other year.
And she was TICKED. Very upset. Her work quality suffered. She'd been very excited about what she was going to get, and then a slightly bigger than normal gift certificate was very upsetting.
Long story short - many people have thought the same way as you and tried to rectify it, often with undesired results. Everyone in the world isn't necessarily stupid - if something is done almost everywhere a certain way, it might because that way works the best. When deviating from the normal way, things should be thought through carefully. I do agree that a top notch assistant is invaluable though, and often times underappreciated.
I've heard several similar anecdotes and I think that Dan Arielly (behavioural economist / writer) talks about this as well. Bonuses quickly become part of your compensation and you consider them your due.
But this whole area is full of irrationality. A 12,000 car bonus probably felt like a huge thing at the time. A $75 p/w raise probably would have felt like nothing out of the usual. You wouldn't have even mentioned the story if the secretary had expected another raise in a year or two.
I was a little lost for a second when you put "rectifying" in quotes and assumed an inequitable situation - I looked if the original poster used it; nope, he didn't. Did I? Nope, I didn't. I was responding to "aforementioned execs take all that for granted and the secretary remains a secretary in terms of pay and appreciation" - which I noted many people have thought before, and sometimes acted a little too hastily after thinking. So, I shared a story as a word of caution to people who think, "Yeah, my secretary does a lot! I should show more appreciation!" Well, yes you probably should, but you should probably think through the best way to do so before doing so.
Also, I should note she was paid quite well. I forget the figures, but it was over market - this guy paid everyone well, my friend did like half his business just being one of his brokers. He paid way over market - which, stereotypes be damned, seems to actually be common among high performing people. They tend to compensate well from my firsthand experience. But I digress, she was paid quite well, so I was referring more to the "appreciation" than the compensation. The gift really was meant to be a gift and to show his appreciation, not as a rectification or a makeup or anything like that.
> Employees should feel like their work is appreciated and correctly valued all the time, not just in a burst of mania every few years.
Fully agreed, that's a good point.
> Long story short - many people have thought the same way as you and tried to rectify it, often with undesired results.
I am obviously not familiar with the particular situation, so I was speaking in generalities: secretaries and assistants are I daresay as a rule vastly undercompensated in comparison with their bosses (and many other professions). In those circumstances, giving some lavish one-time gift or bonus is probably the worst kind of an incentive.
Overall, I think we are in agreement...as you say:
> Well, yes you probably should, but you should probably think through the best way to do so before doing [showing your appreciation].
The departmental assistants, not so much. But the ones who truly supported the execs did quite well.
No _startup_ CEO's time is so valuable or so scarce that they don't have time to order a fridge or a laser printer. This is for the lazy guys that enjoy having an assistant because delegating makes the feel like A Real Businessman.
I bet I could follow around any startup CEO for a day and point out 50 times he's got 20 minutes to order a fridge, or whatever.
Steve Jobs or something, sure. He really could be entirely booked up every single day all day.
although I wouldn't say no to the right male candidate either...
From the department history [1]: "Professors and administrators may be loath to admit it, but no one knows better than they who runs a university: the department secretaries. [...] He was fortunate to secure the services of Sara Elizabeth ("Lib") Moore, a graduate of the University who had worked in the chancellor's office before moving to Duke University. Lib ran the Department for 16 years."
[1] http://www.cs.unc.edu/History/Infancy.html
Having an office admin isn't about offloading tasks which are "below" you: these tasks often require experience and excellent people skills, and it's about an effective division of labor.