52 Comments
Jan 17, 2023·edited Jan 17, 2023

Well said. Isn’t the modern version of the trusted apprentice/advisor a “chief of staff”?

Expand full comment

A Squire, in other words. Someone who travels with his knight, enables him to be a knight, and who quite literally has his/her back in battle. Eventually a squire often became a knight, but the role itself was vital to Chivalry.

Expand full comment

I agree with you completely. I thought it was a terrible idea to have the office executives and professionals schedule their own travel, keep their own calendar, do those time sheets, etc. Most of us made north of $200 per hour and we’re not all that proficient at clerical tasks, let alone keeping the office organized.

Expand full comment

Something Interesting about secretaries -- throughout most of the 1980s and early 1990s I worked for a real estate investment company. There were around a dozen senior vice presidents and they all had executive secretaries. These women, and they were all women, functioned as a sort of major domo and besides supervising clerical staff their most important characteristic was to know how to keep tneir mouth shut. They had access to information that they did not share.

Expand full comment

This sounds as if you are describing a family office manager, albeit for the lower end. If ChatGPT is as revolutionary as is commonly alleged, I would expect these job duties to be instantiated in AI tooling. So I guess I don't really see this as a compelling vision for the "future of work" or how that topic intersects with ChatGPT.

Expand full comment

“The secretary as confidential advisor has never had a place on organizational charts.” Hamilton was Washington’s Secretary to the President, considered the most powerful job other than president. Washington recognized genius and gave Hamilton tremendous latitude to design and implement the U.S. financial system, currency, etc. Hamilton was America’s greatest pirate, smuggling into the U.S. textile machinery and British tradesmen who knew how to assemble and run this technology, a technology which kick-started the U.S. Industrial Revolution. Reminds one of today’s China, no? Trivial fact: My mother served as a secretary to FDR during WWII. One of her responsibilities was managing his birthday correspondence. (“Hey, Mom! Throw Stalin’s birthday card in the circular file!”)

Expand full comment

I agree, saving an expensive executive time and helping them get more done is a valuable role. In many cases, as Andrew mentions, this seems to have morphed into a chief of staff, which is higher powered and less tainted as a term these days. Apart from the largest companies, there aren't very many people making $1.5M a year.

Having said that, I'm not sure dictation, a human fielding AI spam, or the idea of your average assistant being on the Michael Ovitz track are very convincing.

When I was in middle management recently, I had part of an assistant's time. They were very helpful in filing time-consuming expense reports, organizing offsites, and unblocking difficult calendar changes. I still preferred to book my own travel and whatnot, and I never used them as a confidant or filer. So, a useful role, but not exactly a great career or a game changer.

The post rings more true at the CEO level, where every moment of time you can save with an assistant and/or chief of staff is probably worth it.

Expand full comment

What I like about this guest post is that it shows the dignity in work, and the dignity of work, in the occupations that don't command fame or high status.

By the time I entered the workforce, there was no steno pool and what was a secretary was now the office manager. Instead of reporting to an executive or high-level manager, the office manager had to report to the entire floor. The pay stayed the same, and the manager title didn't come with any budgetary or hire/fire powers. The secretary was now a den mother, tasked with helping a hundred or more people with thousands of little tasklets.

This takes tremendous energy and physical and mental stamina to keep an office running. These roles ought to be dignified, and compensated accordingly.

Expand full comment

This position, call it secretary if you want, is a great idea, but it will never happen. Contemporary organizations just don’t think that way. That’s why you can’t get a human being when you phone your bank, cable company, nor primary care doctor. Somehow they think that three options accessed by pressing buttons is all it takes to meet your needs. The million and a half CEO got to be a CEO by axing employees not hiring more. That’s our culture. This posting is a warm just so story; it will never be true.

Expand full comment

I find this discussion amusingly retro. An assumption is being made that executive tasks will remain hierarchical in the new world of AI. Actually, I predict that the role of overseer may be in more in jeopardy than at of his/her assistant.

The job of the executive is to do what AI does much more effectively which is to sift through data and information and to determine the most optimal action to be 'executed.' We are already seeing CEO's in hoodies and jeans running mega corporations. The need for old style aristocratic protocol is gone and what an executive does now is very pragmatic - easily co-opted by a cheaper and more efficient AI program. We used to challenge computers to chess matches, now we challenge them to directing major corporations or governments.

It is quaint to believe that the old aristocratic hierarchy would survive such a tsunami of technological change. Perhaps this will usher in a new Renaissance with humans finding more humane things to do than sift data staring at computer screens? The possibilities here are enormous and wildly destructive to the status quo. We need to think much more broadly as to the role of humans in the world we're creating.

Expand full comment

My executive assistant was indispensable, and that was many many years ago. I can’t imagine how upper management works today.

Never was a fan of Gloria Steinem.

Expand full comment

Niche luxury labor for "an executive earning $1.5 million per year" isn't the future of work.

Expand full comment

Machine learning is here. It's going to make some jobs obsolete. It's going to create other jobs. It's going to be disruptive. And it's likely going to materially improve the vast majority of people's lives. It's great to see a piece that accepts that reality and addresses how to change with it instead of lamenting it.

The industrial revolution greatly reduced the role of physical strength in most occupations, thus allowing physically weaker people (men and women) to compete. Success became somewhat decoupled from brawn.

Who will the machine learning revolution benefit? If history is a guide, it may allow the intellectually weaker to compete (again). And we ought to welcome that! Machine learning may provide an alternative to the world Vonnegut hypothesized in his great book Player Piano. Maybe success can become somewhat decoupled from brain too.

Expand full comment
Jan 17, 2023·edited Jan 17, 2023

Have we already forgotten that _more than four years ago_, Google was showing off a "voice assistant" tool that does a pretty good job at making appointments for you? What do you want to bet it's only gotten better? They're just keeping it under wraps because they need to figure out how to roll it out again without having people freak out.

https://youtu.be/ogfYd705cRs?t=2100

Expand full comment

Seems to me once you‘ve trained these incredibly efficient and seemingly perfect secretaries the best thing to do is hire several of them and get rid of the 1.5 million dollar executive, who doesn’t seem to be very competent or adding any real value, except in his own mind. Go a long way to address inequality.

Expand full comment

When I worked at Philip Morris, Murray Bring, the General Counsel (a/k/a the Godfather), had two secretaries and he kept them both busy.

Expand full comment