Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm also happy to sit here and read a book, but honestly, for the purposes of clients in the office, it looks pretty bad when your assistant is sitting at her desk reading a novel.

ugh, this and worse - the newspaper!

I dunno. I think the newspaper would probably be BETTER than the beach trash I'm reading right now

Anonymous wrote:I'm also happy to sit here and read a book, but honestly, for the purposes of clients in the office, it looks pretty bad when your assistant is sitting at her desk reading a novel.

ugh, this and worse - the newspaper!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will say that I am automatically skeptical of employers who flat out say "thou shalt not surf the Internet while at work". I agree that you shouldn't be shopping online all day, but there are times when there really just isn't anything to do. I've already filed everything. I've already done all the billing and all the time entry and all the expense reports. Your calendars and contacts are all up to date. I've wiped my desk down and refilled the printer paper and stocked up on pens and paperclips. It's 2pm and you're in a meeting for the next hour and a half. What, exactly, would you want your assistant to be doing in that scenario? I ask because I am literally in that scenario right now, at 10am on the day after the 4th of July.

Exactly! I also find so many things online that are useful to my job that my colleagues will never see (because they aren't internet savvy, don't social network, and generally don't think the internet is useful). There's also more to "being on the internet" than shopping and doing personal tweets. There's researching, reading news related to your job (or even just news, which makes you a smarter employee), etc. In 2013, telling someone "no internet" is completely ridiculous because it hurts the employer.

I'm the poster you're quoting, and I agree. I think it's important that an assistant understand how to prioritize work. If, for example, there was a training happening for a skill that I needed to improve right now, I would be doing that instead of screwing around on DCUM. If my boss showed up and gave me work to do, I would be doing that work. I don't procrastinate and don't pretend to be busy in order to avoid work. I know people who do this, but I am not one of them. My boss knows this, so he's perfectly happy to let me manage my own time on the assumption that I will be responsive when there is something to respond to.

I'm also happy to sit here and read a book, but honestly, for the purposes of clients in the office, it looks pretty bad when your assistant is sitting at her desk reading a novel.

Anonymous wrote:I will say that I am automatically skeptical of employers who flat out say "thou shalt not surf the Internet while at work". I agree that you shouldn't be shopping online all day, but there are times when there really just isn't anything to do. I've already filed everything. I've already done all the billing and all the time entry and all the expense reports. Your calendars and contacts are all up to date. I've wiped my desk down and refilled the printer paper and stocked up on pens and paperclips. It's 2pm and you're in a meeting for the next hour and a half. What, exactly, would you want your assistant to be doing in that scenario? I ask because I am literally in that scenario right now, at 10am on the day after the 4th of July.

Exactly! I also find so many things online that are useful to my job that my colleagues will never see (because they aren't internet savvy, don't social network, and generally don't think the internet is useful). There's also more to "being on the internet" than shopping and doing personal tweets. There's researching, reading news related to your job (or even just news, which makes you a smarter employee), etc. In 2013, telling someone "no internet" is completely ridiculous because it hurts the employer.

I think the problem, OP, is that the job descriptions for "assistant" vary so widely these days, and ultimately, it also very much depends on who you work for. I have worked in BigLaw, MediumLaw and a non-profit in DC. My BigLaw boss was wonderful and I was highly motivated to go out of my way to make his life easier, in addition to executing the things that were part of my job description. He assigned a lot of personal tasks, which was sometimes annoying and sometimes fun. My non-profit boss was a horrible nightmare who was terrible at communicating her expectations and delegating even simple tasks. My impression was that the organization had not really figured out what they wanted the person in that position to actually be doing - she would have me place calls for her but was not okay with me answering her phone, she wanted me to schedule meetings for her but wouldn't share her calendar, she wanted me to book travel for her but didn't want to share her personal details. My MediumLaw bosses have vastly different expectations of me, which are based on their individual practices and tailored to my specific skills. They are respectful and professional.

I will say that I am automatically skeptical of employers who flat out say "thou shalt not surf the Internet while at work". I agree that you shouldn't be shopping online all day, but there are times when there really just isn't anything to do. I've already filed everything. I've already done all the billing and all the time entry and all the expense reports. Your calendars and contacts are all up to date. I've wiped my desk down and refilled the printer paper and stocked up on pens and paperclips. It's 2pm and you're in a meeting for the next hour and a half. What, exactly, would you want your assistant to be doing in that scenario? I ask because I am literally in that scenario right now, at 10am on the day after the 4th of July.

First of all, I agree with the PP who said your job requirements go beyond "assistant." If you are actually expecting her to write blog posts and manage social media, that's a communications role. You can certainly find someone who can do all of these things, but you're going to have to pay for it. And probably give them a better title than "assistant."

Second of all, you have to understand the economics. Even assuming we're only talking about true admin work (organizing meetings, calls, filing, letters, etc) it takes a lot of personal character to do a good job: diligence, conscientiousness, intelligence, good communications skills, detail-oriented, good presentation and social skills to deal with coworkers and the public (since an admin can be the public face of the boss). Anyone with all of these skills is a true find -- and as such, has a LOT of value in the market place. In most organizations, I believe a good assistant is probably more crucial and has more market value than the professional staff, who may have more training and knowledge, but are ultimately more fungible.

Thus, how do you find and RETAIN an employee who is essential and has a lot of market value? You have a few choices:

1) Pay really really well, and give great benefits and working conditions.

OR

2) Exploit a market imperfection that reduces the excellent assistant's ability to find other positions. In the past, this was easy: you could hire women, who because of sexism could not find jobs elsewhere. Think about it -- you had a whole 50% of the population to draw on, who were blocked from finding any other kind of job. There would be some excellent candidates in that 50% and once you hired them you could essentially old them hostage, because where else are they going to go? Today, the equivalent is probably hiring a really sharp and motivate minority who has not gone to college (couldn't afford it, or maybe for cultural reasons). Or perhaps an illegal immigrant. You can also try hiring a recent college grad who doesn't have that much earning potential elsewhere - but as others have noted, this can have a lot of pitfalls because they don't see themselves as limited in the marketplace and will resent admin work. And they'll leave to go to law school in two years anyway.

How much are you paying? Like real estate, the answer is usually because of the price.