Secrets of the Administrative Assistant

By: Gary J. Salton, Ph.D.
Chief: Research and Development
Professional Communications, Inc.

SUMMARY

Click here to Link to YouTube

This research is based on a 194-person sample from 100 different organizations.  The research demonstrates the centrality of the Administrative Assistant's role by contrasting it with over 5,000 people in other professional and managerial roles. Behavioral stances that are not readily visible (i.e., secrets) are shown to be derivative by-products of the processes required by the basic Administrative Assistant function.
A companion video both abbreviates and expands this research.  It can be viewed on www.iopt or by clicking the icon on the right to directly access the YouTube video.


THE JOB
The importance of Administrative Assistant is reflected in its prevalence. The US Government identifies this category as “among those with the largest number of job openings” (1).  The duties generating this level of demand are varied. They typically include activities such as:

     1. Controlling and directing access (e.g., telephone, visitor, etc.)
     2. Ensuring that material is available when needed (i.e., inventory control)
     3. Sourcing suppliers and processing invoices for payment (vendor relations)
     4. Preparing/directing internal communications
     5. Scheduling and coordination (e.g., meetings, events, etc.)
     6. Preparing material for distribution (e.g., letters, memos, reports, packages, etc.)
     7. Compiling data and performing preliminary analysis
     8. Maintaining records for later use in analysis and/or validation (e.g., audit)

The list is not exhaustive but it is indicative. It describes both a “gatekeeper” and a conduit function.  In both roles interest centers on the control of inputs (broadly defined) to the organization.
 
THE SAMPLE
The data from 194 Administrative Assistants were drawn from 100 unique organizations. Table 1 shows the geographic distribution of the sample.

Table 1
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANTS 

The sample size is reasonably representative of Administrative Assistants within the United States. Possible cultural differences suggest that caution be used in applying the results outside of that context.

The sample titles had a variety of names attached to Administrative Assistant role (e.g., executive assistant, secretary, etc).  These were tested statistically. It was found that all shared the same basic approach.  This suggested a reasonable commonality in job content.

The sample also included Administrative Assistants from educational institutions, non-profits and for-profit firms.  The study statistically tested whether the function differed by the sector in which it was practiced.  No statistically significant difference was found. In other words the role appears to be the same regardless of where it is practiced (see Statistical Appendix 2 for detail).

The sample size, wide range of organizations sampled and the consistency across titles and employment sectors strongly suggest that the 194-person sample is reasonably representative of the Administrative Assistant function as a whole.

DISTRIBUTION OF "I OPT" STYLE STRENGTH
The “I Opt” profile describes the information processing strategy being used.  The profile for Administrative Assistants is displayed in Graphic 1. It shows a heavy reliance on the disciplined LP and analytical HA strategic styles.

Graphic 1
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT AVERAGE
STYLE STRENGTH DISTRIBUTION

Averages are part of the story.  The style strength distribution that makes up that average is another.  Graphic 2 (below) shows that the profile is not the result of a few outliers pulling the average up.  Rather, the high commitment to both the action (LP) and thought-based (HA) styles is widespread. Both of these strategies focus on an exacting, precise work product. 

Graphic 2
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT DISTRIBUTION
OF STRUCTURED STYLES

Graphic 3 (below) tells the same story. Unpatterned (i.e., spontaneous) input strategies are concentrated at the lower end of commitment. Little value is being placed on the RS’s impulsive, “let’s give it a try” approach or the RI’s speculative ideas and options. 

Graphic 3
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT DISTRIBUTION
OF UNPATTERNED STYLES

The overall “I Opt” profile makes some sense. Admins serve a mix of people with different needs and preferences. Dependable and exacting performance is likely to be reasonably acceptable to everyone.  The same cannot be said about the somewhat impulsive RS or the sometimes-fanciful ideas of the RI. High levels of LP and HA style appear to be a job requirement.

Table 2 (see #2 in footnotes for detail on roles) shows that the job is unique. It shows the strength of commitment to each “I Opt” style of various roles in rank order.  The Admin is at the top in their commitment to the disciplined LP and HA styles.  They are at the bottom in their use of the spontaneous RS and RI styles. This kind of consistent positioning is no accident.

Table 2
ROLE RELIANCE ON DIFFERENT
STRATEGIC STYLES

 

The same phenomenon can be seen in another job that occupies an extreme position, the CEO. Where the Administrative Assistant is highly committed to a style, the CEO is low and vice-versa. The reason that these jobs lie at the extremes of the range follows from their nature.

The CEO sets a course into an unknown future. There are no “facts” for things that have not yet occurred.  Established processes that depend on “facts” lose their applicability.  Similarly entrenched structures that rely on existing patterns or systems are inherently vulnerable over long horizons (e.g., smartphones, biotech, nano technology, etc.). The average CEO has no choice but to emphasize the unpatterned strategies of RI and RS which do not depend on facts or established systems to operate effectively.

The Admin is in the same position, just in reverse. They must comply with established practices of external agencies to provide needed inputs (e.g., supplies, maintenance schedules, etc.). In addition, others can set the Admin’s activities and priorities.  With the task being prescribed by others the use of the personally spontaneous RS and RI strategies automatically limited.

People in the middle of the organization are able to use a wider mix of strategies than either the CEO or Admin.  This creates the “I Opt” profile gap shown in Table 2. The greater the percent difference (up or down), the more likely it is that the people will be “seeing” issues in different terms. A different perspective can easily lead to different views on what should be done .

People tend to see issues in light of their own responsibilities. They are likely to judge others based on the criteria appropriate to their favored strategy. The RS is likely to emphasize speed, the RI creativity, the HA understanding and the LP precision.  Everybody, including the Admin, tends to believe that they know the “right” way of doing things.  And the natural tendency is to help others to “see the light.”   Tensions can easily follow if that effort is unsuccessful (see Appendix 1 for an outlier case where style similarity rather than difference can breed tensions).

All of the different style preferences are needed in one place or another. This means that tensions are embedded in the nature of organizations. Understanding their source reduces their “sting” since it tends to discount any malicious motive on the part of a transgressor.

Methods for handling organizational tensions are beyond the scope of this article.  However, an obvious strategy is to avoid situations where vulnerabilities are likely to be highlighted and pursue situations where strengths are likely to be displayed.  Another obvious strategy is to diffuse tensions using the “language” of the other person. For example, the LP can adopt emotional displays (e.g., emphasis in voice, arm movement, intense posture, etc.) when trying to “get through” to an instant action RS. Conversely, the RS may want to adopt a calm, measured and undemonstrative stance when trying to “reason” with the methodical LP. The same logic applies to all other styles.

The take-home from this research is that nobody is dumb.  Nobody is broken. There are just things that need to be managed. For the Administrative Assistant this might begin with identifying the “secrets” that flow from their strategic choices.

THE SECRETS
Like all strategies, the Admin’s LP and HA preferences produce by-products.  These are simply the natural consequences of the practices being used to get the job done. Because these are secondary or derivative behaviors they are often unrecognized until they become visible as a result of a transgression or particular circumstance.  This obscurity qualifies them to be framed as “secrets.” 
 
In dealing with the average Administrative Assistant other members of the organization may want to keep in mind some of these secrets (see #3 in footnotes for reference to a more complete enumeration).

1. The average Admin can generate and accept change but it has to be on their terms. There must be time to consider and work it in, it must be specified thoroughly and preferably should be incremental in character.  In other words, the changes must “fit in” with the other things being done. This is a direct offshoot of the Admin's prized precision and dependability qualities.
    
2. An Admin can be overwhelmed. Their strength is that they can handle massive amounts of detail. Their vulnerability is that this capacity has limits.  When that capacity is hit, an LP can “freeze up.” This can cause considerable stress as well as compromising performance. Resist “piling things on” because the Admin looks like they can handle even more.  Sometimes they can’t.
    
3. The average Admin uses a rule-based strategy. This is what permits high volume while retaining precision and dependability. Rules easily translate into firm judgments. They apply this posture to people as well as processes. This can lead the Admin to draw conclusions that are hard to change.  Everyone would do well to make every effort to “get off on the right foot” with the Admin. For their part, the Admin should make every effort to reserve verdicts until they are sure that they’ve got it right.
   
   
4. Admins tend to hate conflict. Conflict introduces emotion that compromises their logical approach. But like any other human, they feel anger, experience resentment and can seethe with rage.  However, they will go to almost any length to avoid confronting this kind of issue directly.  Until it reaches a breaking point.  Then all “heck” breaks loose. The adage that “what you see is what you get” DOES NOT apply to the average Admin. Pay attention to behavioral nuances. They are probably more important than they first appear.
    
5. An Admins' methodical approach works best in unbroken streams. Interruptions are VERY COSTLY to them. Placing them in situations that demand disjointed actions can be dysfunctional for both the individual and the mission. Avoiding disruptions and recognizing the cost when they cannot be avoided will go a long way towards keeping things running smoothly.
    
6. Admins know the future is created by new ideas. But their logical and measured step-by-step approach focuses them on facts and cold logic. Expansive visions that inspire and excite other styles are distractions.  Keeping things factual, logical and unemotional is the way to enlist them in your cause.
    
7. Admins tend to be “glass half-empty” people. They focus on things that can go wrong. This argues against deploying them in the early stages of idea generation where only broad parameters are available. They are likely to close far more doors than they open. This same quality makes them ideal vehicles for refining the quality of ideas as they move from speculation to implementation. The essence of organization is using the right people, in the right situation at the right time.  This mandate applies to Administrative Assistants as well as to everyone else in the organization.

This is not a list of “faults.”  It is a list of corollaries of behaviors and postures. For the Administrative Assistant, it is what allows them to be effective in their role. The trick in managing anyone is to recognize both their strengths and vulnerabilities. Then work to maximize the strengths and minimize vulnerabilities. Trying to “change” anyone is expensive and probably destined to fail (see #4 in the footnotes). The Administrative Assistant position is not an exception.


SUMMARY
The average Administrative Assistant is ideally equipped to provide a stable and reliable foundation for an organization. Within this scope their posture should be praised and supported. Everyone in the organization relies on and benefits from their contribution. They deserve respect and support in performing their function.

On the other side, Administrative Assistants should recognize that other people must use other strategies to do their part for the organization. They also deserve respect and should be given as much latitude as possible to get the job done in their way.

Finally, a caution is in order.  This analysis focused on the average Administrative Assistant. No individual is average.  When applying this knowledge in actual situations there is no substitute for knowing the actual “I Opt” style scores of the people involved.



BIBLIOGRAPHY/FOOTNOTES

(1) Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2010-11 Edition, Bureau of Labor Statistics, United States Department of Labor, http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos151.htm, referenced February 14, 2012

(2) The raw data upon which the analysis in this section is shown on the table below. It shows the percent commitment to each style by organizational role.

Table 3
PERCENT COMMITMENT OF  STRATEGIC STYLE BY ORGANIZATIONAL ROLE

(3) Nelson, Shannon, 2003. “Secrets of a Logical Processor (LP)".  Journal of Organizational Engineering. Vol 4, No. 4.  December, 2003. The full version can be found on-line at http://www.oeinstitute.org/articles/logical-processor.html.

(4) Salton, Gary, 2011. Predicting Strategic Style Change.  Organizational Engineering Evidence-Based Research Blog. March, 2011. http://garysalton.blogspot.com/2011/03/predicting-strategic-style-change.html. A YouTube video version which both expands and abbreviates the research can be found at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-w3nmh2Ts9M.

APPENDIX 1: THE OUTLIER CASE

According to the logic outlined in the text, similarity in style preference should result in a relatively harmonious atmosphere. Counter-intuitively, this is often not what happens among Administrative Assistants with a high LP commitment.

The LP style is characterized by attention to detail. Small divergences can matter.  When you are looking at the world though a microscope everything looks big.  In addition, LPs tend to be very knowledgeable within their area.  The combination of vivid differences and strong logical armament can easily lead to stalemate situations.

A possible resolution strategy is a stepped process. Each LP in the group is likely to have a different view of “perfect.”  The first step is to get explicit agreement that everyone is prepared to settle for a “good” but perhaps not perfect solution. This step relaxes standards and facilitates arriving at an agreement.

The next step is to find common ground.  This involves identifying points of agreement. Pile up as many as possible. Objections can be acknowledged but are set aside for the time being. The natural tendency of the LP is to see a glass as “half empty.” The idea here is to make attempt to refocus on the “half full” aspect of that same glass.

Once positive aspects have been identified attention can turn to a “connect the dots.” Focusing on a few of these “dots” (e.g., steps in project plan) at a time allows the LPs logical capacities to be fully engaged without being overwhelmed by the full complexity of the issue.  The more dots that are connected, the more “real” is the developing solution.

Finally, when working with a strong LP group you should provision a lot of time. It takes time to work though things in detail. The payoff is that whatever is done is likely to “work right out of the box.”

APPENDIX 2: STATISTICAL TESTS

The job titles under which the Administrative Assistant function falls can vary. “I Opt” database includes titles such as Executive Assistant (including “Assistant to”), Administrative Assistant (various levels) and Secretary. Any significant difference in the strategic styles used within these three categories could indicate a fundamental difference in job content. Table 4 (below) tests this proposition.

Table 4
JOB TITLE STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE TEST

(a percentage of 5% or less is required to qualify for academic significance)

None of the strategic style differences approach the academic standard of 5% or less. This means that the people in the 194-person sample are using basically the same methods in getting their jobs done.  This indicates that they can be treated as a single, reasonably uniform group.

Table 5  (below) shows the diversity of the sample across non-profits, educational institutions and for-profit firms. It is sufficiently diverse to be representative of the function in all arenas where it is applied.

 Table 5
EMPLOYMENT SECTOR DISTRIBUTION OF THE SAMPLE

Table 6 (below) compares the “I Opt” profiles of the sampled people working in these various employment sectors. If the content of the job varied by sector it would be visible in the “I Opt” strategic profiles. None of the percentages reach the 5% or less level of academic significance. This confirms that substantially the same function is being conducted in much the same manner in all of these social sectors.  

Table 6
STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE TEST: EMPLOYMENT SECTOR

(a percentage of 5% or less is required to qualify for academic significance)
t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances

 

Engineering Leadership

By: Gary J. Salton, Ph.D., Chief R&D and CEO
Professional Communications, Inc.

SUMMARY
This research blog shows that all levels of engineering share a consistency in their information processing (i.e., “I Opt” strategic style) approach. The research also discovered statistically significant style differences based on rank. The blog gives direction on how engineering development can leverage these differences into more effective leadership at an earlier point.


THE SAMPLE
The “I Opt” scores for 456 professional engineers were drawn from the “I Opt” database. These were divided into 3 categories. The Vice President category consisted of 44 people from 24 different firms. These people carried the title of EVP, Sr.VP, VP or Chief Engineer.

The Manager category consisted of 102 people taken from 41 different firms. They typically carried the title of Manager or Director. They were drawn from a variety of engineering areas. The subfields include mechanical, electrical, hydraulic, chemical, civil, process and a host of others.

The Professional category consisted of 310 people from 62 different firms. Titles vary widely. They include prefixes such as senior, research, design, project, process, industrial and many other kinds of engineering.

Table 1 summarizes the source data. The size, diversity and multiple firms involved suggests that sample is a reasonable estimate of the engineering as a whole. It probably can be trusted as representative of the field.

Table 1
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER SAMPLE

SHORT-TERM DECISION MAKING
People have information processing preferences. They choose different inputs, favor different outputs and have different strategies to get from input to output. No one is completely objective in choosing the processing method they use. They normally have a standard starting point and move forward from there. If we had to decide on how to decide every decision, nothing would get done. Adopting a conventional starting point is a necessary part of life.

“I Opt” refers to basic information processing approaches as strategic styles. These are the short-term decision strategies. People use a particular starting point because it works in the environment within which they live. The discipline of engineering has a consistency that creates something of a common environment. This should evidence itself in a common approach. And it does.

THE ENGINEERING PREFERENCE
Engineers work on things with a long gestation period. There is time to think. The things they work on can involve large capital investments. There is a lot of incentive for getting it right the first time. In addition, people actually use and not just think about the products of engineering. Do it wrong and health or safety can be affected. This creates moral as well as legal imperatives. Engineering is a world intolerant of error.

Engineers respond to these common conditions in a similar way. It does not matter if they are VPs or practicing professionals. Their most frequent starting point is the Hypothetical Analyzer or HA strategic style. The HA style is characterized by exhaustive research, complete evaluation and a through review of all options. This is the dominant starting point for engineers.

The engineering setting also creates approaches which are to be avoided. Engineers put least reliance on the spontaneous Reactive Stimulator strategic style. The RS option uses expedient means to quickly resolve issues. It is favored where speed matters and/or where the penalty for failure is low. Neither of these conditions are typical in engineering. We would expect this option to be least favored among engineers. And it is. It is at the bottom of the list for everyone from VP to engineering intern.

The distribution of the HA and RS strategic styles are shown in Table 1. Each style registers at a consistent level across all ranks. Statistical tests reveal that there is no significant different between VPs, managers or professional engineers for either the HA or RS style. This consistency can be seen as a product of the common environment that all engineers share.

Graphic 1
DISTRIBUTION OF ENGINEER’S RS and HA
STRATEGIC STYLE COMMITMENT

THE ENGINEERING DIFFERENCES
Rank does have environmental effects. The decision horizon extends farther into the future with higher rank. More time is spent on unusual issues. Executives “do” less and direct more. These changes should be reflected in the engineer’s profile as rank increases. And they do.

The differences can be found in the relative strengths of the two remaining strategic styles—the idea-oriented Relational Innovator (RI) and the disciplined action of the Logical Processor (LP) styles. Graphic 2 shows a statistically significant difference by rank. Yellow coloring highlights this difference.

Graphic 2
DISTRIBUTION OF ENGINEER’S RI and LP
STRATEGIC STYLE COMMITMENT

A loss in Logical Processor (LP) commitment is the most pronounced strategic style effect of moving up in the hierarchy. The LP style is detail sensitive, focused on certainty and concerned with perfect execution.

The LP style declines as engineers move to higher levels. Problems become ever more obscure as rank increases. For example, detail availability decreases with lengthening horizons. Ambiguity rises and this lessens the value of proven methods. Certainty of outcome becomes more questionable with the volatility inherent in a longer perspective. The LP strategy that is optimal in an operating echelon can become dysfunctional at the highest ranks.

The other change happens with the Relational Innovator (RI) style. Between professional and managerial levels there is no change at all. The same strategy that worked at the professional level will probably work at the managerial level. New skills or competencies may have to be learned. However, the basic way the world is perceived and interpreted remains the same.

Moving from manager to VP is another story. The focus changes from what is or can be to what might be. Possibility becomes more important than probability. Variables unconnected to the current situation take center stage. New and unexpected solutions emerge from the morass of factors churning in the VPs world.


QUELLING THE LP
Organizational development faces challenges in engineering. Engineers seeking advancement need support in reducing their reliance on the disciplined LP style. This sounds easy. It is not.

The first step is to explain “why” a change is needed. The LP strategy is skeptical. A logical, consistent and verifiable explanation is needed. “I Opt” technology is an ideal starting point. Showing the effects of shifting time horizons, increased ambiguity and competing values typical of larger scale projects are usually enough to get the initial buy-in. After hearing the explanation engineers will grant that there are changes that have to be accommodated.

A second step puts an emphasis on “how” to make the needed changes. Routine suggestions such as to “think broadly” or “take a chance” will not work. What is needed is a formula not a specific prescription. Engineering covers many areas and it is unlikely that a single global approach will be viable in all of them. However, there are options.

One option is to leverage the engineers strong analytical HA tendencies. For example, a procedure can be setup where the first step is always a challenge. Does the use of detailed, exacting and highly certain methods make sense for this issue? If left on automatic, you may find that strong LPs will be spending more in time and money than the thing they are trying to perfect than it is worth. This initial challenge sets the stage to offset this tendency.

The second step is to have the engineers themselves design another alternative. This will typically involve breaking an issue into its components. For example, is speed important? If so, the little used expedient RS strategy might work. Or, how valuable is precision? If it makes little difference the exacting LP methods might be relaxed.

This is a natural strategy for engineers. This is what they do. All you are doing is redirecting it to the choice of a strategy rather than the actual resolution of an issue. As a bonus, the result will be a plan that is appropriate for the particular kind of engineering being done.


ENHANCING THE RI
The Relational Innovator (RI) style takes on value when moving from the manager to corporate officer. This means that development efforts can be confined to the relatively few engineers who are candidates for the highest level offices. Fewer people mean that more individual attention is possible.

The process of enhancing RI capability first involves explaining exactly what is needed and why it is desirable. Again, “I Opt” technology is ideal for this purpose. It can explain the why and how of the RI style in a logical, rational and totally transparent way.

For example, the ideas created by the RI are not just creative. They are totally unique. They have a breakthrough character. They cannot be derived from the analysis or study of the issue. That approach will create ideas but they will tend to be enhancements to existing technology.

The way the RI achieves a “breakthrough” level of creativity is by working with things totally unrelated to the issue in question. Anything will work. For example, Einstein speculated about the speed of light and in the process “saw” the connection between time and space. No space, no time.

No amount of study, analysis or assessment of then available thought could have led Einstein to his space-time fabric. It requires seeing the connection in unconnected things.

Teaching engineers to enhance their RI strategy involves a little counter-intuitive thinking. Logical connections are discarded, detail is ignored and the engineering tools hard won in years of education are abandoned. This is how you get “fresh eyes.”

Your engineers must return to the fundamentals of their education. They need to focus on how systems and theories themselves are created. The concept of causal relations—x causes y—is basic. Sequence in time continues to be vital—cause precedes result. Connectivity is important—change x and y changes every time. The principles that underlie any theory about anything are the tools of the RI.

The basic process is simple. Use ANYTHING that comes to mind (i.e., the variables). Last night’s dinner, the color of the sky today, the sound of tires as you drove to work—anything. With no natural common denominator, your engineers will be forced to look for one. The “common denominators” that are discovered are the ground from which breakthrough ideas will spring.

The search for denominators is best done using pictures rather than symbols. The reason is that pictures contain as much information as you want to see. Focus on any part of a picture that you can hold in your mind and a thousand aspects (i.e., variables) will appear. In effect, pictures allow you to quickly run a dragnet over a host of possibilities.

One outcome of the “dragnet” may be more pictures. Thinking of the sound of tires might give rise to images of rhythmic waves on oceans. The wave images can cause your engineers to think of aerodynamic turbulence. The pothole that interrupted the sound of the tires might generate an idea on how to modify an equation that will resolve an issue at hand.

This kind of thinking can be a challenge for engineers. Their world is one of exact connections and precise symbols (mathematical or symbolic). It can take a while for engineers to appreciate the value of the unpredictable RI “dragnet” strategy.


RESEARCH SUMMARY
This research has shown that developing engineers for management is a two stage process. The first stage involves controlling LP tendencies. This development stage applies to all levels.

The second stage applies to engineers ready to move from managerial to corporate officer levels. It involves enhancing the engineer’s RI capacities. This is challenging. But everyone has some RI capacity in their behavioral inventory to begin with. It is always a matter of building on what exists. It never involves creating the capacity from scratch.

Identifying the strategic style changes needed as engineers rise in the corporate hierarchy has satisfied the purpose of this research blog. It is beyond the scope of the blog to fully outline how to adjust the LP and RI capacities. However, it is hoped that enough insight was given to launch development efforts in the right direction.