Why Secretaries Are Paid Differently

Secretaries are paid quite differently from all other professions.  While most jobs are compensated according to their duties, secretaries are usually paid according to the title of their boss. It is confusing and can appear unfair; but it is reality.

Leaving aside the contentious issue of the distinctions between secretaries and administrative assistants (ranging from none to dramatic), both occupational categories share some extremely unique characteristics: 

• pay is attributed to "competitive practices";
• duties and responsibilities vary tremendously;
• the work is based on the wishes of the boss;
• priorities can change on a moment's notice;
• the worker has very little control over the work assignments;
• the job is not independent but is linked to the role and status of the boss.

The last point is cricial.  This is a tandem relationship.  The secretary has a unique function, performing whatever tasks the supervisor needs, frequently before he or she even thinks of it.  The secretary is a force-multiplier who leverages the effectiveness of the boss by handling details, following through, confirming that the proper directives are issued, actions are completed or further steps are scheduled.  Consistent with the origin of the word, the secretary is the keeper of secrets, the scheduler who keeps the boss on track and usually the gatekeeper for access to the manager.  Boss and secretary are typically a smoothly-meshing team.  The longer they have worked together, the more effectively they operate. 

The secretary does not "own" her work.  Yes, the gender-specific adjective is still relevant, almost fifty years after the passage of the Equal Rights Act and the Equal Pay Act, because the vast majority (99%) of all secretaries are still female. As many as 25% of Administrative Assistants are male, which tends to inflate pay, even though they may perform substantially the same duties as a secretary. 

Other jobs can tell their boss to "hold on, wait until I finish my assigned duties," but the primary duty of the secretary is to do whatever the boss needs.  Quite literally, every day the boss's wish is the secretary's command.  Similary, an administative assistant may be tasked to assist someone rather than to exercise direct personal authority over an activity area; but they frequently have some independent responsibilities unrelated to the kinds of personal service roles filled by secretaries.

Tradition says that the competitive market value of secretaries is defined by the title of the boss.  The secretary to the CEO may be called a Senior Executive Secretary while the secretary to the first level supervisor may be called Administative Secretary, but the real key is the rank of the boss.  The hierarchical status of the executive tends to determine the secretary's pay classification.  Most secretarial salary surveys ask for the level of the supervisor to assure that the Chairman's secretary is paid more than the supervisor's secretary.  In a very real sense, a secretary is treated like a perquisite, with her salary reflecting the importance of the person to whom she reports rather than the value of her work. 

Regardless of the skills, efforts, responsibilities or working conditions of the jobs, the secretary to a top executive will almost always earn more than the secretary to a low-level supervisor.  This is the product of the same culture that produced "rug-ranking," by which the quality of your office rug, office size, location and often the number and quality of chairs and windows were based on your relative rank in the enterprise.  When secretaries are seen and used like status symbols, it is no surprise that the pay of the secretary will be based on the status of the boss.  

There is some logic for basing the value of the secretary on the boss's job value, but each executive tends to delegate different responsibilities and duties to their secretaries.  Furthermore, the differences between the market value of the lowest supervisor with a secretary and the market value of the Chairman of the Board are disproportionately wider than the market values of their respective secretaries. 

If that were not bad enough, the relative degrees of difficulty between various secretarial levels may confuse comparisons even more.  Secretaries are paid for different things.  Shorthand (to the extent it still exists) transcription and keyboarding skills would seem to be more challenging than politely escorting visiting executives into the inner sanctum and efficiently screening incoming calls; but executive secretaries are paid more for business acumen than for manual dexterity.  Knowing when to interrupt the CEO for an important call and assuring that the confidential report reaches the right place swiftly can be far more important to the bottom line than anything within the powers of an entry-level secretary. 

Nevertheless, paying secretaries according to the rank of the person they serve ignores the usual variables of skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions.  It makes compensation simply a matter of reflected status rather than earned merit.   

There is only one other job with even a similar emphasis on paired cooperative teamwork.  Do you know what it is?

E. James (Jim) Brennan is Senior Associate of ERI Economic Research Institute, the premier publisher of interactive pay and living-cost surveys. Semi-retired after over 40 years in HR corporate and consulting roles throughout the U.S. and Canada, he’s pretty much been there done that (articles, books, speeches, seminars, radio/TV, advisory posts, in-trial expert witness stuff, etc.) and will express his opinion on almost anything.

Image courtesy of zazzle.com

Comments

[Paul]

Is the other paired cooperative teamwork job "spouse?"

Also, I think you mean "disproportionately," and not the "disproportunately" that's in the text. :)

[Dan Walter]

Love this line.

"The secretary is a force-multiplier who leverages the effectiveness of the boss"

This is really why they are paid differently. It is a unique type of meritocracy, where tenure and explicit skill set fall behind the ability to make someone else better.

[E. James (Jim) Brennan]

Paul: Being a good spouse does indeed require teamwork but I consider that role a privileged life status rather than a "job." You are right about my fumble-fingered misspelling which I will trust Ann to correct.

Dan: Yes, the job requires an enabler or catalyst. Unfortunately, our language does not have a good word to clearly capture that relationship, which says a lot about our work culture.

[Laura Schroeder]

Hmmn... just one? Waiters and waitresses earn more in expensive restaurants, although part of that is tips. But I bet Brad and Angelina's nannies earn more than my colleague's nanny. No, that's not it because it isn't really 'cooperative'. What about personal stylists? Oh, I give up!

[E. James (Jim) Brennan]

Assistant Machine-Gunner or loader (in other applications) is roughly comparable. They serve to maximize the boss's ability to fulfill the mission. The assistant similarly eases the work and handles the details so the "boss" an concentrate on the target. Bet some executives wished they had that equipment to deal with their opposition, too.

Thought someone might suggest Missile Control Officer, but that is a tandem job of two equals without the supervisor-subordinate relationship implicit for secretaries and assistants.

[Laura Schroeder]

Well, I was close ;-)