I was at a presentation on leadership recently, where the presenter, speaking frankly about where leaders need to spend their energy, categorized the work environment into three groups of workers: (1) those whose work can be outsourced (those workers whose tasks do not directly affect the company's mission-groundskeepers, for example); (2) those who do "background" work (those workers who affect the office environment but do not further the mission or have creative roles-receptionists and program assistants, for example); and (3) those who are the creative and productive force furthering the mission and goals of the company. His fundamental point was that leaders must limit energy spent on categories 1 and 2 and focus on category 3 to be most effective.

I do not wish to argue with this speaker: it may be true that giving time and energy to the most creative, mission-oriented workers will result in a more successful organization. Also, most people in categories 1 and 2 do not need, or want, a lot of top-down attention from management to get their jobs done. However, there is much one can learn from the people in category 2: the receptionists, program assistants, and others who make the workplace run smoothly. These individuals are the "electricity" of any organization. Like electricity, we depend on them heavily but do not actually pay a lot of attention to them, and like electricity, if they were not there, everything would screech to a halt. Many have years of experience doing the kinds of things their bosses take for granted: making sure travel is booked accurately, documents are printed and copied in time for meetings, notes are taken and disseminated, events are perfectly coordinated, and visitors or callers are seamlessly connected with the right people in the organization.

My goal in this Management Moment column is to deliver to you, the managers and leaders of public health organizations, advice from your assistants about what works to create a positive work atmosphere, what helps staff get their work done most effectively, and what makes for a good leader from a staff member's point of view. My "research" for this article consisted of asking six colleagues and friends who work as program assistants, administrative assistants, and secretaries to reflect upon the managers for whom they have worked. They offer advice "from the trenches."

Daily Interactions

The most commonly stated advice for improving daily interactions with staff is that "Bosses should get to know their assistants as people." Staff were quick to say that this does not mean bosses and their assistants should spend their free time together, or have lunch together each day, but that the conversation at work should include some things besides work tasks. I found some variation based on geography on this issue: secretaries and bosses in the northern United States are less interested in "small talk" than those in the south. People in the north (according to my very unscientific study) have a greater desire for "personal space" than southerners. However, both groups agreed that it is best when bosses see the assistant as more than just an instrument through which they can get their work done. On the other hand, "actions speak louder than words." The boss can express great sympathy for you when your loved one is sick, but if he does not think to allow you a few days off (guilt-free) to take care of that loved one, his sympathy comes across as insincere.

Ways to build good daily interactions include saying "please" and "thank you," being open to your assistant sometimes coming into your office without a planned meeting, and communicating clearly. This last issue elicited differing responses. Some assistants were frustrated when their bosses overused e-mail. We live in a time when e-mail is a popular form of communication. E-mail is a valuable tool for communicating; however, according to some, it is not always the best form of communication between a boss and his or her assistant. Some assistants do not want the boss to neglect the personal interaction, the immediacy and clarity that can only be had with a face-to-face conversation. Others, however, disagree. Some assistants say a face-to-face conversation is not always ideal or possible; sometimes having something in writing is good for all involved. One assistant commented, "I can always go to my inbox and know exactly when the deadline was." Another noted that she had heard complaints about her sending out e-mails "from the boss" to everyone else on staff. "I've had people complain to me that he doesn't communicate directly with them," said one respondent. "What am I supposed to do about it?" Probably, the best advice I have for bosses is to think about your needs and ask your assistant for his or her preferences when it comes to communication. Also, think about communicating directly with staff, rather than through your assistant, especially for important communications.

The most serious issue that came up when discussing daily interaction is bosses putting their assistant in an awkward position. This last issue is very important. Several years ago, Shelley, then a young college student, had a temporary job as an office assistant at a wire cable production facility that had a boss and (as far as Shelley could tell) no other employees except a man somewhere in the facility making wire cables. Shelley's job was to organize a dusty, dirty office that had never been organized before and tell everyone who called that the boss had "just stepped out of the office." He was indeed "out of the office"-he was traveling around the country fighting wrongful injury and death claims against his wire cables!! Everyone who called had a claim against him, and all Shelley could say was "You just missed him!!" One day, one of these callers decided to come to the office himself to prove to himself that the boss was lying. He did not do anything rash, but Shelley quit the next day.

This is an extreme example, but many of the people I spoke with had examples of a boss who put them in a position that made them feel uncomfortable with clients or colleagues-doing something unethical during work time or just blocking off time with no explanation, leaving the secretary to answer frustrated people who wanted to see the boss. All the assistants agreed that part of their job was to "run interference" for the boss. They did not have a problem with that. But do not put them in a position of having to lie for you or continuously duck some responsibility that you have, leaving it on them to explain to others. This not only hurts your reputation at large but also hurts the respect of your staff.

Getting the Work Done

Of course, most of the advice I received from my sources had to do with getting the work done. People have pride in their jobs, and if allowed to do it well, most will rise to the challenge. Unfortunately, it seems that many assistants have bosses who cannot resist looking over their shoulder. The number one advice about "getting the work done" was "Do not micro-manage." One program assistant said, "Bosses should trust their assistant and have faith in his or her professional abilities." Another wrote,

Give your assistant ownership of the program or projects. I find I give 150% if I am trusted with ownership of the project. I know I will be held responsible if it does not go well or receive praise if it goes well. Knowing this keeps me on my toes at all times. However, just the opposite happens once my boss micro-manages me. As hard as I try, I cannot even think on my own once someone takes over the project.

If you take care and hire self-directed and hardworking individuals, there is no reason you cannot trust them to do the work you ask them to do. Many bosses truly believe, as one of my sources put it, "If I don't do it, it won't get done." Granted, it can take more time to let someone else do it because you have to allow for possible mistakes. But in the long run, micro-managing makes more work for yourself on this one task, and on all tasks, because you have undermined the assistant's self-confidence.

You will find the people who work for you ask more questions the more you micro-manage them. John, an office assistant, had a boss who could not even let him make photocopies without a short leash. His boss would check the first few of every batch, no matter how simple the task. Eventually, John stopped even reading the written directions on the stacks of documents to be copied, knowing the boss would be checking over his work. One time the boss did not check it and John wasted hundreds of copies that had to be redone. For the boss, it was a self-fulfilling prophecy: "Look, I didn't check it and see what happened!!" But John knew how to make photocopies and read directions. The boss had undermined John's self-confidence to such an extent that John had given up that accountability. Probably, John should not have done that, but it is natural and to be expected.

Beyond not micro-managing an assistant's responsibilities, make sure you keep track of your assistant's accomplishments. This is important for a couple of reasons. First, it allows you to give meaningful praise. A boss can say, "You're doing a great job!!" once in a while, and that is nice. But it is better to be more specific: "I really appreciated how you handled the event last week. The PowerPoint slides were just right, and you handled the last minute changes so expertly!!" Pass along praise that you get from others about work your assistant did. My friend Judith was a ghostwriter for several years. She wrote for a very important local politician who delivered Judith's speeches and signed her name to Judith's written work. She paid Judith well, but she never once either acknowledged Judith publicly or shared the praise (or honoraria) that she received for having given the speech or contributed the article. Judith does not hold it against her former boss, but it would have made her loyalty stronger to feel she was respected and recognized for the work she was doing. Many secretaries spend hours deciphering bad handwriting to transcribe written work, fixing errors, and making the boss look good. It is important to recognize good work with praise that is specific and meaningful. Sometimes you can give raises or promotions and sometimes you cannot, but you can always give praise where it is due.

The second reason to keep track of the good work your assistant is doing is that it will give you opportunities to challenge them in new ways. John, the photocopy man, was going to be photocopying day in and day out: that was his job. But many assistants could do much more than they do and should be given the opportunity to advance in their careers. Maybe this means you let them take over one of your tasks. Katie assisted the chair of a department in a school of medicine. The chair was responsible for the departmental quarterly newsletter, and he gave Katie the task of managing that process: gathering articles from and about staff, helping him draft his column "From the Chair," and learning desktop publishing so that it could be printed in-house. Katie truly rose to the occasion, and she was able to take on these new responsibilities while continuing the regular work that she did for the department. Another respondent urged,

Don't be afraid of losing or giving up "power" to the assistant by allowing him or her to do more. After all, when a manger treats the assistant well and teaches him or her well, in the end the boss's assistant will make the boss look good.

The final reason to notice your staff's accomplishments is so that you can encourage them to pursue professional development in appropriate ways. Sherry, the temporary worker mentioned above, went on to get a full-time job as a high-level assistant in an academic unit. Her boss sat her down on her first day of work and said, "Who has the job you want and what do you need to do to get that job?" Sherry was taken aback, but in effect, the boss was saying, "You deserve to reach your full potential. You should always be stretching your professional skills to reach your goals." The question the boss asked just put this mentoring relationship in very concrete terms: Sherry should be doing her job well but also thinking about educational and professional goals that would help her be fulfilled over the long haul. Sherry remained extremely loyal to her boss for many years because this boss recognized her strengths and allowed her to grow professionally. Every staff member should be offered professional development opportunities, whether it is the assistant to the assistant learning computer skills or the program planner taking the Myers-Briggs or the person who answers the phone getting an associate's degree one night class at a time. Sherry's being at an academic institution gave her an advantage, but there are opportunities for growth in multiple areas.

Being a Good Leader

Many bosses pride themselves on their leadership abilities. In general, however, like the attendees at the leadership presentation I wrote about, most are thinking of their leadership roles in grandiose terms. They are thinking about their organizational vision and mission and how they can lead the way among their peers and community partners, politicians, and other constituents. They rarely think about their leadership in terms of the staff who make the organization run.

But it is very important to be a good leader for all levels of employees and partners. Too many assistants end up demoralized by a lack of leadership. One simple (and often neglected) way to be a good leader for staff is to share the mission of the organization with them and help them see how they fit in it. Kerry is a middle-manager at a health department in the northeast. It happens that a number of expected behaviors had never been written down, and the top managers decided to produce a work manual to make sure everyone knew the rules about such mundane things as "How to answer the phone" and "What are acceptable clothing choices," etc. Kerry noticed that the staff were extremely upset about the new directives that had come from "on high." The leaders had thought, "This isn't that big a deal, we just have to get it down in writing," whereas the staff were feeling completely left out of the process of writing it and, with no clear idea of their role in the mission of the organization, they were obsessed with the little things that affected their day-to-day lives. If the leadership had said, "This is our mission. You're part of it in these specific ways. We all need to work together on this mission. Help us develop directives that fit into the picture," they would have diffused the bad feeling and instead made the staff their partners in improving the workplace.

Another way to be a good leader is to be vigilant and proactive about workplace issues that might potentially grow into big problems if left unaddressed. It is fascinating that many bosses who eagerly face a world of challenges every day cannot face interpersonal issues that arise in the workplace. Some of the assistants I talked with have more problems with fellow staff members than with their bosses-but if you scratch the surface of those problems, you come up with a boss who is not having the difficult conversations that need to be held. A related issue is bosses who neglect to discuss their own working relationship with their assistants. One respondent suggested, "Bosses should ask questions and listen/wait for an answer. Deal with the answer to the question head on, even if it is an uncomfortable issue. Be receptive to feedback and make changes if necessary or appropriate." Assistants know that the boss is the boss: that at the end of the day the boss makes the decision and the decision might be to not do anything about staff concerns!! But at least listening to the concerns gives your assistant the feeling that you respect him or her. Rather than diminishing your leadership stature, it enhances it because you appear secure enough to face issues that invariably arise in working relationships.

The essence of leadership, communication, and mutual respect was put into words by one of my respondents, talking about her boss who is a local public health director:

Ms. Thomas is very honest and direct. She will put forward what everyone else may be thinking, but not saying. I believe she is able to do this successfully because her style of communication and intentionality is about seeking to understand, not judging or blaming. Lastly, Ms. Thomas holds the bar really high, not just for others but for herself as well.

It may take more than a Management Moment to become the leader, the manager, and the colleague we strive to be-but perhaps, we might all learn a little something from the people who work closest with us.