Last week I met an assistant tasked with looking after 17 people!
She admitted to feeling more than a little burnt out. And her performance was under review!
Is it any wonder?
Overloading assistants with too many managers to support is usually intended as a cost-saving measure, but it often undermines the effectiveness of both the manager and the assistant, ultimately resulting in reduced productivity and higher turnover.
When assistants are tasked with supporting more managers than they can handle effectively, several negative outcomes arise.
Firstly, each manager receives less personalized attention. Key administrative tasks suffer in quality. Critical deadlines may be missed, and important details can slip through the cracks.
Assistants are human beings, not superhumans. When overloaded, they experience high stress levels and burnout. This not only affects their health and well-being but also impacts their ability to perform tasks efficiently and accurately.
Instead of being proactive and anticipating needs, overloaded assistants become reactive, constantly firefighting to manage workloads. This reactive mode reduces overall productivity and prevents assistants from adding strategic value to their roles.
And then, when assistants are perceived as not performing well due to unrealistic workloads, they are often let go. This creates a cycle of hiring and training new assistants, which is costly and time-consuming.
The logic behind assigning too many managers to a single assistant often stems from a desire to save on salaries and overheads. However, this approach is shortsighted.
When managers don’t receive the support they need, they have to spend more time on administrative tasks. This diverts their focus from strategic initiatives, leading to decreased organizational efficiency.
Overloaded assistants are more likely to make errors. These mistakes can lead to costly consequences, such as missed meetings, misfiled documents, and miscommunications, which can all negatively impact business operations.
Frequent turnover means more time and money spent on recruiting, hiring, and training new assistants. This is often more expensive than maintaining a well-supported assistant who can perform effectively.
To avoid the pitfalls of overloading assistants, organizations should aim for optimal assistant-to-manager ratios. Generally, a ratio of 1:1-2 at the C-suite level and 1:2-3 at the middle-management level is ideal. This ensures that assistants can provide high-quality support, stay proactive, and add strategic value to their roles.
Managers will then receive the support they need to focus on strategic tasks, leading to improved overall efficiency.
Assistants who are not overloaded perform their roles better, leading to higher job satisfaction and lower turnover rates.
When both managers and assistants are working efficiently, the organization as a whole benefits from improved performance and productivity.
