Are the legal secretaries men or women?

In the article, several people explain their preferences. While I have always had male bosses, I have observed female bosses at work, and advised some of them as a colleague.

Putting it in an overly-simplified nutshell: Men want the job to get done. "Here's your task, go do it." Meanwhile, women get all wrapped up in the emotional and interpersonal aspects of the job.

Good workers take pride in their work. They are happy to receive praise and, when deserved, objective criticism. They don't need, or want emotions intruding into the workplace, as this feels too personal.

Of course, there are exceptions all around...

To take one example I am familiar with: female boss, female worker who is not performing, despite verbal counseling going back nearly a year. In my (male) opinion, the worker needs to be called to a counseling session, given a *written* document stating what she is doing wrong, what she must do to fix it, and a deadline. No emotions, nothing personal, simply objective.

The female boss is too typically emotional/nurturing: "she has been sick", "she has family issues", etc. While any good boss will take personal problems into account, they should not take long-term priority over getting the job done. Doing so can poison the atmosphere of the entire department; in the end, it isn't going to solve the employee's personal problems either.

One thing that always strikes me funny is sexual harrassment in the workplace. I have had three women bosses, all of whom I had sex with at one point or another. In two of those cases they were married at the time, and in each case they were the agressor.

I don't **think** my boss would look here, but I'm commenting as anonymous, just in case.

The number one, but not only, reason I don't care for female bosses (I am female) is that my female boss has no power within our organization. NONE. What that means is that we get all the crap assignments, and she is too wimpy to stand up against the other department heads when they ask us to do things that should not be within our realm.

She also has this rosy, "everybody's happy" attitude, and she refuses to see the misery that resides in her department - and there is a lot of it. I don't care all that much, because I have only a while to go before retirement, but if I were younger, I'd be out of there in a heartbeat.

I also agree with a_random_guy's assessment about being too nurturing. I don't need a mother, especially one young enough to be my daughter, but even if I were younger, I don't need a mother, and certainly not at work.

In addition, just because you are good at your job, this does NOT mean you will be an effective manager of people who are in that job (this goes for men and women). It gets even worse if you rise to a position managing your previous coworkers. Men are often more effective at this because they can remove the "buddy" factor that hampers many women.

I forgot to mention: I've been the boss, and I've been the worker, and I VASTLY prefer to be the worker. If I were ever to go back to being the boss, though, I'd make sure it was over people I didn't already know.

To answer NicoleK's question, legal secretaries are overwhelmingly female. Good bosses are good bosses, regardless of gender. The trouble is that many if not most bosses aren't good. In my experience, male bosses tend to go bad in different ways than female bosses. Allow me to sketch out a few basic awkward boss/worker scenarios.

Male boss, male worker: men are generally easy to understand, and since both are men, the male worker can usually figure out why the boss is lowering the boom on him. He then tries to solve the problem if it's a job he cares about, or ignores it if he doesn't.

Male boss, female worker: for some reason, the bad male boss is usually (but not always!) more reluctant to deliberately tear the woman to shreds. Possibly the woman understand him better than his male underlings. He'll kill females with indifference and condescension rather than fury he unleashes on males.

Female boss, male worker: these seem to parallel man's relationship with a mother. Female bad bosses are more inclined to nag---Did you clean your files up? Did you remember to thank the vendor? ad nauseum---which some males can tune out and others can't. When they blow up, it's devastating, because men tend to be more unnerved by a screaming woman than a screaming man.

Female boss, female worker: these seem to parallel a woman's relationship with a mother-in-law. Female bad bosses's nagging tends to bring out passive aggressiveness on the part of their female workers. An unhealthy dynamic arises when both try to sabotage and irritate each other while still staying with in the letter of the rules. I sometimes wondered if the paucity of female law partners had something to do with how female secretaries despised female lawyers.

I can't comment on the legal profession, just my experience in IT. I have no preference.

My bosses have run the gamut from outstanding to a couple who were genuinely corrupt (both male.) I've had good (male and female), and a few we held going away parties for after they left - to which the departee was not invited (again, both genders.)

The bad ones never lasted long, for some reason. Maybe I've been lucky, but I have worked for ethical companies, and most of my bosses have been decent.

These results are consistent with every other study on the subject that I'm aware of. Neither men nor women prefer to work for female superiors. A large proportion of employees prefer not to work for a woman. The reasons stated typically concern inappropriate interpersonal behavior, emotionality / irrationality, micromanagement, poor direction and lack of leadership.

I know that in my organization, the female 'bosses' (i.e. execs) are notorious for generating amazing amounts of busy work. They're process oriented to a fault. I suspect that this is why female execs tend to gravitate towards process oriented roles, like HR and compliance. They're also prone to developing little harems made up exclusively of other women, and gay men. These fester until there's eventually some conflict that results the group breaking up, due to someone getting fired or disciplined in some way.

Hmmm, those results surprise me. I'm a legal secretary (female) and I would much rather work for male attorneys, with one rare exception and most of the secretaries I've worked with over the years say the same thing, male attorneys are easier to work for. Right now I support four attorneys, 3 male, 1 female, of that, 2 are partners (both male) and 2 associates (1m, 1f).

The female associate I work for is the rare exception. She and I work very well together, she communicates clearly, she doesn't have a chip on her shoulder, she doesn't micromanage, and she doesn't feel like she has to prove something to the "good old boy" network. She's the only female in the firm that I would even think of working for. She knows that I'm very good at my job and if she just tells me what she needs, she'll get that and a whole lot more. She always listens if I think I have a better way to get the same results and she gives me great feedback when something is lacking. The other female attorneys I have worked for want to piece meal the work to you and give crazy directions about how they want it done and it makes the work more difficult than it has to be.

So communication really is the key, but like some have said above, women tend to get too emotional about the job that needs to be done.

I have often found that when a survey/study/research is done comparing men and women, if women come out ahead, it's a charming story of acceptable conversation, a but of course moment to take pity on poor, poor men or otherwise say "You go girl!". If men come out ahead, then it is to be criticized harshly, question its validity, or otherwise dismissed as unworthy to exist.

Oops...meant to say those results DON'T surprise me.

>> So communication really is the key

That's the weird thing. Women tend to be good at communication outside of the workplace, but suck at it when at work. Why is that??

I've had good, fair and poor bosses of each sex over the years. Mostly I have no preference. However, I have noticed that the worst bosses are always the dedicated ladder-climbers. They are always willing to throw subordinates under the bus for their own self promotion. That being said, the absolute worst bosses that I've had are the female ladder climbers ... maybe because they have to work harder for the same advancement as their male colleagues?

A side note is that the worst working relationships I'm aware of are between female bosses and their female subordinates. Even the nicest of females seem to turn on each other when placed in a hierarchical structure. I can't explain it, but I've witnessed it on a consistent and long-term basis.

In fact two of my former and very loyal female subordinates have left our company this past year after being transferred to different female bosses. They both came to me and complained bitterly about how unfair, intolerant, and vicious their new female bosses were. These claims seemed unfounded to me. I didn't recall treating these female employees any better than their female bosses. Perhaps our culture is such that females are more tolerant and accepting of male power than of female power?

Anon-worker noted that "just because you are good at your job, this does NOT mean you will be an effective manager of people who are in that job (this goes for men and women)."

Some industries are better at recognizing this than others, and the legal industry seems to be one of the worst. Based on what I've heard from lawyers and also seen on legal- and management-related blogs, the average law firm is not very well-managed and the partners in management roles do not conceptualize themselves primarily as managers and do not seriously pursue development of their skills in this area.

"Women tend to be good at communication outside of the workplace, but suck at it when at work."

Don't confuse talking with good communication. Various studies show that women use 2 to 3 times more words in a day than males. Part of good communication is being concise and direct.

Generally, I prefer working for male bosses, although I have had a couple of good female bosses. Those female bosses appeared confident of their abilities and position.

I am a strong contributor and my worst female bosses behaved as if they were threatened by me, as if I wanted to steal their job (which I didn't -- I've been a manager and its not my forte). I've never had a male boss behave as if they're threatened by my ability, they take me at my word that I'm satisfied producing the work and just let me make them look good.

If I had pick someone to work for and knew nothing about the candidates but the gender, I'd pick a man. I've worked for dozens of people, and have to say that a male boss can be good, bad or in between. But as for women bosses, when it's good, it's wonderful, but when it's bad, it's horrible. For me, it's a loss aversion thing.

In thinking back on the last few bosses I've had, 5 men 1 woman. I'd say the woman was average, some good points some bad. Of the men I'd say 1 was great, 1 good, 1 ok, 1 not good one horrible. I did find out with the last one that I was assigned to him to try to break him of his bad boss habits.

Insomniac, you sound like a swell guy, having sex with married women and all. I have hated every female I have ever worked for, generally too wishy washy

I've had good bosses of both genders, and bad bosses of both genders, but the WORST bosses have been female. Maybe I brought out the worst in them; maybe it was something inherent; either way, they were certifiable.

Over the years, seems to me guys are goal oriented, femmes are process oriented, which leads to two different Q? One is: "Are you finished yet?" the other: "did you do that the way I told you to?"

If you just got the "danger will robinson" reaction, that tells you something. Both methods certainly have their place... but it depends on if they are applied in a thoughtful manner.

you don't need a 50 slide powerpoint, when one slide will do it... but thinking "yeah, they'll figure it out on their own..." is equally bad if instructions are actually needed.

Having been micromg'd by both genders... while it's ugly with a guy, it is a trip through dante's inferno with a femme. Guys want status updates constantly, and they can get in the way of the work. On the other hand the females in my experience were really uptight over you doing it THEIR way, and ALSO wanted constant updates.

EVEN IF, you explain to them that their way isn't the best, or indeed will even work. In one case, the bosslady was not actually a tech lead, but that didn't stop her from demanding I do a task her way. The results were not pretty.

OTOH, I have some fabu, amazing bossladys who come to me with a problem, expecting and trusting that I will come up with a solution. It's just that should be a general baseline for boss behavior. You lead people, and you choose them and expect them to operate in a way where you don't have to do their job for them. Other wise, why did you hire them?

I prefer male bosses.

Interesting. The first thing that came to my mind was not whether women or men are better bosses but rather if women or men are perceived to be better bosses.

Sort of like the survey I saw asking if a boy baby or a girl baby was preferred. Most women had no preference with a "so long as it is healthy" attitude. Men preferred boy babies. The younger the man, the greater the preference. Older men aligned more with women in the no gender preference.

Of course, there are always those of both sexes that have some preference.

That doesn't mean boy babies are better than girl babies though. Or vice versa.

It wasn't until I read the responses that I realized most people didn't get the same first impression I got.

When a woman has a male boss, the flirting, banter, or underlying sexual tension can work to her advantage. Male bosses are less likely to see her as competition.

I bet its the guys who are indifferent as they dont have the same sort of sexual power.

The best boss I ever had was a man. The worst boss I ever had was also a man. I've had two women bosses and they were both adequate but nothing much past that in either a positive or negative direction.

My experience has been exactly the opposite of a_random_guy's. Perhaps it depends on the field you're in and what level of boss we're talking about?

At any rate, for what it's worth, I've seen good and bad bosses of both sexes. But if I were going to make a sweeping generalization, I'd say the women legal partners I've known, far from being more "nurturing," have been much bigger hard-asses overall, particularly the older ones. They cut LESS slack than the male partners -- especially to their female underlings. THEY got by without leaving early for their kids, THEY didn't take sick days, etc. etc, so why should those under them get to do it?

And as far as bosses I've had go, the male bosses were overall more generous with their praise of my work (possibly because they found me less threatening than the female bosses did?). This might be a woman thing, but I found more men willing to mentor me, and more women trying to compete with me. That's overall, as I said -- I've certainly come across good and bad apples of both sexes.

The whole emotional thing -- well, honestly, I think a certain amount of that is an unfair perception. Many things are viewed differently coming out of a woman than out of a man. I think part of it is that we have higher-pitched voices. Seriously. I try to consciously keep my voice extra low, even, and calm in business contexts. It's way too easy to be perceived as "shrill" or "emotional" when in fact you aren't being any more "emotional" than your male colleague. But he's perceived as "passionate", "strong", "hard-driving", etc. My male colleague can get a bit emotional and still be perceived as authoritative. If I even raise my voice a tad, I become that hysterical girl. I learning that my first year out of law school. It's not fair, but neither is life. If you want to get ahead, you're best off dealing with it instead of complaining about it.

Another data point -- a lot of legal secretaries (most of whom are women these days) perceive of working for a female partner as less prestigious than a male partner. (And sometimes they're right -- most senior partners are still men.) And sometimes, again, it's pure competition working the other way. As a young woman associate, I had legal secretaries older than I was. There I was, a punk right out of school, earning way more than they did, with my own office, while they answered my phone and did my filing. Some of them clearly resented it. If they're working for a guy, they don't feel nearly so competitive. The thing is, most people don't like to admit motives like jealously to themselves, so they come up with other reasons. Again, not fair, but it's a fact of life.

Apropos of nothing, my favorite legal secretary was a guy. He was gay, funny as hell, and only working in a law firm until he could make it big on Broadway. What's not to love? His typing wasn't quite as good as mine, but then again, neither was that of most of my female secretaries. He made me smile on a regular basis, and that was worth more than anything else in those days.

"To answer NicoleK's question, legal secretaries are overwhelmingly female."

I married somebody who was overwhelmingly female, but she wasn't a legal secretary...

If required to pick solely by gender, I'd definitely go with male. I have had three female bosses in my work history - and each one was conniving, manipulative, self-centered, and whiny, and - most importantly and detrimentally - made decisions at work based entirely upon personal feelings.

I'm sure there are good female bosses out there, but given a blind choice, I'd go with male - every male boss I've had has been straightforward, motivated, and fair. My work history is only a small sample though - just reiterating that I seem to have had similar experience to some others.

"I married somebody who was overwhelmingly female"

That's good Raddy, the other might've been kind of a shock...

Over the years, seems to me guys are goal oriented, femmes are process oriented, which leads to two different Q? One is: "Are you finished yet?" the other: "did you do that the way I told you to?"

There was a show on 20/20 (or another one of those type shows) a number of years ago about couples who were having problems getting along with each other. When reviewing the results of a chore the husbands were asked to take care of, the women (all of them) were more interested in (and critical of) how the men did the chore than whether or not the chore actually got done.

"Anon-worker noted that 'just because you are good at your job, this does NOT mean you will be an effective manager of people who are in that job (this goes for men and women).'"

Lot of truth to that. My father once told me that he had been offered management positions and always turned them down. About the company he used to work for, he commented: "They take good engineers and turn them into mediocre managers." At a lot of companies, the non-management ladder can only take you so far; once you get to the top level of your job -- engineering, sales, accounting, whatever it may be -- you are expected to move into management. If you don't, you get labeled as "unmotivated" and you'll top out in your salary bracket. Once that happens, you've got a target on your back if layoffs become necessary.

As for male and female bosses, two of the worst supervisors I've ever had were male, and two were female:

Male boss #1: borderline with a terrible inferiority/paranoia complex. Was constantly accusing employees of "disloyalty". Fired one guy after they by chance encountered each other at the grocery store one evening, and the employee failed to address him as "sir". Fired several employees, including me, after he found out that we had interviewed at another company.

Male boss #2: Had an affair with our team leader (a female). Became insanely jealous of her, so much so that it became impossible for any other male employee to have a conversation with her, which was awkward since she was supposed to be our team lead.

Female boss #1: Had an affair with one of my co-workers. Then she figured out that it would help her career more to have an affair with her supervisor instead. Other managers found out; excrement came into contact with propeller, and it tore the division apart.

Female boss #2: Terrible borderline; no assignment ever stood for long enough to actually complete it. Made wholesale changes in tasking several times each day. Was openly proud of the fact that she got her position by gaming the AA system, and bragged about the execs she'd had sex with. (That last was probably a lie; she wasn't that hot.) Was notorious for favoring employees of her own ethnic group.

In addition, just because you are good at your job, this does NOT mean you will be an effective manager of people who are in that job (this goes for men and women). It gets even worse if you rise to a position managing your previous coworkers. Men are often more effective at this because they can remove the "buddy" factor that hampers many women. -- Anon-worker at October 26, 2011 3:18 AM

I will testify to that. I've been in some form of IT since Gates was just coming out with DOS 2.0. A few years ago a manager crystallized the thoughts I've had over the years. She was originally a tech and moved into management:

For a while I tried to be technical and a manager. I sucked when I was trying to do both.

When I interview I tell them straight out that I can do short term leads and projects but I don't want to be management. I am great at the technical stuff and they will see my value.

Software, hardware, and treeware are easy to deal with. Dealing with the wetware sucks.

"just because you are good at your job, this does NOT mean you will be an effective manager of people who are in that job"

Ha. I attended a seminar a few years back about law firm management. The gist of it was that the exact qualities that make someone an excellent lawyer tend to make him/her a seriously crappy manager of people. With very few exceptions, that is devastatingly true, which is why so many law firm partners make their teams much more miserable than they need to. And the worst of it is, most partners are oblivious to the fact that they are rotten managers (which of course makes them even worse managers).

I worked at a corporation for a while too, and saw the phenomenon of forcing people who were excellent at their jobs (and loved them) into management positions they hated. Why, why, why? Why this assumption that a "higher" position is necessarily a better one?

I've had bosses of both that I've admired, and bosses of both that I loathed. In general, however, I've found women to be worse as managers largely because of their tendency to be petty dictators, with enormous focus on insignificant detail. Men have largely allowed me the freedom (within reason) to do things the way that was most efficient for me.

I've also found the women, ironically, less forgiving, less compassionate, and less able to let go of their personal feelings (i.e., personal preference/dislike for one as a person doesn't always mean they are a better or worse employee).

But I'm just one person. My current boss is a female, and she's given men a great deal of freedom and i like her a lot, so there I'm currently living under an exception to my general experience.

anon-worker: "In addition, just because you are good at your job, this does NOT mean you will be an effective manager of people who are in that job"
_________

Definitely. Sometimes the skills necessary to do a job well aren't the skills necessary to manage the people doing the job. Just because someone is a good salesperson doesn't mean they can manage the store, and many good managers lack the charm to be a good salesperson.

I see this in business, commonly called the "peters principle." Someone excels, and gets promoted. Then they excel, and get promoted. And so on. Until they underachieve, then they stay put. So rather than being at the highest level where they excel, they are kept at the lowest level where they fall short.

anon-worker: "In addition, just because you are good at your job, this does NOT mean you will be an effective manager of people who are in that job"
_________

Definitely. Sometimes the skills necessary to do a job well aren't the skills necessary to manage the people doing the job. Just because someone is a good salesperson doesn't mean they can manage the store, and many good managers lack the charm to be a good salesperson.

I see this in business, commonly called the "peters principle." Someone excels, and gets promoted. Then they excel, and get promoted. And so on. Until they underachieve, then they stay put. So rather than being at the highest level where they excel, they are kept at the lowest level where they fall short.

"I worked at a corporation for a while too, and saw the phenomenon of forcing people who were excellent at their jobs (and loved them) into management positions they hated. Why, why, why?"

The entire focus of management somehow went off the rails. A company has a core service or product, and the people who produce this service or product are critical. The people required to handle administrative tasks are of secondary importance - and this explicitly includes the layers of management from line managers up through at least middle management, and possibly higher.

Being moved from a productive position into management really ought to be seen as a demotion. You are no longer part of the company's core mission - you are now a replaceable administrator.

Of course, since these administrators are the ones holding the purse strings for salaries, they served themselves first. This has become accepted tradition over the course of the last 60 years or so - so now management is seen as more important than the actual productive activities.

The flip side of this for law offices and the like: why don't the partners hire an administrator to run the office? They shouldn't be worrying about personnel managements and such - outsource this to a trained management type.

Ive never actually had a bad boss. They've all been good, both male and female.

I've worked for men and for women. I prefer working for men.

I'll freely admit I'm a chauvinistic bastard. I can't even try to hide it. But with that said, on the job, the job is what matters and I don't give a damn about the race or sex or education level or anything else of whom is put in charge. I don't sabotage my bosses, I take pride in my work.

But the female bosses have been frequent problems. From bringing personal shit into the office to being micromanaging on tasks they don't know how to do themselves, the problems abound. But I can ignore all that.

What REALLY gripes my wagger is that female bosses SUCK THE LIFE out of an organization in a way that only the most fanatical religious zealot male can equal.

I had a female Sergeant Major in the first year of the Iraq war...she banned swearing. We're at war, getting shelled for sometimes extended periods of time...and she's pissy over swearing. Bringing women in made us get all sensitive and delicate and it really really pisses me off. You can say, "its just that one woman" but what do we say when it is not just one, but almost all of them?

There was one exception though, one of the best bosses I ever had was a woman. But she was not like any woman I'd ever known before or since.

anon-worker: "In addition, just because you are good at your job, this does NOT mean you will be an effective manager of people who are in that job"

__________

Exactly! In the business world, Tom Brady would be "promoted" to coach.

This didn't which gender had the best bosses, this asked which gender had bosses you would rather work for. Those are two separate questions.

-Julie

"The flip side of this for law offices and the like: why don't the partners hire an administrator to run the office? They shouldn't be worrying about personnel managements and such - outsource this to a trained management type."

Well, they do typically have an administrative type to handle general personnel management and routine office crap. But such people can't and don't handle the way cases are run -- which cases the firm takes on, what direction those cases will take, which lawyers handle which tasks and how they handle them, and so forth. The partners do all that. And often they do a terrible job. I've seen partners create ten times as much busy work as necessary. I've seen them bully their associates and paralegals into nervous breakdowns. I've seen them be painfully unaware of the strengths and weaknesses of attorneys on their teams. I've seen them be horrifically defensive about suggestions from lower down on the totem pole, to the great detriment of the case and the morale of the people staffing them. Etc.

As a young associate, the office manager was someone I barely dealt with (once I had a problem with wrong deductions on my paycheck, for example, and that was her job to deal with). The partners I'd be working with on cases were the ones who had the power to make my work life interesting and productive, or an elephant fuck of miserable, soul-draining busy-work.

Lawyers have gifts others don't have. So it's a shock when insight about the feelings and motives of others isn't one of them. When I was young, Bailey and Spence were thought to be bold and daring; later they seemed just tone deaf, and we had to wonder if the magic was ever real.

In finance, Lynch was the genius of geniuses for a few years; but when he retired, he directed his wizardry to how-to books and motivational cassettes rather than exotic tech or medical picks. As if he knew he'd been lucky the whole time....

I've only had male bosses so my feelings come from my wife's experience. She's had three female bosses and hated two of them. The most recent one would tell her during her annual review that she was lowering her ratings because the VP was going to do it anyway (presumably so he could justify not giving merit raises and making his budget look good). The VP didn't like this manager either so she was basically being a bitch and blaming it on her superior. When the company finally found a replacement for her (a male, and my wife was so relieved), instead of just terminating her employment they demoted her into the department she had been managing. She still can't just do her job without creating drama and then trying to fake being nice.

The one female boss my wife liked did not bring her emotions to work. She was good at what she did and trusted her department (all females) to do their jobs. We are good friends with her and her husband to this day.

A new Brian?

I have had one good female boss in the 11 years I have been at my job. What made her good was that she let me do my job and did not have to stand over me to make sure I did it...she was no micro-manager. However, I have had several other female bosses over that time who were absolutely terrible. Micromanaging bitches with a huge chip on their shoulders trying too hard to push people around with the new-found power they had attained. I also noticed that many of the horrible female managers watched very closely for someone who was a high performer, and then stuck it to them to knock them down a little every chance they had...can't let someone unsurp the throne.

I would much rather work for men managers. Every one I ever had just let me work. Sometimes I never saw them until assessment time.

Oh yeah, one last point: most of the woman managers were constantly taking off early and coming in late trying with little success to balance home life and work. Sorry, you can't have it all.