I’ve felt like Cassandra at work lately. Trying to prevent the sacking of Troy only for those who didn’t heed me to ask why they’re on fire. Has anyone ever successfully communicated this to Their Person?
*Don Draper yelling at Peggy voice*
“THAT’S WHAT THE PHONE BUTTON IS FOR”
(the weirdest, lowest stakes, and most consistent form of learned helplessness I see in managers)
A coworker, Karen, was training me on an internal ticketing system over a Teams call before her vacation since I'd be covering some of her duties. During the call, I could see the URL she was using on her screen share, and I told her I was going to type it into my own browser so I could follow along on my end. While I was explaining this, she got flustered and told me not to - something like "Don't use my link."
I went ahead and entered it anyway because... it's a generic website URL (think our company.com/sharepoint/ticketingsystem/my-queue). It's a web app. Me typing a homepage address into my own browser on my own laptop, logged in under my own credentials, cannot possibly affect her session. That's just not how the internet works.
About ten seconds later, her laptop shut down and she dropped off the call. Instead of messaging me or troubleshooting on her own, she walked across the entire floor to my desk and loudly rebuked me in front of coworkers. The gist was: "Why did you do that when I told you not to?That's why I told you not to click on my link. Now I have all these problems with my laptop." The tone was very much frustrated-parent-scolding-a-child, not peer-to-peer.
I stayed calm and said I didn't think what I did caused the issue. The whole thing lasted maybe 30-45 seconds, most of which was her talking at me. She went back to her desk and called IT and another colleague in Operations - both of whom would have confirmed that one person typing a URL into their own browser cannot crash someone else's laptop.
She never circled back. No acknowledgment that the technical premise was wrong. No recognition that loudly dressing down a coworker on the office floor in front of others was inappropriate. No apology. Nothing.
When Karen went on vacation a few days later, she didn't even list me in her out-of-office message as coverage - despite the fact that I was, you know, covering for her. That was the whole point of the training.
This isn't the first time, either. Her pattern when she's frustrated is to correct or confront people publicly rather than handling it privately. Another teammate forwarded me a separate exchange with Karen that had the same energy. And for additional context: Karen previously lost management privileges over two regional admins on our team after one of them quit the company, explicitly citing Karen's bullying. So there's a documented history here.
For more context, Karen has 20+ years of tenure.
Now here's where I'm really losing it. This happened on March 25th. My manager eventually had a meeting with Karen's manager (who is a direct report of my manager), and... didn't bring up this story. She instead raised two more minor dustups — and didn't even relay the details of those correctly. The most egregious incident went completely unmentioned.
I am EXHAUSTED. Am I overreacting, or is this as not-okay as it felt in the moment?
my roommate‘s favorite fork pictured above. I’d love to get her more pieces like it for her birthday! purchased in Bushwick, BK a few years ago. searched in local shops and tried online, but I’m still relatively new to all this…and not great at it yet. any help and I’d be so grateful!
I’m always fascinated by little bits of bad behavior that calcify in admins because it’s happening somewhere management can’t see. i have an EA coworker who has probably sent 50 “are you mad at me?????” emails/Teams messages to admins who don’t reply to her right away. I have another who acts as unofficial manager of women she absolutely does not manage.
how does this happen???
I need a sanity check. if another assistant (the assistant to your own manager’s manager) reached out to you on Wednesday evening asking for an hour “before EOD Friday,” how would you interpret this request?
(working on a paper & wanted to share with the Squad. for further reading check out the ASAP 2026 state of the profession report & Louise Kapp Howe’s book “Pink Collar Workers.” Original post here: https://www.askamanager.org/2026/04/what-are-the-most-ridiculous-requests-youve-ever-seen-made-of-assistants.html ) worker solidarity forever ✊
Two caveats up front:
Even with those biases, there are consistent patterns that point to broader structural features of administrative work rather than isolated bad behavior.
What the comments are actually capturing
The thread is not a good measure of frequency or typical day-to-day experience. It is much better understood as a collection of boundary violations that people remember over long periods of time.
The common thread across responses is not workload, but perceived status implications. The stories that persist are the ones that made people feel:
This suggests the emotional intensity in the thread is tied less to task difficulty and more to what the task communicates about role definition.
Distinction between professional support and domestic labor
A clear pattern emerges around how people categorize tasks.
Work that is broadly accepted:
Work that triggers stronger negative reactions:
The dividing line appears to be whether the task aligns with organizational objectives or resembles private household labor. The closer a task maps to the latter, the more likely it is to be interpreted as a status signal rather than a business necessity.
Symbolic aspects of certain requests
Some examples become widely shared not because they are time-consuming, but because they are highly specific and personalized in ways that emphasize hierarchy.
Tasks involving individualized food preparation, aesthetic presentation, or multiple options selected for preference tend to be interpreted as performative rather than functional. They are read less as efficiency measures and more as reinforcing a distinction between decision-maker and service provider.
Role of hierarchy and perceived legitimacy
Another consistent pattern is that reactions vary depending on who is making the request.
High-level executives with clear organizational responsibility are more likely to be granted latitude for extensive support. Similar or even less demanding behavior from junior staff is often viewed negatively.
This suggests that acceptance of support is partially contingent on perceived legitimacy of authority. Requests that appear to exceed the requester’s role or contribution are more likely to be interpreted as inappropriate.
Impact of unclear role definitions
Many of the strongest reactions are tied to situations where job scope expands informally.
Examples include administrative roles that gradually incorporate:
The issue is less the existence of these tasks and more the lack of transparency. When expectations are not clearly defined in advance, the expansion of scope is experienced as a form of role misrepresentation rather than a negotiated responsibility.
Gendered expectations and “pink-collar” dynamics
The patterns in the thread align closely with longstanding research on pink-collar labor, particularly the work of Louise Kapp Howe.
Administrative roles often involve:
These functions require skill but are frequently framed as personality traits rather than expertise. As a result, they are less likely to be formalized, compensated, or granted authority.
The predominance of women in these roles amplifies this dynamic, as expectations around caretaking and responsiveness are culturally reinforced.
Emotional labor as a central factor
A notable portion of dissatisfaction relates to non-tangible work:
This form of labor is both high-impact and difficult to measure, which contributes to its invisibility. It also tends to accumulate without formal recognition.
Boundary issues involving executives’ personal lives
Requests involving spouses, children, or household management generate particularly strong reactions.
These tasks blur the distinction between organizational support and private life support. When administrative labor extends into personal domains, it becomes more difficult to justify as business-related, and the underlying power dynamics become more visible.
Variation within the profession
Despite the focus on extreme examples, the thread does not support a blanket rejection of all personal or concierge-type work.
There are multiple references to environments where such tasks are normalized and accepted, including:
The difference appears to be clarity of scope, alignment with compensation, and consistency with the stated role.
Historical context and decision-making authority
Historically, the role of “secretary” was associated with proximity to power and, in some cases, delegated authority. As the profession became feminized and more clerical, much of the responsibility remained while formal decision-making authority diminished.
This contributes to a recurring structural issue:
administrative professionals are often responsible for coordination, risk mitigation, and information flow, but lack formal authority to enforce decisions.
Contemporary data, including recent industry reporting such as the 2026 State of the Profession survey by the American Society of Administrative Professionals, indicates that responsibilities are becoming more complex and strategic, while perceived value is declining.
This gap between responsibility and authority appears to be a key driver of dissatisfaction.
Summary observation
Taken together, the thread reflects a consistent concern with how administrative work is defined and valued.
The central tension is not about whether support work is legitimate, but about how far that support extends into domains that signal reduced professional status or lack of role clarity.
Where responsibilities are clearly defined, aligned with organizational goals, and matched with appropriate authority, there is less conflict.
Where boundaries are ambiguous and authority is limited, the same types of tasks are more likely to be experienced as problematic.