Often true when it comes to commissioned sales vs first level supervisors and managers in some industries. That POV can really limit your career down the road though. Those next few rungs above the first level of management typically pay WAY MORE than anyone in sales. Stock options are a marvelous thing.

As an admin. or top level manager, these types of foolishness and generalizations are expected from people down below? It should roll off the backs of ducks like water for you guys. Why even make a stink about it and you should be used to it by now. Like someone said, its just a chit chat secession. I am a damn good general contractor, if I get my underwear bunched up every time I hear generalization, I will never have time to breath.

Most 'little' people don't realize how lucky they are that the 'big' people are here to help them.

Hey this thread maybe should be merged with the one about shooting game for trophy....

was this intended to be in written in green?

Sales people get stock options too. And, in a lot of places they get paid great commissions and bonuses for exceeding their goals while sen. mgt. gets nothing more than their base because the company didn't exceed their overall goals. Why the hell would I want more responsibility for less pay and to always have to worry about an exec. bloodbath at any time? Sales people who make their numbers are pretty much layoff-proof. I'm not exactly killing it for 2013, but I've seen plenty of bigger dogs in my company get shown the door.

What's your definition of "administration"? Some people are assuming middle and upper management, others support/overhead roles.

Gotta define the term if you want the reasons.

Yes thanks - now corrected!

You must be one of the 'big' people!

;)

generalists like administration

wasn't, then stuck in the middle, now back to "enlisted".

Administration, management, senior leadership...there are so many terms these folks apply to themselves (which change to whatever might be en vogue for the time) that it's impossible to pick one.

Generally, my question is in regard to those controlling policies/organizational operations.

Those are completely different roles in a moderate size organization. You are using a paint roller to characterize anyone but you.

What Don said. Not clear what types of jobs are being classified as "administration." In academia it has a fairly easy distinction - you've got students, faculty, and everyone else is called administrators. In business it becomes less clear, and even within academic units it is fuzzy. For instance I have an administrator who provides services to myself and others (booking conference room, getting lunch for meetings, processing reimbursements). I have special project managers that handle budgets and reporting for projects, and project directors who write proposals, manage the SPMs, deal with subcontractors, programming teams, artists, etc. Then I'm "senior management" who manages the project directors, brings in new business, provides tactical and strategic planning, does the "vision thing", puts out fires when things get screwed up, and gets the pleasure of laying people off when sequestration cuts come down (like I did yesterday).

So when you ask why people go into "administration", which job description are you talking about? In general, people rise to management through the ranks. They start doing "real work", then if they are good at some point the only way to advance is up to managing others who do "real work." Some people frankly aren't very good at it. Others are. Despite the rants of a research faculty colleague last week on the benefits of a "flat organization" (*cough* pipe dream train wreck *cough*), the reality is that at some point someone needs to bang their shoe on the table and say we're making purple widgets. And managing people, especially creative/smart ones, is an art and is often totally underestimated by people.

People ask me how I use my phd in chemistry in my current work. My answer is that a good grad school teaches you how to solve problems. And managing people is a social engineering problem. For any organization to be successful, there needs to be a number of good people. Without good "administration", the most creative and brilliant people will likely fail.

They may be different roles but they remain administrative. So, are you here to contribute to the original question or to snipe?

Original question answered.

Yes, I went for the money. I make assloads.

I was very good in the trenches back in the day and I am very good at what I do today.

My people like me, respect me and enjoy working for me.

I think those that excel at an administrative position are there because the job fits their skill set. I have a great manager I work with, he takes his job as being the guy that provides the tools and assistance to make sure my commission cheques get bigger and bigger. (plus he's a nice average Joe, who while not into cars is very big into dirkbikes)
We have a young man who has worked his way up from a mechanic to foreman to service manager. Unfortunately for him I think he is missing the simpler days of going home at 5:00, coffee break with the boys etc. He seems so stressed that I just don't believe this to be his calling. Not everybody can manage just as not everybody can sell.... (our employer is the kind of place that they will find him another position in the company if this ever gets too much)
Some guys here seem to have an Us VS Them feeling to their posts, most logical leaders understand having the right folks working with you and striving for the same outcome is what makes a company "tick". (We have all seen the manager that at least appears to be only concerned with themselves but lets face it, the ratio of guys/gals working under them that feel the same way about themselves is pretty obvious if your looking for it!)

In looking at philosophy.............one of the problems I see in certain "administrators" as they don't understand the concept that they are in sales.

A good administrator looks at employees as customers.....not employees.

Just one perspective I have learned over the years.

Fair point. The problem of the paint roller approach to "if you are not me, you are administrative" for those of us that care about terms of art in company structure I can't answer your question as defined. What I mean is "administrative" does not hold water on the P&L. Manufacturing managers, supervisors, and others in a production environment are classed as COGS - they contribute to the value (cost) of production.

Now let's go below the line. SG&A. Sales is a very important function, for without sales there is no revenue. Sales support people, marketing admins, etc. contribute to top line revenue. G&A. Here's where I focus on administrative expense - roles and related expense not characterized as COGS or Sales. By this commonly used definition, the person that answers the phone or sorts the mail is in Administration. I'm pretty sure neither of those people got into "administration" for the money - see my point about nomenclature?

Let me redefine your question and try to answer it. For sake of discussion, let's say that management broadly characterizes people that don't have line responsibility - they don't make things, sell things, or otherwise perform tasks with measurable value.

As others have said, some folks get promoted into positions of increasing responsibility. Might be skill, luck, timing, married to the boss' daughter, whatever. With increased responsibility generally comes increased salary (Rick has noted the typical exception). Some people "move up" or seek managerial roles because of money. Others have it thrust upon them. Others may see it as a refuge from toiling on the assembly line or driving the delivery truck. Some people (like me) are simply ambitious out of the womb and want more and more responsibility and authority because they think they will do good job. Those from my perspective are the four main categories of why folks end up in managerial or supervisory roles.

I understand that from the perspective of some line employees that the supervisor, manager, etc. may seem that they are breeding grounds for incompetence, political fiefdoms, power grabs, incompetence, etc. I can't disagree that this is the case with some people.

The most successful people I know really don't focus on much they make or how much more the next salary band is worth. People that focus primarily on, "if I can get promoted to L-4 I'll make $5,000 more a year and can afford the GI Joe with the Kung Fu grip" rarely do well over the long term. Maybe that's the pool of less than competent managers that drive such ire.

My $0.02.

we need an administrator to clean up this thread

Agreed! This thread is a great example of bad management.

Maybe this thread is just an example of what people in lower level positions think?