So if he's stepped down from and away from (almost) all his responsibilities as CEO...

I'm left wondering - "Why do you still need your own Executive Admin"?

There are a lot of folks who don't understand how important it is for a leader to have a personal secretary, executive admin, executive assistant, deputy or whatever you want to call the role.

The sad truth is that, as hard as he might work, a man can't add a single hour to the day: every hour he spends dealing with one matter is an hour he doesn't spend attending to another. Leaders, despite being in many cases quite remarkable, aren't so remarkable that they can perform 15 minutes of manual labour in 15 seconds. That's where a good secretary can add so much value: he's a leader's right hand man, his second self. He can cut through or deal with the paperwork, the waits, the scheduling &c. and free the executive up to lead. An EA is an enabler in the best sense of the word.

I've never had a secretary, but I've had the opportunity to work in that role. It's exhilarating to see someone one respects able to do his job that much better because of what one has been able to do.

Obviously, in an ideal world almost anyone would have a deputy. Sadly, that's not numerically possible (and what about the assistants: surely they would benefit from having their own?). But I think it's close to vital that anyone whose value consists of meeting, connecting, travelling and so forth have a lieutenant to help smooth the way.

Have you seen his speaking schedule? That alone demands an exec assistant.

So he has someone to book all his needless frivilous travel...

While I agree it's a great read and CEOs would be well served to understand what he's saying...I don't think that takes any more guts to write than a schmoe who posts something derogatory about their company..esp since 10% of the us population lives paycheck to paycheck (yes, look it up...10% of the population has ZERO savings [not even retirement money] and spend EVERY penny EVERY month)...and 25% have zero savings i.e. they may have a surplus, but nowhere NEAR a year's savings...

It's not derogatory.

In fact, he's hitting the nail on the head with his insight that CEOs that tend to re-make the company in the image they'd like to see can do active harm if that image is sub-optimal (and it probably always is).

That has nothing to do with how much money he has or with the fact that others are living paycheck to paycheck.