Comparative Analysis of Administrative Roles: Public vs. Private Sector Secretaries

Thesis Abstract

This study investigates how administrative roles differ between secretaries in public sector organizations and those in private sector organizations, addressing a gap in comparative human resource and administrative studies where role expectations, decision-making authority, task complexity, and professional development opportunities are often treated as homogeneous across sectors. The aim is to delineate sector-specific role profiles, identify determinants of role effectiveness, and evaluate implications for organizational performance and governance. Specific objectives include (1) mapping core responsibilities, tasks, and decision-making latitude of secretaries in both sectors; (2) assessing perceived role clarity, autonomy, workload, and job satisfaction; (3) examining the influence of organizational size, governance structures, and information technology use on role performance; (4) evaluating training, certification, and career progression pathways; and (5) proposing a framework for aligning administrative roles with strategic objectives in each sector. The study tests hypotheses related to differences in role complexity, autonomy, and professional development between the sectors, and the moderating effects of organizational culture and digitalization. A sequential explanatory mixed-methods design is employed. The quantitative phase targets a population of 2,400 secretaries across 60 organizations (30 public and 30 private) with a stratified random sample of 400 respondents (200 per sector) to obtain a robust representation of urban and regional offices. A structured questionnaire, incorporating validated scales for role ambiguity, role conflict, autonomy, job satisfaction, and perceived organizational support, will be administered online, with follow-up reminders to maximize response rates. Reliability will be assessed using Cronbach’s alpha, and construct validity through confirmatory factor analysis. Quantitative data will be analyzed using multivariate techniques including independent samples t-tests, MANOVA, and multiple regression to identify sectoral differences and predictors of role effectiveness. The qualitative phase will involve semi-structured interviews with 40 participants (20 public, 20 private) selected through purposive sampling to explore nuanced experiences of role enactment, professional socialization, and strategic involvement. Thematic analysis will be guided by Braun and Clarke’s framework to identify patterns related to autonomy, accountability, and professional identity. Integration will occur at the interpretation stage, where qualitative insights explain and contextualize quantitative findings. The principal expected findings indicate that private sector secretaries experience higher perceived autonomy and shorter chain-of-command constraints, whereas public sector secretaries demonstrate greater role breadth in compliance and regulatory documentation, with differences in task complexity and bureaucratic processes. Variations in job satisfaction are anticipated to align with organizational support and opportunities for professional development, with digitalization amplifying role efficiency in both sectors but presenting distinct challenges in public entities due to compliance requirements. The study anticipates that organizational culture and level of digital maturity will moderate the relationship between role characteristics and perceived effectiveness, with stronger effects observed in the private sector. This research contributes to knowledge by providing an empirically grounded, sector-specific typology of administrative roles, integrating organizational governance, work design, and digitalization perspectives within a cross-sector framework. It advances theoretical discourse by testing and extending role theory and contingency perspectives in administrative work, and it offers practical implications for policy makers, human resource managers, and administrative professionals regarding recruitment, training, task allocation, and career development pathways. The main conclusion is that while essential administrative functions are shared across sectors, the locus of authority, responsibility, and professionalization diverges in ways that affect performance outcomes and employee well-being. Recommendations include the development of sector-tailored competency frameworks, standardized yet flexible training programs that accommodate regulatory demands in the public sector and innovation-driven agility in the private sector, and targeted interventions to enhance digital literacy and information governance to optimize administrative effectiveness across both sectors.