CAREER PROSPECTS OF CONFIDENTIAL SECRETARY IN A PUBLIC ESTABLISHMENT
Abstract
This study looked into the career prospects of a confidential secretary in a public institution.
Questionnaires were distributed to secretaries in the state’s public sectors. Following the analysis, the researcher came to some conclusions about the sample population study. Confidential secretaries are not permitted to use their initiative in the performance of their duties.
That secretaries face discrimination in terms of advancement. That secretaries do not have the same opportunities for training as their counterparts in other professions, and so on.
It was also discovered that the likely consequences of these issues include: low productivity, poor job quality, a lack of job satisfaction, and so on. Some suggestions were made as to what could be done to improve the prospects of these secretaries.
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
The study’s context
Secretaries can work in a variety of fields, including government, industry, commerce, and charitable organizations. Of all of these, it is possible that industry has the most to gain by hiring the best secretaries and the most to lose by hiring the worst.
Many changes have occurred in government establishments in recent years. Increased foreign competition, which has resulted in improved freight facilities, is one aspect of this change. Another significant factor in public institutions has been the widespread use of computer systems, which has resulted in a reduction in routine paper work.
Since the early 1990s, when modern approaches to corporate governance1 emerged, there has been a great deal of focus on the accountability and effectiveness of higher education governance systems. The ‘ripple effect’ of large-scale governance scandals such as those seen at
Barings Bank, Enron, and the retail group, Royal Ahold (for a review, see Mallin, 2004), as well as similar issues in the further and higher education sectors (described in Shattock, 2006), has resulted in a wealth of guidance and, more recently, a code of governance practice (CUC, 1995; 1998; 2001; and 2004).
The duties and responsibilities of the secretary of the governing body2 are mentioned in the CUC guidance as well as in related work by the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales (HEFCW, 1997). The secretary is regarded as having a critical role in the operation and conduct of the governing body in both cases.
The secretary coordinates the governing body’s activities and oversees the various processes and procedures that result in the effective management of governing body business.
These include, among other things, the selection and induction of new governors, the organization of governing body and related committee meetings, the production of minutes and arrangements for follow-up action, and communication and liaison between the governing body and the rest of the institution.
However, there are numerous other aspects to the role. The secretary may be responsible for providing legal and procedural advice, a contributor of information required by the governing body, a counsel to the head of institution3, chair, and others on issues being addressed by the institution and the governing body, and, on occasion, an independent voice that can keep the governing body on track.
The role frequently must balance the managerial imperative with the transparency and accountability required of higher education institutions (see, for example, HEFCE, 2006; SFC, 2007; Wotjas, 2007). According to Shattock (op cit, p.25), the secretary is now “at the heart of the governance process in a way that would not have been conceivable prior to the events of the mid-1990s.”
At a recent OECD conference, van der Wende (2006) discussed how higher education institutions were being required to address new accountability measures in exchange for public resources; maintain high governance standards to safeguard university values and integrity in the face of increased political intervention; and address the driving force of corporate and related public sector governance developments.
These proceedings demonstrated that governance is a ‘live’ issue in the UK and other higher education systems. However, van der Wende suggested that improving the effectiveness of higher education governance would necessitate a better understanding of governing body behavior, the power balance between governors and management, and issues of trust in the management of governance4 relationships.
However, while the most recent major update to the Combined Code on Corporate Governance (Higgs, 2003) prompted a debate on working relationships within and around company boards (see, for example, McNulty, Roberts, and Stiles, 2003), this topic has received little attention in the UK higher education sector, with the secretary’s role and influence being largely overlooked.
The contribution of the secretary to the work of the governing body, the potential for the secretary to have to address conflicts of interest in undertaking the role, and their influence in managing the relationship between the board and the
executive were all noted in the last major empirical review of UK higher education governance to consider the way in which governing bodies operate, which was conducted over a decade ago (Bargh, Scott, and Smith, 1996), but no further action was taken.
As a chartered secretary who had worked in higher education governance since the mid-1980s, I could see that the changes in the sector’s approach to governance noted by van der Wende had been profound. More recently, the case has been made that the secretary’s role has shifted from a passive stewardship model of a behind-the-scenes co-coordinator of governance activities to a more proactive stance of a manager of what Shattock (2006) referred to as the higher education institution’s “governance business.”
As evidence of this shift, Shattock noted (ibid, p.23) that the CUC Guide now devoted “more space to describing the role of the secretary….than to that of the….head of institution,” and positioned the secretary as “the second key figure in governance arrangements” (ibid, p.21), after the head of institution and slightly ahead of the chair.
The increased awareness of the role appeared to be a reflection of the codification of the secretary’s responsibilities, and, as a result, the expansion of those responsibilities as a result of the greater codification of other aspects of governance, such as the increased emphasis placed on monitoring governing body effectiveness (CUC, 2000; see also, Baird, 2007) or the evaluation and monitoring of institutional performance (CUC, 2006).
However, role awareness, while important, needed to be viewed in tandem with the secretary’s influence in the conduct of governance business in order to obtain a complete picture of the secretary’s contribution to institutional governance.
Furthermore, it appeared that powerful secretaries had been in place long before modern governance arrangements. This was not a new phenomenon, but it had gone unnoticed due to the emphasis on the chair and head of institution in higher education governance research.
In my experience, the secretary was a ‘backstage’ (Mangham and Overington, 1987; Pye, 2002) but active participant in higher education governance, able to contribute from behind the scenes, and sometimes in governing body meetings, without formally being a member of the governing body, and use formal and informal mechanisms to exert influence in close working relationships with the head of institution and the chair.
Bargh et al. (1996) had previously identified some of the contributions made by key individuals, as well as the governing body itself, in decision-making and institutional strategy setting. Their research did, however, reveal the difficulties that university staff had in understanding the role of senior managers in decision-making processes (p.118), as well as the difficulties that some governors had in determining how far they were being led by the executive (p.127).
‘Directorate reports to governors were structured with firm recommendations, as opposed to the presentation of a choice between several options and their subsequent implications,’ it was noted in one case (p.128). Bargh et al. concluded that in the institutions they studied, the executive retained’
substantially intact’ (p.135) control over agendas and strategy initiation, and the impact of governors on decision-making could be limited unless enacted by developing close interpersonal relationships with the executive and helping influence their policy 13 proposals.
Given the secretary’s central role in agenda setting, governing body management, and, frequently, as a member of the institution’s executive, it seemed important to try to shed light on this role to see whether emerging claims about its importance could, or could not, be substantiated.
However, a word of caution emerged during the research. In a post-interview discussion with a governing body secretary, it was suggested that I not overestimate the secretary’s influence due to the negative way in which a more’ managed’ and ‘corporate’ approach to modern university governance may be perceived by the broader HE community. These factors have combined to increase the rivalry between business organizations.
Each wishes to excel at the expense of its problems, which must be funded by fever and better staff within the organizations involved. For each advertised vacancy, a careful selection process is possible; there are a plethora of qualified applicants.
The secretary, like the chameleon, must adapt to her surroundings and learn new skills, such as how to use word processors and computers. Telex and electronic mall have become a part of her daily life, and the business letter no longer occupies as much of her time as it once did.
Today’s secretary spends less time behind the typewriter and more time attending to other aspects of her job. Osun State Polytechnic, Iree’s history dates back to 1981, when the campus was one of four satellite campuses of the polytechnic, Ibadan.
Following the establishment of Osun State in August 1991, the new state required its own Polytechnic. As a result, the government decided to establish Osun State Polytechnic, Iree in the state to meet the citizens’ educational needs.
On October 12, 1992, the first Executive Governor of Osun State, Alhaji Isiaka Adetunji Adeleke, signed the bill establishing Osun State Polytechnic, Iree. By virtue of that act of government, Osun State Polytechnic, Iree succeeded to the Iree satellite campus of the Polytechnic, Ibadan. Similarly, the Esa-Oke satellite campus was succeeded by the Osun State College of Technology Esa-Oke.
The institutions were given a mission by the state. The mission was to rationalize the courses offered by the two sister institutions with a focus on commerce. Iree was marked for Science and Technology, whereas Esa-Oke was marked for Engineering and Environmental Studies.
However, in light of the NBTE’s recommendation that Polytechnic offer core engineering courses, the vision is being revised in that direction, and plans are in the works to introduce engineering and environmental studies at Iree, namely the Faculty of Science and the Faculty of Engineering.
The institution has a large library that serves the academic needs of both staff and students. It keeps a sizable number of books for its own use and that of the reading public. Plans are in the works to expand its book stock and services, particularly in the areas of photocopying, photography, and audiovisuals.
There is also a health center on campus where staff and students can get medical attention. Serious cases, on the other hand, are referred to hospitals in Iree, Ikirun, and Osogbo. The works and services department is located near the institutional structure and equipment and provides municipal services to staff and students such as water, electricity, and so on.
With this humble beginning, management will appreciate all staff, students, and the general public’s contributions and sacrifices to the orderly and progressive development of this young institution.
The environment presents adequate challenges to all parties involved, and it is our hope that we will all be working together for cooperation and understanding to make Osun State Polytechnic, Iree an enviable edifice.
Statement of the Issue
The study’s problem is to determine:
The secretary’s prospects for advancement in a public organization.
The secretary’s training opportunities in a public institution.
Prospects for advancement as a secretary in a public institution.
Research Issues
What are the prospects for advancement for the secretary of public establishments?
What are the training opportunities for a secretary in a government organization?
What are the chances of advancement for a secretary in a government organization?
HYPOTHESES FOR RESEARCH
The researcher developed the following hypotheses to aid in the completion of the study:
H0: There is no opportunity for advancement as a confidential secretary in a public institution.
H1: There is the possibility of occupational mobility for a confidential secretary in a public institution.
H02: There are no opportunities for secretary training in a public institution.
H2: There are opportunities for secretary training in a public institution.
1.3 Purpose of the Research
There are few candidates applying for secretariat studies in many of our national Institutes of learning today. Those who are eventually admitted to the course face a slew of challenges before they can become secretariat.
The goal of this study, however, is to determine whether the course provides job satisfaction in terms of salary, promotion, and fringe benefits. The study intends to discover what secretarial practice entails in Nigerian offices.
1.4 Importance of the Research
The study will go into great detail about why so few people apply for secretarial studies. It will also reveal job opportunities for secretaries in government agencies. However, if no consideration is given to the topic’s social, psychological, educational, and economic importance in chapter two of the project, the coverage will be incomplete.
1.5 The Study’s Limitations
This study uses Osun State Polytechnic, Iree as its case study to examine the “career prospects of a confidential secretaries in public establishments.” This establishment was chosen to represent the various types of institutions involved in training and employing qualified secretaries.
1.6 The Study’s Limitations
The lack of cooperation on the part of some secretarial staff who were visited is one of the factors working against this study. Furthermore, there is a scarcity of literature materials for the research project.
1.7 OPERATIONAL TERM DEFINITION
SECRETARY: A secretary is an officer of a society or organization who handles correspondence, admits new members, and organizes official meetings and events.
Secretary to the President
Confidential Secretaries provide administrative and clerical support to a corporation’s executives. Their responsibilities include taking minutes, transcribing documents, preparing confidential reports, writing letters, answering phones, and making travel arrangements.
Career
A career is a metaphorical “journey” that an individual takes through learning, work, and other aspects of life. There are numerous definitions of career, and the term is used in a variety of contexts.
1.8 THE STUDY’S ORGANIZATION
For ease of comprehension, this research work is divided into five chapters, which are as follows:
The first chapter is concerned with the introduction, which includes the (overview of the study), statement of the problem, objectives of the study, research hypotheses, significance of the study, scope and limitations of the study, definition of terms, and historical background of the study.
The second chapter emphasizes the theoretical framework on which the study is based, as well as a review of related literature. The third chapter discusses the study’s research design and methodology.
The fourth chapter focuses on data collection, analysis, and presentation of findings. The study’s summary, conclusion, and recommendations are presented in Chapter 5.
Do You Have New or Fresh Topic? Send Us Your Topic
CAREER PROSPECTS OF CONFIDENTIAL SECRETARY IN A PUBLIC ESTABLISHMENT
INSTRUCTIONS AFTER PAYMENT
- 1.Your Full name
- 2. Your Active Email Address
- 3. Your Phone Number
- 4. Amount Paid
- 5. Project Topic
- 6. Location you made payment from