Divs-poole

JAPANESE TERTIARY EDUCATION 

investigating his case and attempting to work out a compromise with the 

administration and board of trustees. His claim that he was now wrongfully 

employed and his offer of proof of how he was initially hired specifically as a 

computer network specialist fell upon deaf ears.  

In analyzing this case of conflict, after having participated in the two-and-a-

half-hour union  meeting at which Mr. Sekiguchi clashed openly with the board 

members, a few observations can be made. First, this represents an example of how 

the label of “general office worker” can be invoked by the personnel office and 

applied as a means of control even in instances where an employee is initially both 

recruited and subsequently hired for a certain skill and specific job description. 

Nearly all, 85 to 90 percent, of the administration staff were hired as 

nonspecialists. Except for the nurse, counselor, seminar house caretaker, IT 

specialists, and Mr. Mori, the present head administrator, the administrative staff is 

rotated among departments and sections throughout their careers. Studies of the 

Japanese corporate world also commonly describe such management practices. In 

this case, even a computer specialist, Mr. Sekiguchi, recruited and hired especially 

to work in the IT center, was “rotated” to the library as punishment for poor 

performance and insubordinate behavior. By definition, even if one is hired for a 

specific job, one is part of the “administration team.” Regardless of rank or 

specialization, during the freshman orientation, entrance examinations, graduation 

ceremonies and other university-wide events, all staff are expected to participate, 

even though these events often fall on the weekend or national holidays. Even the 

caretaker of the seminar house drives four hours to Tokyo to deliver fresh 

vegetables from the countryside to sell at EUC during the University Festival in 

October. 

Second, the Sekiguchi case exposes the thick partition that divides the 

administration and faculty at EUC. Mr. Sekiguchi is a doctoral candidate at one of 

the top schools of education in Japan. He holds a master’s degree in educational 

technology, presents papers at academic conferences, and even teaches classes at 

other universities as a part-time faculty member. It is interesting that much of the 

criticism of him voiced by faculty members was because he was perceived as 

having a condescending attitude toward professors and was insubordinate, refusing 

to give computer support to faculty members claiming that such tasks were “not 

part of my work description.” He was a very capable network and computer 

specialist, however, and a very hard worker from what I observed. He gladly 

assisted faculty, especially the IT faculty members, in educational endeavors and 

was supportive and instrumental in improving the classroom teaching facilities for 

the freshman compulsory course, “Basic Computing.” I observed that he worked 

better either alone or with professors on equal footing than he did when he was 

forced into a subordinate role. He was not willing to kowtow to those in positions 

of power simply because they had a title. This made it difficult for him in terms of 

interpersonal relations.  

In my own role as faculty member, I never had a problem working with Mr. 

Sekiguchi on the occasions where I had the opportunity. I believe this is because 

31

 

---

CHAPTER 1 

our interaction was often focused on tasks directly related to educational 

endeavors. In addition, my interaction with Mr. Sekiguchi might have been 

unconsciously more egalitarian than other faculty members. After the incident that 

led to his demotion, and especially at the labor union meeting, I noticed how 

frustrated this man was as an administrative staff member. He obviously was more 

interested in individual educational projects in teaching or research than in the 

clerical focus of the administrative team. Both his skill and CV suggested that, 

even though he may have been initially hired as a computer staffer, his services 

might have been better utilized if he was given the possibility of ad hoc teaching 

responsibilities and even a modest research agenda. However, the wall dividing the 

academic and administrative staff was unscalable. Sekiguchi’s peripheral status 

became the source of debate and conflict. As a member of the administrative staff, 

to be “egalitarian” in management he is moved around to various posts irrespective 

of his expertise or wishes, as are all staff, in the best interest of the entire 

organization of EUC, or regardless of the best interests of EUC, depending on 

one’s perspective.  

Last, the Sekiguchi case demonstrated how faculty members can wield power 

over administrative staff, in certain cases, and even influence personnel decisions. I 

was told by faculty members very familiar with the specifics of the incident that if 

Mr. Sekiguchi had better social skills, been better able to interact with the faculty 

in a fashion more acceptable to them, he would have been spared. What turned out 

to be a witch hunt, of sorts, could have been avoided and the security problems 

might not have been blamed entirely on him. At EUC, faculty can influence 

administrative decisions, but not all faculty, however, have such power. It is 

reserved for those that are perceived to be a positive force in the EUC reform 

process, the young faculty team players that the president looks to for his support. 

In this way EUC can been used as a model of the organizational structure of the 

daigaku. Closely related to organization are the professors’ administrative and 

committee tasks. 

GYŌSEI—ADMINISTRATIVE WORK AND PERSONAL NETWORKS 

In discussing Befu’s social exchange model of Japanese society, Moeran (1984, p. 

254) makes the vital point that Nakane’s “group model” (1970) does not properly 

account for the structural role of the phenomenon of tsukiai—personal, and usually 

informal, networks and relations often maintained through eating and, especially, 

drinking sessions. Any observer or participant working in a Japanese organization 

quickly acknowledges the ubiquitous and important nature of tsukiai (cf. Graham 

2001, p. 74). Much of the practice of university governance and management is 

dependent on a network of personal relations that supersedes the organizational 

structure of the institution. The practice of tsukiai—the “management” of these 

(good) relations—though beyond the bounds of any kind of conspicuous 

organizational structure, is nonetheless tacitly influenced by the ideological 

organization of the university.  

32

 

---