P, your example of being ignored during the process of change instigation must have been painful initially and melancholic later. Did you receive any credit for the ensuing change? That change process didn’t seem to include any user feedback mechanisms instead suggestions were interpreted as a hindrance, and the definition of change may have been differently construed by the stakeholders. Pansiri (2014) notes that during periods of change, the rhetoric of the terms change, reform and innovation “are often used interchangeably” (p. 26). Implementing change may described on a dimension of speed [see figure 1]: after thorough consultation at one end, what Dolan calls the “J-form” (Dolan, 2010, p. 43), and adhocracy at the other (Smart & Hamm, cited in Bess & Dee, 2012).
Figure 1: Speed of change
While adhocracies react to outside environmental change swiftly and effectively (Fugazzotto, 2009), success is at risk as it proceeds “without the involvement of the entire project components” (Dolan, 2010, p. 43). I fully concur with you that whenever possible, the more employee support garnered will predict better success.
V, I enjoyed your three possible explanations. I agree with #1 that there was no common definition in place between the university and its instructors. More precisely, “Japan’s friendly authoritarianism … encourages ambiguity” (Sugimoto, 2014, p. 332) and allows diverse interpretations by not presenting definitions. The unwritten normative rule is that those interpretations fall within culturally acceptable boundaries. In my case, I was unaware of them, and promoted practices in students that others found problematic. Looking back to over decade ago, I can’t say if the professors were annoyed at students asking them questions in class or at students criticising them. It’s unlikely to be the latter, but I can’t say for certain. However, it is highly unlikely that students were criticising each other as most classes don’t have group discussions. If we recall the INTI video, there is a scene where a teacher does crossword puzzles with students. This pedagogic action is far removed from a mission that aims to develop “the necessary 21st century skills of communication, collaboration, critical thinking, and creativity” (INTI, 2015). We see in Malaysia, another Confucius heritage country, a highly flexible interpretation of the university’s mission. Doing crossword puzzles probably doesn’t produce students that contradict openly the Confucian cultural imperative of obeying a superior. My action did.
V, thanks for presenting the opportunity to clarify an APA issue. I’ve been wondering about where the apostrophe comes in “Tierney (2008)’s” and looked it up. Apparently the correct version is, “Tierney’s (2008)”, and this does read more fluently (Krupa, 2013).
Bess, J. L., & Dee, J. R. (2012). Understanding college and university organization: Theories for effective policy and practice. Volume 1–The state of the system. Sterling, Virginia: Stylus Publishing.
Dolan, T. E. (2010). Revisiting adhocracy: From rhetorical revisionism to smart mobs. Journal of Futures Studies, 15(2), 33–50.
Fugazzotto, S. J. (2009). Mission statements, physical space, and strategy in higher education. Innovative Higher Education, 34(5), 285–298. doi:10.1007/s10755-009-9118-z
INTI. (2015). About INTI – INTI International University & Colleges. Retrieved October 24, 2015, from http://international.newinti.edu.my/about-inti
Krupa, T. (2013) Forming possessives with singular names. blog.apastyle.org. Retrieved on Oct 26, 2015 from: http://blog.apastyle.org/apastyle/2013/06/forming-possessives-with-singular-names.html
Pansiri, N. O. (2014). Managing educational change: A critique of the top-down primary school management development project in Botswana. European Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(12), 26–37.
Sugimoto, Y. (2014). Diversity and Unity in Education. In An introduction to Japanese society (4th ed., pp. 530–531). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.