Is the fact that no dissenting opinions were expressed at the meeting a testament to the fact that all the attendees were in agreement? Or did they simply swallow their words because they felt that speaking out would put them at a disadvantage? This difference can be seen in how well the company’s supervisory function functions.
Members of the last-mile management team have heard an explanation from Mr. Watanabe of how to deal with former employees, and this has been conveyed to the union that they may also be attacked after leaving the job. Since the person in question has submitted a request for improvement of the work environment, the question is whether the company they currently work for is a place where people can speak up about their concerns and concerns without fear of reprisal.
Toshiba's report pointed out corporate culture that is outside the rules.
Toshiba announced it on July 21, 2015.Third-party committee reportIt points out the corporate culture that fails to align with the boss’s wishes as one of the reasons for improper accounting practices. It also highlights the fact that despite having an internal reporting system, it was not sufficiently utilized to identify the problems.
Having a system in place on paper is not the same as actually being able to use it. If someone who is uncomfortable with it cannot voice their concerns, and those who do speak up worry about their future, the organization loses the opportunity to quickly identify the problem. What should be confirmed this time, based on the Toshiba example, is not the identity of accounting fraud but the effectiveness of the mechanism for handling objections.
What the executives themselves are seeking is not confrontation with the management but improvement in the workplace.
In the application submitted to the union, it is said that Watanabe spoke to former officers and others about the idea that he had “orchestrated it himself.” From that explanation, there was concern that he would be treated the same way after resigning, and there were also reports that he developed mental illness.
What a company should do is first of all to accurately verify the content and circumstances of the statement, taking into account the person’s physical and mental state, and then to examine the necessity of the work and the way of communicating it. It is different to examine the health effects and to deny the person’s concerns and have them submit the application.
The union is demanding that Mr. Watanabe explain his actions, that the Audit and Supervisory Committee confirm the facts, and that the company’s decision be made clear. Even if proper action must be taken against former executives, it must be verified whether it is necessary for current executives to convey that fear until they retire.
Please check the handling after the consultation by looking at the existence of the consultation window.
Guidelines on workplace harassment from the Ministry of Health, Labor and WelfareIt requires proper handling of consultations, prompt and accurate verification of factual information, protection of the privacy of the parties involved, and the prevention of any adverse treatment based on the consultation itself. The company’s response depends on what action is taken after a consultation is received.
Since Mr. Watanabe’s own actions are now subject to verification, the methods of seeking explanations from senior management in the presence of the person in question or bringing together relevant parties to compile a single explanation cannot, to be frank, always ensure that we can hear candid comments. We ask the Audit and Supervisory Committee to seek to confirm individual perceptions through a channel independent of the speaker.
Even senior executives may feel uneasy about the actions of their managers. Do not use being in a position of authority as a reason to disregard the need for health considerations and consultations. If you end up responding by saying, “Since you are a senior executive, please bear with it,” you will end up relying on the executives’ patience to understand the problem.
Open questions to the Board of Directors and the Audit and Supervisory Committee
- Regarding Mr. Watanabe’s statement, who is the person responsible for separately verifying the facts from the person himself and the attendees? How do you verify the operational purpose, nature, and impact on the workplace of the statement?
- Do you inform employees and executives that they will not suffer any disadvantage as a result of consulting with us or cooperating with the investigation? Who will verify the subsequent personnel and operational procedures?
- Do you provide consultation, work accommodations, and industrial health support to those who have submitted a health issue?
- Do you have in place an effective channel other than approaching the individual directly if there is a need to raise objections to the management or to correct facts?
The union demands that those who speak out receive a response that gives them peace of mind.
- Establish an independent verification system centered on the Audit and Supervisory Committee, and please examine the evaluations of speakers and the content actually heard and received by attendees separately.
- Please proceed with immediate measures to reduce the burden on the mind and body, respecting the wishes of the person seeking advice, while avoiding unnecessary information sharing and direct face-to-face contact.
- Please take the results of the survey into account in the management of meetings, the statements of executives, the consultation system, and the improvement of personnel policies, and also check the situation after implementation.
A quiet conference room does not necessarily mean a healthy company.
If you are feeling anxious, please record the date and time of the incident, its details, the circumstances surrounding it, and any information you have heard directly from yourself. If it is difficult to discuss the matter internally, in addition to consulting the union, please consult the following organizations:Consultation center for the "Arigai Kaizen Support Team" of the Ministry of Health, Labor and WelfareFrom there, you can check the contact information for the Labor Bureau, etc.
A meeting without dissent is different from a meeting where people cannot express their dissent. If executives who have heard Mr. Watanabe’s explanation request that they be protected from any disadvantage after leaving the company, the company should investigate the difference. The path that allows people to express dissenting opinions without fear of reprisal is more important than the number of applauses.