Where Does Harassment Begin—and Where Does It End?
Practical Criteria for Use in Real-World Settings
One of the most common questions people ask is this:
“Where does guidance end, and where does harassment begin?”
Current laws and organizational guidelines do not provide a sufficiently clear answer. As a result, workplaces often fall into a new kind of paralysis—what is sometimes called “white harassment.”
This refers to environments where supervisors, paralyzed by the fear of being accused of harassment, refrain from providing even necessary guidance, feedback, or essential management.
In such settings, communication becomes sterile, learning stagnates, and responsibility is quietly abandoned—not because leaders lack concern, but because the boundaries of harassment have become unclear.
In this article, building on the structural understanding presented in the previous installments, I will propose practical criteria that can actually be used in everyday settings—at work, in families, and within organizations.
1. A Necessary Starting Point: What Harassment Is—and Is Not
First, we must return to the core definition:
Harassment is an act in which a perpetrator uses seemingly legitimate norms or rules as tools to soothe or temporarily relieve their own Inadequacy, by exploiting the social responsibility and moral orientation of another person.
This definition gives us a crucial baseline.
If an interaction does not involve an attempt to relieve one’s own Inadequacy by exerting psychological control, then it is not harassment—even if it is uncomfortable, stressful, or unpleasant.
Understanding this alone already resolves much of the confusion surrounding the idea that “everything has become harassment.”
2. Separating Two Levels: Doing and Being
To make judgments more precise, it is essential to distinguish between two layers of interaction:
• Doing level
Concrete actions, behaviors, requests, or mistakes
→ complaints, stressors, or nuisance behaviors
• Being level
Psychological intrusion into a person’s existence, worth, or identity
→ domination, constraint, or erosion of self-trust
Harassment does not occur at the Doing level alone.
It emerges when interaction crosses into the Being level for the purpose of soothing Inadequacy.
Example:
- A supervisor pointing out an error and requesting improvement
→ Doing level → not harassment - A supervisor repeatedly implying,
“You are fundamentally incompetent,” or
“You are the problem”
→ Being level → harassment
In practice, many people sense this boundary intuitively—often at the moment when feedback about a task quietly turns into doubt about who they are as a person.
3. “Harsh but Not Harassment” vs. Harassment
This distinction helps explain an experience many people recognize:
“They speak harshly, but somehow it doesn’t feel like harassment.”
In such cases, although the communication style may be unpleasant—and often should be avoided—there is no psychological domination aimed at relieving Inadequacy. The interaction remains at the Doing level.
Similarly, many everyday irritations—such as noise complaints or minor conflicts—are often labeled with new “-harassment” terms.
If these acts are not driven by psychological control, they are stress issues or nuisance behaviors, not harassment.
This framework prevents over-extension of the term while preserving its seriousness.
4. Warning Signs: When Interactions Slip into Harassment
During Doing-level exchanges, it is essential to examine whether implicit Being-level messages are present.
Common warning signs include:
- Persistent use of displeasure or silence to induce guilt
- Shifting standards (“moving goalposts”)
- Messages that imply, “You are the cause of my emotional state”
These patterns often involve double binds—contradictory messages in which a person is blamed regardless of their response.
When such patterns appear, the interaction may already be functioning as harassment, even if no explicit insult is made.
5. Communication Principles: Keeping Interaction at the Doing Level
Healthy interaction—especially in professional settings—requires a clear rule:
There is no legitimate reason to intrude into another person’s Being.
Requests, corrections, and expectations must be expressed through I-messages:
- “I am having difficulty with this outcome.”
- “I need this task completed differently.”
Not:
- “You are irresponsible.”
- “You lack commitment.”
This distinction protects both clarity and dignity.
6. Evaluating Norms, Responsibility, and Power
When norms or responsibilities are invoked, one critical question must always be asked:
Are these norms genuinely necessary—or are they serving as a cover for unresolved Inadequacy?
In workplaces, harassment often emerges when:
- A leader’s personal insecurity is embedded into organizational rules
- Local expectations override public, shared standards
This is how local rules quietly become instruments of psychological control.
As shown in the previous article’s workplace and family examples, harassment rarely begins with overt abuse.
It begins when responsibility is used to destabilize another person’s inner reference point.
7. Organizational Implications: Why Diversity and Purpose Matter
From this perspective, widely discussed management strategies take on new meaning.
• Diversity
Encourages multiple perspectives, preventing rigid value systems that enable psychological domination.
• Purpose (organizational mission)
When properly formulated, purpose transforms personal Inadequacy into publicly shared meaning—preventing it from being projected onto employees.
These approaches are not merely ethical ideals.
They function as structural safeguards against harassment.
8. A Note on Cultural Context (in Japan)
Some examples are particularly relevant in Japan:
- Workplace drinking gatherings
Inviting colleagues to social events is not harassment in itself.
It becomes problematic only when refusal is interpreted as a personal or moral failure. - Implicit hierarchy
Unspoken expectations can easily shift into Being-level pressure unless consciously examined.
These examples show that cultural context shapes how harassment appears—but not its underlying structure.
9. What This Perspective Makes Possible
With these criteria, it becomes possible to:
- Distinguish harassment from necessary guidance
- Prevent over-labeling and paralysis
- Restore open communication without fear
Harassment prevention is not about silence.
It is about keeping relationships free from psychological domination.
In the final article, I will step back from concrete criteria and explore a broader question:
What becomes possible—personally and socially—once we truly understand harassment?
