In June 2020, the Act on Comprehensive Promotion of Labor Policies (commonly known as the Power Harassment Prevention Act) came into effect. From April 2022, the obligation to implement measures to prevent workplace harassment was expanded to include small and medium-sized enterprises.

Guidelines based on the Act on Equal Opportunity and Treatment between Men and Women in Employment and the Act on Childcare and Family Care Leave have also been established. As a result, preventing workplace harassment has become an unavoidable management issue for companies of all sizes.

According to surveys conducted by Japan's Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, the number of consultations regarding workplace bullying and harassment has remained at a high level. In addition, opportunities to become aware of harassment issues have increased through social media and news coverage. While many companies have introduced workplace harassment training, participants often report that "although I understand the knowledge, I rarely have an opportunity to objectively reflect on my own words and behavior."

In recent years, another issue has emerged as awareness of harassment has increased: excessive avoidance behaviors, such as "being afraid to reprimand employees" or "avoiding involvement with them." This tendency, sometimes described as a "conflict-avoidant" or "anything-for-a-quiet-life" approach, represents a different type of harassment risk. Although it is the opposite of the risk of committing harassment, it can lead to lost opportunities for employee development and poorer communication within the workplace. Both harassment caused by excessive or inappropriate guidance and excessive avoidance of guidance or involvement due to fear of harassment can ultimately contribute to workplace dysfunction.

Against this social background, this assessment was developed as a tool that allows managers and team leaders to objectively self-check their own words and behavior from both perspectives: the risk of engaging in harassment and the risk of excessive avoidance. The specific perspectives used for measurement are explained in the following section, "②Analysis of Previous Research."

In developing this scale, we reviewed the following previous research and relevant regulations.

To organize the risks associated with workplace harassment, this scale adopts five perspectives: "① Legal Compliance Risk," "② Work Management Risk," "③ Communication Risk," "④ Self-Control Risk," and "⑤ Excessive Avoidance Risk."

There are three main reasons for adopting these five perspectives.

First, harassment does not arise from a single cause. Rather, it results from multiple factors with different characteristics, including "harassing behavior itself," "the quality of management," "the quality of communication," "the individual's psychological state," and "overreactions resulting from increased awareness of harassment." Therefore, it cannot be fully understood from a single perspective.

Second, by clearly distinguishing ①–④ (risks related to harmful behavior and dysfunctional management) from ⑤ (risk related to avoidance), the assessment can simultaneously visualize two contrasting risk patterns: "being too strict" and "being too uninvolved." Third, based on our experience using this assessment in training settings, approximately five perspectives make it easier for participants to understand their own tendencies in a short period of time.

【The 15 Items Measured: 5 Areas × 3 Items】

① Legal Compliance Risk: Power Harassment / Sexual Harassment / Maternity Harassment
② Work Management Risk: Work Goals / Workload / Work Support
③ Communication Risk: Insufficient Rapport Building / Irritable Attitude / Expression of Anger
④ Self-Control Risk: Insufficient Emotional Self-Awareness / Perfectionism and Rigid Thinking / Low Stress Tolerance and Insufficient Self-Care
⑤ Excessive Avoidance Risk: Fear of Harassment / Avoidance of Guidance / Avoidance of Conversation


The assessment results also provide perspectives for improvement tailored to each area.
We hope this assessment will be useful for improving management and communication skills.

Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Japan (2020) [1][2]

The Act on Comprehensive Promotion of Labor Policies, which came into effect in 2020 (commonly known as the Power Harassment Prevention Act; fully applicable to small and medium-sized enterprises from April 2022), and the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare's "Guidelines on Measures that Employers Should Take in Employment Management Regarding Problems Arising from Words and Actions Based on a Superior Relationship in the Workplace" (2020) provide definitions and classifications of power harassment. Guidelines based on the Act on Equal Opportunity and Treatment between Men and Women in Employment and the Act on Childcare and Family Care Leave also establish employers' obligations to take measures against sexual harassment and maternity harassment. In this scale, these definitions and classifications are reflected in the subfactors of "① Legal Compliance Risk" (Power Harassment / Sexual Harassment / Maternity Harassment).

Bakker & Demerouti (2007) [3]
The Job Demands–Resources Model (JD-R Model) indicates that a combination of excessive demands (workload and unrealistic goals) and insufficient resources (support and autonomy) can contribute to burnout and deterioration in interpersonal relationships. In this scale, these findings are reflected in the design of "② Work Management Risk" (Work Goals / Workload / Work Support).

Edmondson (1999) [4]
Research on psychological safety indicates that everyday interpersonal interactions influence whether people feel able to take interpersonal risks within relationships based on trust. Irritable attitudes and the expression of anger can easily be perceived by subordinates as nonverbal pressure, while insufficient rapport building can gradually reduce the "trust bank" built through everyday interactions. In this scale, these findings are reflected in the design of "③ Communication Risk."

Goleman (1995) [5]
Emotional Intelligence suggests that awareness of one's own emotions (self-awareness) and self-regulation influence the quality of interpersonal behavior. Cognitive rigidity (perfectionism and rigid thinking) and low stress tolerance can make emotional regulation more difficult and may contribute to excessive guidance or expressions of anger. In this scale, these findings are reflected in the design of "④ Self-Control Risk."

Morrison & Milliken (2000) [6]
Research on Organizational Silence has highlighted a phenomenon in which employees and managers avoid speaking up or raising concerns even when they recognize problems, due to fear of conflict or damage to their reputation. In this scale, the tendency to "avoid saying what needs to be said" is viewed as avoidance behavior arising from excessive fear of harassment, and is reflected in the design of "⑤ Excessive Avoidance Risk."

The scale was developed through brainstorming sessions primarily involving licensed psychologists, social insurance and labor consultants, and corporate human resources managers. The ideas were then grouped using the KJ Method, reviewed from multiple perspectives, and refined to finalize the questionnaire items.

To capture the multifaceted nature of harassment risks in modern workplaces, we developed the items with a particular focus on the following five perspectives.

・Legal Compliance Risk
　The ability to identify clear harassing words and behaviors that may violate laws or internal company regulations.

・Work Management Risk
　Risks arising from the management approach itself, including workload, goal setting, and the availability of support.

・Communication Risk
　The impact of everyday communication and interpersonal interactions on trust and psychological safety.

・Self-Control Risk (Mental Management)
　The individual's internal psychological state, which may not be readily visible to others.

・Excessive Avoidance Risk
　A tendency to become overly cautious and avoid guidance or involvement altogether due to excessive fear of harassment.

These perspectives are based on the view that harassment can arise from multiple factors with different characteristics, including "harassing behavior," "the quality of management," "the quality of communication," "the individual's psychological state," and "overreactions resulting from increased awareness of harassment."

As a result, we established 45 questions in total, consisting of 5 factors and 15 subfactors, with 3 questions for each subfactor. Factors ① and ⑤ consist of "2 behavioral items + 1 internal item," factors ② and ③ consist entirely of behavioral items, and factor ④ consists entirely of internal items.

※⑤ Excessive Avoidance Risk is positioned as an independent factor measuring a type of risk that is fundamentally different from factors ①–④: risk in the direction of avoidance. Therefore, it is not included in the overall evaluation (combined score) described below and is displayed as a separate result. For details, please refer to "④Evaluation Criteria."

【① Legal Compliance Risk】

・Power Harassment
I sometimes become emotional and reprimand subordinates loudly.
I sometimes make comments that could be perceived as denying a subordinate's character or personality.
I sometimes feel that somewhat harsh guidance is unavoidable.

・Sexual Harassment
I sometimes repeatedly ask subordinates about their romantic relationships.
I sometimes make unnecessary comments about someone's appearance or clothing.
I sometimes feel that making mildly sexual jokes can help lighten the atmosphere.

・Maternity Harassment
I sometimes express dissatisfaction toward employees who work reduced hours.
I sometimes make comments that could be perceived as denying pregnancy or parental leave.
I sometimes feel that consideration for childcare amounts to giving someone special treatment.


【② Work Management Risk】

・Work Goals
I sometimes assign goals that are difficult to achieve without adjusting them.
I sometimes demand that goals be achieved based on unsupported ideas about willpower or determination.
I sometimes fail to take a subordinate's circumstances into account when setting goals.

・Workload
I sometimes assign tasks without understanding a subordinate's workload.
I sometimes fail to review situations where overtime has become routine.
I sometimes put consideration for others on the back burner because I am busy myself.

・Work Support
I sometimes put off responding to consultations or questions from subordinates.
I sometimes leave subordinates to handle new tasks on their own without sufficient support.
I sometimes put off supporting the development and growth of subordinates.


【③ Communication Risk】

・Insufficient Rapport Building
I sometimes have little or no conversation with subordinates about anything other than work.
I have sometimes been told by subordinates that I am difficult to approach.
I sometimes find it difficult to take an interest in the circumstances of my subordinates.

・Irritable Attitude
I sometimes show my bad mood through my facial expressions or behavior.
I sometimes become distant or curt when I am tired.
I feel that my bad mood is sometimes noticed by people around me.

・Expression of Anger
I sometimes become emotional and speak in a harsh tone.
I sometimes remain affected by my angry attitude for some time afterward.
I sometimes find it difficult to control my anger in the moment.


【④ Self-Control Risk】

・Insufficient Emotional Self-Awareness
I often realize only afterward that I was feeling irritated.
I sometimes find it difficult to recognize when stress is building up.
I sometimes realize that my emotions have changed only when someone points it out to me.

・Perfectionism and "Should" Thinking
I sometimes become fixated on the idea that things should be done a certain way.
I sometimes insist on doing things my own way.
I sometimes point out minor mistakes more than necessary.

・Insufficient Self-Care
I sometimes do not have effective ways to relieve stress.
When I am busy, I sometimes put rest aside.
I sometimes suppress my emotions until they eventually explode.


【⑤ Excessive Avoidance Risk】

・Fear of Harassment
I sometimes feel strong anxiety when providing guidance to subordinates.
I sometimes become excessively concerned about my own words and behavior.
I sometimes worry that I will be disliked if I point out someone's mistakes or behavior.

・Avoidance of Guidance
I sometimes avoid telling subordinates things that need to be said.
I sometimes worry that pointing out problems will create tension or conflict.
I sometimes feel like ignoring problems even when I notice them.

・Avoidance of Conversation
I sometimes avoid conversations with subordinates of the opposite sex more than necessary.
I sometimes unnaturally avoid being alone with a subordinate.
I sometimes feel nervous about interacting with people of the opposite sex.

・Number of Questions: 5 factors × 3 subfactors × 3 questions each = 45 questions
・5-point scale

Not at all applicable　0 points
Not applicable　　　　1 point
Neither applicable nor inapplicable　2 points
Applicable　　　　　　3 points
Very applicable　　　　4 points

※This assessment is designed to help users recognize harassment and avoidance risks. Therefore, higher scores indicate higher risk, and the thresholds are intentionally set relatively strictly. The scoring has been adjusted so that even respondents who consistently select "Neither applicable nor inapplicable" may fall into the "High" category.



・Five Factor Scores (9 questions each; maximum 36 points)
0–6 points　Low
7–15 points　Moderate
16–36 points　High


・Criteria for Each Subfactor (3 questions; maximum 12 points)

0–1 points　Low (Good)
2–5 points　Moderate (Some Caution)
6–12 points　High (Attention Required)

・Overall Evaluation: Scope and Calculation Method

The overall evaluation is calculated based on four factors: ① Legal Compliance Risk, ② Work Management Risk, ③ Communication Risk, and ④ Self-Control Risk (36 questions; maximum 144 points).

⑤ Excessive Avoidance Risk (9 questions; maximum 36 points) is an independent factor measuring "avoidance risk," which differs in direction from factors ①–④. Therefore, it is not included in the overall evaluation (combined score) and is displayed as a separate result. If the risk in the direction of harmful behavior (①–④) and the risk in the direction of avoidance (⑤) were combined into a single score, people who lean toward harmful behavior and those who lean toward avoidance could receive the same score, making the results more difficult to interpret. This separate scoring system is intended to avoid that problem.

・Overall Evaluation Criteria (①–④; 36 questions; maximum 144 points)

0–16 points　Harassment Risk – Good
17–44 points　Harassment Risk – Some Caution
45–80 points　Harassment Risk – Attention Required
81–144 points　Harassment Risk – Significant Risk


・Criteria for ⑤ Excessive Avoidance Risk (9 questions; maximum 36 points; scored independently)

0–3 points　Excessive Avoidance Risk – Low (Good)
4–15 points　Excessive Avoidance Risk – Somewhat High (Some Caution)
16–36 points　Excessive Avoidance Risk – High (Attention Required)

※The calculation method and classification are based on the same principles as the overall evaluation criteria for factors ①–④. On the results screen, this score is displayed separately from the "Overall Evaluation."

For the assessment results, each of the 15 subfactors and the five major categories (Overall Evaluation and Excessive Avoidance Risk) is evaluated in approximately 300–500 Japanese characters worth of content, covering its characteristics, situations that are likely to occur in the workplace, and specific behavioral guidelines for improvement. The descriptions were developed based on previous research and the practical experience of the assessment developers.

This assessment has not been statistically validated in terms of its factor structure, reliability, or validity. It was developed based on careful consideration by professionals with relevant expertise. Please note that its statistical foundation is limited and that it should not be considered a psychometric scale suitable for academic or scientific research.

In addition, this assessment is based on self-reported responses (self-evaluation) and should not be used as a basis for making legal determinations regarding whether specific conduct constitutes harassment, or for making personnel decisions such as disciplinary action. If you require specific advice or an assessment regarding workplace harassment, please consult your company's internal consultation service, an attorney, a certified social insurance and labor consultant, or another qualified professional.

[1]Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Japan (2020). "Guidelines on Measures that Employers Should Take in Employment Management Regarding Problems Arising from Words and Actions Based on a Superior Relationship in the Workplace."
[2]Act on Comprehensive Promotion of Labor Policies (commonly known as the Power Harassment Prevention Act)
[3]Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The Job Demands-Resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309-328.
[4]Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383.
[5]Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ. Bantam Books.
[6]Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. (2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to change and development in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 706-725.
[7]Noriko Hiraki (2009). Assertion Training: For Refreshing and Effective Self-Expression. Japan Mental Technology Research Institute.