Is this a workplace where people can say, “I don’t understand”?
There is something we sometimes hear at work.
“If you don’t understand, please ask.”
At first glance, it sounds obvious.
But what really matters is not whether those words have been said.
It is whether the other person feels safe enough to ask questions.
Suppose, for example, that an international staff member has not fully understood the instructions for a task.
They want to ask again.
But they may worry that asking repeatedly will inconvenience others.
Or that others will think they lack ability.
Such concerns may make them hesitate to ask.
In this situation, is it right to attribute the problem solely to that person’s Japanese language ability?
I do not think so.
What is at stake is not only language ability, but the way the organization itself works.
Some problems cannot be solved through Japanese language education alone.
Japanese language education is essential when welcoming people from overseas into the workforce.
Understanding instructions at work.
Expressing one’s thoughts.
Asking for advice when facing difficulties.
These are important abilities that help people work with confidence.
Yet no matter how much Japanese someone learns, they cannot fully use those abilities in a workplace where asking questions is itself difficult.
It takes not only effort from those learning the language, but also a receptive attitude from those listening.
For example, managers can give instructions that are brief and clear.
They can check the other person’s understanding of important information.
When someone asks a question, they can review it together rather than blame the person.
These everyday actions support communication in the workplace.
Japanese language education develops individual abilities, and it should also be connected to the way communication is designed across the organization.
I do not see Japanese language education as merely an employee benefit.
It is part of the foundation that enables an organization to function.
Japanese language is not a skill. It is infrastructure.
Psychological safety means more than simply being kind.
There is a concept called psychological safety.
It does not simply mean getting along at work or avoiding critical feedback.
It means creating an environment where people can ask questions, express their views, and report mistakes when they need to.
This is especially important in nursing care workplaces.
Sharing information that affects the safety of those receiving care.
Checking when uncertain about one’s own judgment.
Letting colleagues know when something feels even slightly wrong.
These actions support the quality of everyday work.
If staff begin to hesitate to report concerns for fear of being reprimanded, an organization may lose important information.
That is why asking questions and reporting problems must not depend on individual courage alone.
Organizations need to design systems that make it safe for people to speak up.
Building a “structure that allows people to return” into organizations.
When I think about education, I place great value on a “structure that allows people to return.”
When a child makes a mistake, we create an opportunity to think again rather than immediately providing the answer.
When an attempt does not go well, we do not judge the child solely by that failure.
And we leave room for them to try again.
This idea also applies to organizations of adults.
Of course, there are responsibilities in the workplace.
Errors cannot be overlooked, especially in work that involves safety.
But making responsibilities clear is different from intimidating people.
When a mistake occurs, we examine its causes.
We provide the necessary guidance.
We establish systems to prevent it from happening again.
And we create opportunities for the person to learn again.
This is one form of what I call a “structure that allows people to return.”
Allowing room for mistakes is different from leaving mistakes unaddressed.
I believe an organization where people can grow needs to be designed to distinguish between the two.
What employers can begin doing tomorrow.
I would like to propose three steps for companies considering hiring people from overseas.
First, deliberately make time for questions.
Rather than simply saying, “Please ask at any time,” set aside brief periods during the working day to check understanding.
For example, review instructions before work begins and reflect afterward on any difficulties.
Make asking questions part of everyday work, rather than something out of the ordinary.
Second, review how managers communicate.
When a message in Japanese has not been fully understood, do not focus only on the other person’s ability to understand.
Were the instructions too long?
Was too much technical terminology used?
Was the message delivered in a way that made it easy for the other person to ask for clarification?
Managers themselves also need to keep learning how to communicate.
Third, create systems for learning from mistakes.
Rather than ending the discussion by assigning responsibility to an individual, examine why the mistake happened.
Improve the way instructions are given and the procedures for the work, as needed.
Then share those improvements across the organization.
These accumulated efforts help people grow and build trust within the organization.
Beyond connecting Okinawa and ASEAN.
When thinking about systems for international employment that connect Okinawa and ASEAN, I do not want the number of people hired to be the sole focus of how we measure success.
How many people were hired?
How many came to Japan?
Of course, these are important indicators too.
But there are things those numbers alone cannot show.
Do people feel safe asking questions at work?
Are relationships of trust with managers developing?
Is Japanese language education connected to their actual work and daily lives?
And do people feel that they are growing?
Might paying attention to these questions help make international employment more sustainable?
Hiring someone is only the beginning.
Creating an environment where that person can continue working, keep learning, and put their abilities to use.
That is an important role for organizational design in the years ahead.
A strong organization is not one where nobody makes mistakes.
It is one where people can ask questions when they do not understand, learn again when they fail, and ask for help when they need it.
I want to work toward a society with more organizations like that.
