See no Evil, Hear no Evil, Speak no Evil
Earlier this month, I visited Japan.
It was a wonderful trip, with so many interesting places to explore and experiences to enjoy.
Our last stop was Nikkō Tōshō-gū Shrine, where I came across the famous Three Wise Monkeys.
Most of us will recognise them immediately.
🙈 See no evil.
🙉 Hear no evil.
🙊 Speak no evil.
But it wasn’t simply the carving that caught my attention. It was the history behind the characters and, in particular, how their meaning has changed over time.
The way we interpret these three monkeys today is very different from the philosophy they originally represented.
And for me, as someone who has spent more than 30 years helping employers manage their people, there is a very obvious connection to what happens in workplaces every day.
Who are the Three Wise Monkeys?
The Three Wise Monkeys are known in Japanese as Sanzaru, and each monkey has its own name and meaning.
Mizaru covers his eyes and represents ‘See no evil’.
Kikazaru covers his ears and represents ‘Hear no evil’.
Iwazaru covers his mouth and represents ‘Speak no evil’.
The most famous depiction of these characters is found at Nikkō Tōshō-gū Shrine, a UNESCO World Heritage Site in Japan.
The shrine is dedicated to Tokugawa Ieyasu, the founder of the Tokugawa shogunate, and features some extraordinary carvings and architecture.
The Three Wise Monkeys form part of eight carved panels on the shrine’s sacred horse stable.
The panels depict different stages of life, beginning with childhood and continuing through adulthood.
Interestingly, monkeys were traditionally believed to protect horses, which helps explain why these carvings appear on the stable.
The Three Wise Monkeys appear in the second panel, representing childhood and the importance of protecting children from negative influences as they develop their understanding of right and wrong.
It’s a fascinating story, and one that gives these familiar characters a much deeper meaning.
The underlying philosophy is considerably older than the carvings themselves, with connections to ancient Chinese teachings, particularly those associated with Confucius.
Those teachings encouraged people to avoid seeing, hearing or speaking about things that were contrary to proper moral conduct.
In other words, the message was about personal behaviour and choosing not to engage with wrongdoing.
Quite a positive philosophy when you think about it.
But that isn’t necessarily how we interpret the monkeys today.
How has the meaning of the Three Wise Monkeys changed?
In Western culture, the expression ‘see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil’ is often used to describe people who deliberately ignore something that is wrong.
Someone who sees inappropriate behaviour but chooses to look away.
Someone who hears something concerning but decides they don’t want to know.
Someone who could speak up but stays quiet because doing so would be difficult or uncomfortable.
This is a significant change from the original philosophy.
There is a big difference between choosing not to engage in wrongdoing and choosing to ignore wrongdoing when you encounter it.
And this distinction is particularly important when we think about the responsibilities of employers and line managers.
Because in the workplace, the Three Wise Monkeys can represent some of the most common management mistakes we come across.
See no evil: When managers turn a blind eye
Let’s start with Mizaru, the monkey covering his eyes.
How often do managers see something happening in their workplace that they know they should address, but decide to ignore it?
Perhaps an employee is regularly arriving late.
Perhaps someone isn’t pulling their weight, leaving colleagues to pick up the extra work.
Maybe there is a member of staff whose attitude is affecting the rest of the team.
The manager knows there is a problem, but they don’t want to upset anyone.
They may be worried about confrontation or concerned that the employee will resign if challenged.
Sometimes they convince themselves that the problem isn’t really that serious.
So they do nothing.
And what happens?
The employee continues behaving in the same way because nobody has told them that their behaviour is unacceptable.
Meanwhile, their colleagues become increasingly frustrated.
They start questioning why they are working so hard when someone else appears to be getting away with doing less.
Eventually, what started as a fairly minor issue becomes a much bigger management problem.
The behaviour you walk past is often the behaviour you end up accepting.
Of course, managers need to be proportionate in their response, and not every problem requires a formal meeting or disciplinary action.
But if something needs addressing, pretending it isn’t happening is rarely the answer.
An early, informal conversation might be all that is required.
Hear no evil: When employers don’t want to listen
Kikazaru covers his ears.
And I think this is particularly interesting in the context of workplace complaints.
Employees don’t always raise concerns through formal channels.
In fact, quite often they start by making relatively small comments.
“Things aren’t great in the team at the moment.”
“I’m finding it difficult working with Sarah.”
“I don’t think the workload is being shared fairly.”
These comments might be made during a one-to-one meeting, over lunch or in passing.
Sometimes employees are testing the water to see whether their manager is prepared to listen.
And sometimes managers miss the warning signs completely.
They are busy. They have customers to deal with, deadlines to meet and a business to run.
Or they may simply not want to get involved.
So they brush off the comments, perhaps telling the employee that everyone is under pressure or suggesting that they sort it out themselves.
There may be occasions when that is an appropriate response.
But managers need to understand what is happening before deciding what action, if any, is required.
If an employee is raising a genuine concern about bullying, harassment or inappropriate behaviour, ignoring it could create significant risks for both the employee and the organisation.
It could also undermine the employee’s confidence in management.
Why would someone raise another concern if they feel nobody listened the first time?
Listening doesn’t mean agreeing
This is an important distinction.
You can listen to someone’s concerns without automatically accepting their version of events.
You can acknowledge that an employee is unhappy without agreeing that someone else has done something wrong.
And you can take a concern seriously without immediately launching a formal investigation.
The important thing is to establish what has happened, consider the appropriate response and follow through where necessary.
Speak no evil: When managers avoid difficult conversations
Iwazaru covers his mouth.
And this is probably the monkey we come across most frequently in our work.
Managers who know they need to have a difficult conversation but keep putting it off.
Sometimes it is about performance: An employee isn’t meeting the required standards, but the manager doesn’t want to damage the relationship.
Sometimes it is about behaviour: Someone has said something inappropriate, but the manager is uncomfortable challenging them.
Sometimes it is about the future of the business: The organisation is struggling financially and difficult decisions may be needed, but the business owner doesn’t want to worry their staff.
I understand why these conversations get delayed.
Most small business owners and charity leaders care about their employees.
They have often built close relationships with the people who work for them.
They may know their families, understand their personal circumstances and genuinely want to support them.
The last thing they want is to be responsible for making someone unhappy.
But avoiding the conversation doesn’t necessarily protect the employee.
In fact, it can be deeply unfair.
Employees deserve to know when something is wrong
Imagine an employee whose performance has been below the required standard for six months.
Their manager knows, but hasn’t said anything.
The employee continues coming to work, believing they are doing a reasonable job.
Then, one day, the manager has finally had enough.
What should have been a conversation about improving performance becomes a much more serious discussion about whether the employee can remain in their role.
From the employee’s perspective, this may come as a complete shock.
They haven’t been told there was a problem.
They haven’t had an opportunity to improve.
They may reasonably question why their manager allowed the situation to continue for so long.
This is why we regularly encourage managers to address performance concerns early.
It gives people a fair opportunity to understand what is expected and make the necessary improvements.
And it gives employers more options if those improvements don’t happen.
Why do managers avoid dealing with workplace problems?
Over the years, I’ve heard many different reasons.
Some managers are frightened of getting things wrong.
They know employment law is complicated and worry that saying the wrong thing could lead to a grievance or employment tribunal claim.
Others lack confidence.
They may have been promoted because they were excellent at their previous job, without ever receiving training in how to manage people.
Some genuinely believe that being a good manager means keeping everyone happy.
And there are business owners who are so focused on the operational demands of running their businesses that people management continually falls to the bottom of the priority list.
In charities, the situation can be even more complicated.
Leaders may be reluctant to challenge someone who is deeply committed to the cause, particularly if they are worried about the impact on morale, volunteers, supporters or the organisation’s reputation.
Whatever the reason, avoidance rarely makes the underlying problem easier to resolve.
What might initially have required a relatively straightforward conversation can develop into an employment dispute that takes significant time and money to address.
It can also cause real damage to relationships within the team.
And while managers are avoiding the conversation, other employees may be wondering why nobody is doing anything.
Doing nothing is still a decision
This is something we say to employers regularly.
Doing nothing is still a decision.
It might not feel like one!
You haven’t taken action. You haven’t written a letter. You haven’t called a meeting. But, by choosing not to intervene, you may be allowing the situation to continue.
And that decision can have consequences.
That doesn’t mean employers should react to every complaint or concern with a formal process.
Far from it.
One of the things we do at DOHR is help employers understand their options and the risks associated with each approach.
Sometimes the right thing to do is have an informal conversation.
Sometimes you need to gather more information before deciding how to proceed.
And sometimes the situation is serious enough to require immediate action.
The important thing is that the decision is considered and appropriate to the circumstances.
Ignoring something because it is uncomfortable is very different from deciding, after proper consideration, that no further action is necessary.
What should employers learn from the Three Wise Monkeys?
For me, the lesson comes back to the difference between the original Japanese philosophy and the modern interpretation.
The original meaning encourages people to avoid engaging in wrongdoing.
That is a positive message about personal responsibility and behaviour.
But in a workplace, particularly when you are responsible for managing other people, you also need to recognise when something isn’t right and be prepared to deal with it.
So perhaps we need a slightly different version of the Three Wise Monkeys for employers:
See what is happening
Pay attention to your workplace.
Understand what your employees are doing and how they are working together.
Look for patterns of behaviour, changes in performance or signs that something isn’t quite right.
Don’t wait until a problem becomes impossible to ignore.
Hear what your employees are telling you
Make time to listen.
Encourage employees to raise concerns and ensure managers understand how to respond when they do.
You don’t have to agree with everything you hear, but you should take appropriate concerns seriously.
And remember that sometimes what an employee doesn’t say can be as important as what they do.
Speak up when something needs addressing
Have the conversations you need to have.
If someone isn’t performing, tell them.
If behaviour isn’t acceptable, explain why.
If the business is facing difficulties that may affect employees, consider how and when those issues should be communicated.
Be fair, be consistent and be prepared to explain your decisions.
Most importantly, don’t leave people guessing about what you expect from them.
What happens when business owners avoid the elephant in the room?
If you’ve followed DOHR for any length of time, you’ll know that I regularly talk about dealing with the elephant in the room.
Every business has them.
Sometimes they are relatively small issues that people are reluctant to discuss.
Sometimes they are significant problems that everyone knows about, but nobody wants to address.
And sometimes the business owner is so close to the situation that they genuinely don’t know where to start.
The problem with elephants is that they tend to take up more room the longer you leave them.
A difficult employee becomes an increasingly disruptive influence.
A performance issue affects productivity.
An unresolved disagreement starts damaging relationships across the team.
Or a business owner becomes so frustrated that they make a rushed decision they later regret.
Good people management doesn’t mean avoiding difficult decisions.
It means making those decisions fairly, lawfully and with a proper understanding of the implications for the business and its employees.
And sometimes that means having conversations you would really rather avoid.
A final thought from Japan
The image of the carving is a lovely reminder of my trip to Japan, but it also represents a philosophy that has made me think about how we manage people.
The original Three Wise Monkeys encourage us to make good choices about our own behaviour.
That is something worth remembering.
But as employers and managers, we also have responsibilities towards the people who work for us.
We can’t always choose what we see or hear in our workplaces.
We can, however, choose how we respond.
And when something is wrong, keeping quiet and hoping it goes away is not always the kindest or safest option.
So the next time you find yourself thinking, “I know I should probably deal with that, but…” perhaps it’s worth remembering the Three Wise Monkeys.
And then doing something about it.
