INA&Associates Inc. holds the vision of becoming the world's number one human-capital investment company, and we treat every one of our employees as our most important asset, our "jinzai," or human capital. We are convinced that no organization can grow on a sustainable basis unless the people inside it grow first. Yet in many organizations, the very process that is meant to develop this valuable human capital, day-to-day coaching and feedback, ends up unintentionally crushing that potential instead. The clearest example of this is the confusion between "getting angry" and "scolding." In Japanese these are two distinct words, ikaru and shikaru, and this article sets out the decisive difference between the two, explains how anger that attacks a person's character can measurably lower an employee's cognitive performance and erode the productivity of the whole organization, and considers together with the reader how to build the kind of psychologically safe environment that lets human capital reach its full value.
What Is the Difference Between "Getting Angry" and "Scolding"?
"Getting angry" is a self-centered act of venting one's own emotions. "Scolding" is future-oriented communication aimed at helping the other person grow. Understanding this difference is the starting point for effective people development.
In workplaces everywhere, managers regularly find themselves in situations where they have to correct a subordinate's behavior. Yet how many managers can honestly say they clearly separate "getting angry" from "scolding"? On the surface the two look alike, but their purpose and their effect are completely different. "Getting angry" is, in most cases, a self-centered act in which someone unloads their own emotional frustration or stress onto another person. It carries no real concern for that person's growth, and afterward it leaves behind nothing but fear and a shrinking, defensive posture. "Scolding," in contrast, is future-oriented communication whose purpose is to help the other person grow. It is an educational approach: state the facts, explain logically what needs to improve, and guide the person toward their next action. We at INA&Associates believe that this kind of "scolding" is itself a form of investment in human capital.
Anglo-American management writing draws essentially the same line, though usually with different vocabulary. Business coaches and HR practitioners in the United States and the United Kingdom distinguish "blaming" from "coaching," and popular frameworks such as radical candor, caring personally while challenging directly, or the well-known convention of "praise in public, criticize in private," exist precisely because English-speaking workplaces have also long recognized that criticism aimed at a person's character rather than their behavior destroys trust without improving performance. The underlying psychological mechanism is universal; the Japanese vocabulary of ikaru and shikaru simply names it with unusual precision.
| Factor | Getting Angry | Scolding |
|---|---|---|
| Purpose | Venting one's own emotions, relieving stress | Promoting the other person's growth, correcting problem behavior |
| Perspective | Self-centered ("You" message) | Other-centered ("I" message) |
| Focus | Character, past failures | Behavior, future improvement |
| Communication style | Emotional, one-sided | Logical, dialogue-based |
| Resulting outcome | Fear, withdrawal, broken trust, mental shutdown | Insight, self-driven growth, stronger trust |
Why Does Denying Someone's Character Shrink the Brain? The Science Behind It
Chronic stress caused by attacks on a person's character triggers the excessive release of the stress hormone cortisol, which physically damages the nerve cells of the hippocampus, the brain region responsible for memory and learning. This is what leads to declines in cognitive function and IQ.
Emotional "anger" that denies someone's character does not simply lower an employee's motivation. Scientific research has shown that serious stress causes physical damage to brain function itself. When the body is exposed to strong stress, it releases the stress hormone cortisol. Under normal circumstances this hormone plays an important role, triggering the "fight or flight" response that protects us from danger. But when someone is exposed to chronic stress of the kind produced by attacks on their character, excessive cortisol release becomes the norm rather than the exception. Recent neuroscience research has reported that this condition destroys nerve cells in the hippocampus, the region that governs memory and learning, and physically shrinks part of the brain. As a result, cognitive functions such as memory and reasoning decline markedly, and there are indications that this can even have a negative effect on IQ scores. In other words, emotional scolding that attacks the person rather than the behavior is, in effect, directly stripping away an employee's intellectual capacity.
None of this is a uniquely Japanese finding. Chronic-stress research on cortisol and the hippocampus comes largely out of American and British neuroscience and occupational-health literature, and it has fed directly into the corporate wellness programs, employee assistance programs, and "psychologically informed" management training that are now common across large employers in the United States and the United Kingdom. Where the Japanese and Anglo-American conversations differ is less in the underlying biology than in workplace norms: open shouting at a subordinate is broadly seen as a firing offense or, at minimum, a serious disciplinary and legal exposure in many American and British workplaces, which has pushed the language of "toxic managers" and psychological harm further into mainstream HR policy than it has traditionally been in Japan.
How Does Psychological Safety Boost Innovation and Productivity?
In workplaces with high psychological safety, employees can exchange opinions and take on challenges without fear of having their character attacked, which makes innovation easier to generate. Google's "Project Aristotle" also identified psychological safety as the common factor shared by its most productive teams.
So how can an organization draw out the full potential of its people and guide itself toward growth? The key lies in "psychological safety." The concept was proposed by Amy C. Edmondson, a professor at Harvard Business School in the United States, and it refers to a state in which people within an organization can speak up and act without fear of their opinions, questions, or mistakes being held against them.
In workplaces with high psychological safety, employees can engage in constructive exchanges of opinion and take on new challenges without the anxiety of having their character denied. Failure is treated not as something to be blamed for but as a learning opportunity for the whole organization. It is precisely this kind of environment that generates innovation and allows the full potential of each individual employee to bloom. This is a world apart from a comfortable but undemanding "lukewarm organization"; it is a disciplined culture in which people hold each other to high standards while continuing to grow.
It is worth noting that this entire framework, "psychological safety" as a management term, originates in American academic research and has since become one of the most widely cited concepts in United States and United Kingdom corporate leadership training, well ahead of its adoption in Japan. Anglo-American firms often operationalize it through structured practices such as blameless post-mortems after a project failure, anonymous 360-degree feedback, and explicit "no blame" norms written into team charters, practices that are gradually being introduced into Japanese organizations as well.
Conclusion
This article has explained the clear difference between "getting angry" and "scolding," and, drawing on scientific findings, has shown how emotional anger that denies a person's character can, through the excessive release of cortisol, lower an employee's brain function and even their IQ. For any company, its most important asset is its people. To develop that asset as an investment in the future, rather than eroding its value, every manager must reflect deeply on their own words and actions and work to build an organizational culture with high psychological safety. INA&Associates Inc. will keep pursuing, as a human-capital investment company, an environment in which every employee can take on challenges and grow with peace of mind. The future of any company is, quite simply, the future of its people.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q1. How can I stop myself from turning "scolding" into "getting angry"?
A1. When your emotions are running high, it helps to pause and let time pass rather than raising the issue immediately, then deliver feedback afterward based on the facts. By limiting what you point out to the person's "behavior" and consciously avoiding any reference to their "character," you can practice communication that stays on the "scolding" side of the line. This is close to what Anglo-American coaching guides call separating the behavior from the person.
Q2. Is the effect of cortisol only temporary?
A2. If the cortisol release is caused by temporary stress, the body naturally recovers on its own. However, when chronic stress continues, as it does with ongoing attacks on someone's character in the workplace, excessive cortisol release becomes the norm, raising the risk of long-term harm such as shrinkage of the hippocampus. This is exactly why improving the everyday workplace environment matters so much.
Q3. Doesn't a workplace with high psychological safety just become a "soft" organization?
A3. Psychological safety does not mean that anything goes. If anything, it describes an environment in which people can give each other candid feedback while continuing to pursue high standards. It is precisely because people feel safe speaking up that constructive discussion becomes more active and the performance of the whole organization improves. Amy Edmondson herself has repeatedly stressed that psychological safety and high standards are meant to work together, not as a trade-off.
