What would you do? Open-door policy hurts supervisors’ authority
August 14, 2009 by Jim GiulianoPosted in: Complaint investigation, In this week's e-newsletter, Latest News & Views, Management, What would you do?
Periodically, we ask three HR managers how they’d handle a difficult situation at work. Today’s problem: An upper manager’s open-door policy threatens the authority of first-line supervisors.
The scene:
The complaint HR manager Jean Ferdinand heard wasn’t a new one. Three times this week she’d heard the same thing from other supervisors in the company.
“How am I supposed to run my department when Tom keeps interfering?” accounting manager Carol Hardy fumed.
VP Tom Harper was known to have an open-door policy, and he was always encouraging employees to come in anytime.
Sometimes he encouraged them a little too much.
“Whenever someone has a problem with me, they think they can run in to Tom and complain,” Carol continued. “And they know he’s going to take their side. It undermines my authority.”
Jean didn’t mention the other supervisors’ complaints about Tom. “They’ve probably already talked among themselves about it,” he thought silently.
More than a suggestion
“You know how Tom is,” Jean responded. “He wants everyone to be happy here, and he just wants to help out.”
“Help out?” Carol gasped. “He’s driving us crazy. We know almost every time we get tough on an employee, Tom’s going to step in and tell us to let up.”
“He really orders you to do that?” Jean asked.
“Look, he’s the vice-president,” Carol noted. “When he says, ‘How ‘bout taking it easy on so-and-so?’ it’s more than just a suggestion.”
“Understood,” Jean said. “Let me think about how to handle this.”
If you were Jean, what would you do to deal with the problem?
Bobbi Strother, HR manager, Haymarket, VA
What Bobbi would do: With something like this, I think you have to go straight to the VP, explain the problem and ask him to stop. I’d suggest that he advise people to go back to their managers and work out the problem at that level. The only exception might be regarding sensitive personal issues that might make people uncomfortable when discussing with a supervisor.
Reason: It seems that everyone but the VP knows about the problem, so he should be made aware of it and why he has to change.
Tracy Philips, HR director, Shreveport, LA
What Tracy would do: I’d probably speak to the VP to explain the problem. I’d also make sure employees understand that the first priority is to work things out with the individual managers and not to run to a higher-up whenever a problem pops up. They need to be clear on how we conduct employee-boss relations.
Reason: Yes, the VP is causing a problem that you have to deal with, but you need to deal with the employees, too. If you can get them to understand how to settle disputes in a mature, businesslike way, they won’t bother going to the VP.
Tom Petersen, program manager, Eagle River, AK
What Tom would do: One thing you might want to look at is whether the managers are in fact doing all they can to bring about fair resolutions to disputes. I’m not saying you go into it thinking the managers are wrong, but you should take an objective look to see if there’s an underlying reason people keep going to the VP.
Reason: Sometimes you might find that in fact a manager didn’t properly address a problem. If so, you could address that with training and counseling, and possibly cut down on perceived need for the VP’s help.
August 17th, 2009 at 8:38 am
I would definitely talk with the VP; s/he needs to understand the effect of what s/he is doing. Next, a conference with VP, HR and managers to try pinpointing the reason for the breakdown with “chain-of-command”. Review findings and policies, make any necessary changes and then review with employees. Employees should see that VP supports this system. Involving all those affected is crucial to ownership of the process.
August 17th, 2009 at 9:07 am
I would strongly suggest the open door policy stays as it is, but advise the VP to call in the manager EVERY time. This helps to promote better relationships and reinforces the idea of solving matters at the lowest level, or at least the meeting should include that message. People will learn that all roads lead to confronting issues calmly and with the people best able to solve them, in other words – the manager in question.
REASON: Never shut down communication – stiffled communication is never good – it leads to frustration and divisions. In most cases, both parties have issues resulting in the problem and face to face will get more on the table. The best organizations want to promote responsible communication aimed at improved understanding, better relationships, and improved performance.
August 17th, 2009 at 10:54 am
try having 8 co-owners who want everyone to be happy and just love them. They are so busy being loved they forget that by being nice to one person they are pushing that person’s work onto another.
August 17th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Who is Stu?
August 17th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
I agree with SH. The VP wants to have open communication with the employees, he wants to know what is happening. This is great. However if he continues to listen and not teach the employee to communicate with their supervisor then nothing is gained. The supervisor also feels undervalued and untrusted. By bringing in the supervisor each time the VP is fostering a relationship between the two parties. It’s a win/win!
August 17th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Why doesn’t the supervisor use the VP”s open door policy to explain the problem and ask him if he has any suggestions for solving it?
August 17th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
There is nothing wrong with an “open door policy” as long as the VP doesn’t abuse it. When an employee approaches him, before commenting or making any promises, he should call in the supervisor and get the whole story from both perspectives. It is his job to monitor what the supervisors are doing, and if in his opinion, the supervisor is wrong, he should get involved. On the other hand it is an abuse of his position to act w/o first getting the whole picture and even if he determines that he needs to get involved it should be done in a manner that will not undermine the “command structure”.
August 17th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Our personnel policy encourages an employee to first attempt to resolve with his/her supervisor, then come to HR if additional assistance is needed. By not encouraging staff to go to higher levels, HR can then be the source of raising the level of conversation as needed. However, I also have employees come directly to HR first to talk through how they are going to approach/discuss a difficult topic with their supervisor.
August 17th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
I wonder how that VP would feel if one of his manager’s went to the President (who happens to believe in an Open Door Policy too) and complained. Would he feel it was fair practice? Probably not because no one wants to be blind sided about an issue that could have been resolved without involving upper management. I bet he’d take another look at encouraging employees to circumvent management hierarchy.
….and then there’s always HR – it’s our job to keep things fair, maintain consistency and to follow policy.
August 17th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
You hit it right on the head Terri! Asking the VP how he would feel about being on the receiving line should do it.
August 17th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
What I thought was interesting about this was the manager “Carol” indicated “when and employee had a problem with me”–not workload, hours, assignment, etc. I think I would also want to know a little more about what exactly “getting tough with an employee” means? I agree with the other posts that a discussion with the VP is necessary. I also have to wonder why are the managers not talking directly to this VP and expressing their concerns? It would appear that the employees in this division are talking to this VP, but three other managers apparently have problems, but are not discussing these concerns with the VP? Additionally a meeting with the VP and his managers is also necessary as it appears that the managers are either not expressing their concerns to the VP and the issues that are resulting, or the VP is not acknowledging the concerns raised by the mangers–which is a significant issue if this is occurring–and needs to be addressed. But, I would not discontinue an open door policy.
August 18th, 2009 at 10:46 am
So far, I’ve seen a lot of good suggestions. I believe SH has summed it up best.
An open door policy is an excellent way to foster open communication which is needed for effective problem solving. Unfortunately, employees somethimes act like our kids by trying to play one authority against the other. Getting all parties together to communicate and problem solve it the best solution.
August 18th, 2009 at 11:33 am
I agree, some times employees “shop” for the answer they want. A VP probably doesn’t have all the details and tells the supervisors to let up on someone when they’ve only heard one side of the story. The VP should be asking the employee’s what they’ve done to rectify the situation and send them back to their supervisor to work out the situation themselves. In the mean time, the supervisors’ manager should be aware of what’s going on and the VP should let him/her know about the concerns being brought up to them. The VP and manager need to support the supervisors when discussing issues with the employees, but if they have concerns with how something was handled they need to addressing that with the supervisors themselves. People have to communicate, otherwise assumptions get made and usually not for the best.
August 24th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
The employees go straight to the VP for at least two reasons — 1) they do not want to talk to/deal with their immediate supervisor, and/or 2) they know they can get a better (more favorable) response from the VP.
RE: each point:
1) don’t want to deal with supervisor — this can range from a supervisor who realy is a jerk, to an employee who isn’t willing to be supervised. This has to be evaluated case-by-case, but the VP is uniquely NOT well situated to make this determination based on those who come thru his door; and his action on behalf of a truey wronged employee is likely to be perceived by supervisors and employees generally as just another instance of the boss who can’t say no. That is, if the VP can’t sort wheat from chaff, staff will likely lump even actions based on valid complaints in with the rest of the “whine and get your way” they’ve come to expect from this VP– which leads us to:
2) looking for sugar-daddy — the VP apparently is, or has built a reputation as, a soft touch who will sell out his supervisors — maybe without realizing that he’s doing it — to keep the fleeting appearance of peace with complaining employees, until the next time they pop thru his door….
Neither situation is going to get better if the open-door, y’all come and rag on about your boss, is allowed to continue. Whether or not the VP is willing or able to perceive it, his tinkering is damaging to supervisory morale, to employee respect for their supervisors, & likely diito to their respect for the company & certainly for the VP himself (who really respects a soft touch? — especially when other employees have to pick up the slack for those the VP has foolishly championed?). At some point this will affect the bottom line, if it hasn’t already.
RE: the supervisors — ideally they would, individually or as a group, take advantage of the open door policy themselves. In practical terms, however, that’s unlikely. Their own self-confidence is undermined by the VP’s all-too-evident lack of respect for them and the job they’re expected to do — even if the VP is too self-absorbed or arrogant to perceive the effect of his behavior — and by the reflection of the VP’s attitude in their subordinates. Knowing that they will need a good reference when — not “if” if this keeps up — they just can’t take any more, supervisors will more likely avoid any form of confrontation with either the VP, or with employees who need to be dealt with, until they have a chance to bail out for a better-run competitor.
And when a supervisor is actually out-of-line, he and his peers are likely to discount any criticism from the VP as just another instance of managerial sell-out.
The better, nose-to-the grindstone productive employees who are also being abused by the VP’s actions — because they have to pick up the slack for the slackers who whine to the VP — will likely tend to do the same. Even if they don’t actually leave, they are likely over time to give up & mentally check out.
Of course HR can’t be quite this blunt in discussing their concerns, but this needs to be the message between the softened lines. The company does need a way for employees to bypass supervisors re: allegations of illegal discrimination & sexual harassment, but to a qualified HR or EEO practitioner who can investige impartially & effectively, and give the company something concrete to go on. Other than that, supervisors need and deserve to be “in the loop” and to be given the opportunity to try to resolve their own unit’s problems before higher level mgmt intervenes.
Sorry to be so long-winded.
August 24th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
First, if the supervisor has not rebutted the VP for the negative unproductive elements of the open-door process failings, shame on the supervisor. Supervisors have just as much responsibility to up-channel needs, hindrances, etc as to down-channel instructions and work assignments. If an issue is unaddressed, the supervisor is to blame. If the VP has been advised, and still behaves the same, does the open-door policy apply above the VP level? Maybe it is time to exercise that option. Once communicated to the top, only two options remain, adapt or exit in an orderly fashion. I would opt for the latter at a time of my opportune choosing. (no rash walking out with no where to go) If the company’s management group is no responsive to efficiency and effectiveness, your remaining will not develop you nor be of enduring success.
However, most companies are just that, motivated by efficiency and effectiveness goals. Also, give time for the top and/or VP to realize and adjust. Patience is a virtue, and you’ll gain invaluable respect for your insight and people skills exhibited in your handling of the conflict.