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.

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.

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.

….and then there’s always HR – it’s our job to keep things fair, maintain consistency and to follow policy.