The deception of an open-door policy

March 18, 2025 | 12:00am

“I was expecting to be moved to the day shift when I took this job,” complained Aldo, a factory worker at ABC Enterprise in Laguna. His wife is a call center agent who works the night shift. He had hoped to change shifts so he could stay at home with their two young children at night while his wife is at their Alabang office.

Bobby, Aldo’s boss was surprised at this sudden outburst but replied there was little or no chance of him changing shifts. Aldo was greatly irritated. “I’ve done a good job for the past ten months. You told me when I was hired that I might change to the day shift after passing the probationary period. Did you give me false expectations?”

Bobby countered that “there was a possibility, except there were no current openings available.” Aldo was not convinced. “That’s not true. You hired a day-shift worker last month. I think I’m entitled to be switched right now.”

Immediately, Aldo showed his displeasure by being tardy two days in a row. After that, he went on with emergency leaves for dubious reasons while stopping short of being penalized for violating the attendance policy.

This is typical of the many cases I’ve encountered with my more than 200 clients in the past 15 years. At first glance, the issue is a bit trivial to some managers until they wake up one day with a full-blown conflict with their workers. Per my experience, about three percent of similar cases resulted in slowdowns with some ripening into protracted labor cases.

Managerial grid

I’m using this case study to prepare the participants of my leadership program to discover their strengths and weaknesses in handling similar cases. The participants formed several groups to plot an eight-point action plan based on the following decisions by management with different styles of governance:

One: “Sorry about that. Let me review our work schedule. I will find ways so that you can be accommodated soon, even if it means disturbing our production plan.”

Two: “You can’t choose your work shift. But, I’m open to change if someone is willing to change shifts with you permanently, as long as it will not disrupt our production.”

Three: “I don’t care about your family problem. You were hired to follow the rules. Do you know you’re one of the reasons why we’re having poor productivity?”

Four: “It’s our management prerogative. You have no choice but to follow all established rules. Take it or leave it. The door is wide open for you.”

Five: “Let’s find a balance and make a compromise. But, how do we do that? What are the parameters? Could we go back to the old system at the first sign of trouble?”

Which of the five options would you choose? It depends on your management style – which could be either dictatorial or democratic, known as Theory X and Theory Y, respectively.

Under the Managerial Grid (1964) popularized by management theorists Robert Blake and Jane Mouton, the five options above represent several different styles depicted in a 2 X 2 matrix where the X-axis represents a concern for production and the Y-axis represents a concern for people, both ranging from a low number of one to a high number of nine.

Most managers will play safe for choosing number five above, which is known as the middle-of-the-road solution, except that it gives you an unsure result even if it tries to pursue a balance between having a moderate concern for both people and production. The trouble is that in many cases, it often results in an average performance.

The middle-of-the-road option aspires for a win-win solution, but what happens if the compromise proves to be inadequate for both the workers and management? Then, you’ll end up with the question – could we go back to the old system at the first sign of trouble? That’s the trouble.

Of course, there’s no harm in trying.

Open-door policy

Dissecting the Managerial Grid Theory strengthened my belief that there’s only one formidable way to solve the conflict between Aldo and his boss, Bobby. It boils down to a proactive two-way communication process done through a constant engagement dialogue designed to make all exit interviews irrelevant.

An engagement dialogue done casually by the boss is hundreds of times better than an exit interview which comes in “too late, too little.” Why wait for an employee to resign to know their sentiments against management?

Besides, about 90 percent of the resignees are more interested in fast-tracking the release of their terminal pay, clearance and employment certificate.

The engagement dialogue is known loosely as the open-door policy which is often misinterpreted as going straight to the mahogany office of the chief executive officer if an employee feels they can’t get a satisfactory answer from their line executives. In reality, this does not happen all the time.

If a brave worker goes straight to the CEO, can you imagine the bad image that it could bring to the line executives down below the hierarchy? I can only imagine its bad consequences for the line executives who would be perceived as incompetents.

In closing, no matter what you know about an open-door policy, it will become wasteful if you ignore having a constant engagement dialogue with people.

Rey Elbo is a quality and productivity improvement enthusiast. Chat with him on Facebook, LinkedIn, X, or email [email protected] or via https://reyelbo.com. Anonymity is guaranteed.