Open Door versus Open Mind
Frank J.Navran
It started in the 1950s, a new policy that enlightened managers were adopting. It was called the 'open door' and for the first time in the history of industrial society employees were being encouraged to go to their supervisors when they had questions, suggestions or concerns. Supervisors were being told that part of their job was to answer these questions, to explain the 'why's' of their decisions and to evaluate the suggestions and concerns brought to them by their employees. This would ensure a two-way flow of communication and be good both for employee morale and organizational effectiveness.
This was at the dawn of the new management era when McGregor's Theory Y assumptions were being taught as the better alternative, when Herzberg's 'work itself' was the latest in human motivation, and when the balance between caring for production and caring for people was Blake and Mouton's ideal management style.
In the 1980s, as organizations adopted values statements as the latest expression of their beliefs and expectations, the open door policy of the '50s and '60s was codified into the organizational value of 'respecting and valuing employees.' It is nearly impossible today to find an organization which has not formally taken the position that it values and/or respects its employees, as a matter of policy.
Testing that statement has proven interesting. In a workshop exercise used in numerous organizations over the past fifteen years we have asked the simple question, 'What does it look like when an organization respects and values its employees?' What is the behavior that employees associate with being valued and respected?
Overwhelmingly, the single most frequent response has been 'listening.' Employees feel respected and valued when they are listened to, when their questions, suggestions or concerns are noted. It would appear that early advocates of the open door policy were on to something. Being listened to is important to employees, and it has been demonstrated that listening to employees is important for the organization's bottom line as well.
But an open door is not enough. What employees too often encounter is an open door leading to a closed mind. Being listened to requires more than access to the physical presence of the other person. It requires access to the list of options being considered in that person's decision-making process. It requires that the listener find value in both the process of listening to others and the content of what they have to say.
Our informal research suggests the typical open door policy works in only one type of situation: when an employee has a question, needs information or clarification. It fails most often when employees present their suggestions, ideas or concerns to a supervisor.
The reasons are obvious. Answering a question reinforces the supervisors' sense of dominance or superiority. The employee coming to the supervisor for information or clarification reinforces the supervisor's belief that he/she is knowledgeable and wise. It reinforces the supervisor's position as the resident expert on the topic and underscores the value of his/her contribution to and position within the organization. In answering questions and providing clarification the traditional role of supervisor-as-superior is reinforced, and that is immensely gratifying to the supervisor.
When an employee comes to the supervisor with a suggestion or concern however, just the opposite happens. The supervisor can readily interpret either issue as a criticism of their effectiveness and a threat to their position. Hence the closed mind.
A concern brought to the supervisor by an employee may suggest that the employee has keenly observed something that the supervisor needs to know about. Implied may be the suggestion that if the supervisor were more effective, they would not need the employee to point out this concern. Predictably, many supervisors choose to block or find fault with such observations as an ego defense.
Similarly, a suggestion implies that the employee has a better understanding of the situation and how it may best be managed. Supervisors, especially those who are inherently insecure, or those who feel that their position within the organization is at risk, may see this as evidence that they are viewed as ineffective, or worse, unnecessary. Again, not listening is a reasonable reaction.
In today's working environment, where organizational downsizing and flattening equate to the reduction of supervisory levels and jobs, supervisors are getting mixed messages. They are being told to empower their employees and to be more receptive to employee concerns and suggestions. They are also being told that their roles are changing and they are to let go of decision-making and become coaches or counselors to their employees. Their technical expertise is being discounted in favor of the persons 'closest to the work' (their employees).
Thus, they see their power being diminished as that of their employees is increased. Empowering their employees is the ultimate threat. Again, it is reasonable to expect people to be less than respectful of those they perceive as having been selected to supplant them. Supervisors are not especially inclined to listen to those whose ideas and suggestions are further evidence that the supervisor him/herself is redundant.
All but the most confident and secure supervisors are finding that maintaining an open mind to employee suggestions and concerns is more difficult today than it may have been in the past. The very organizations that are requiring supervisors to maintain an open door seem to be threatening those who maintain an open mind. It should come as no surprise therefore that more supervisors are facing the open door/open mind dilemma.
There is an answer to this dilemma. Unfortunately, it is not well understood, and even when understood is proving more difficult to implement than would be expected. The simplest answer is for the organization to value the supervisor.
Valuing and respecting employees does not mean 'front line' employees only. It means all employees. Supervisors are employees too. For the open mind policy to be effective it has to apply to all levels. That means the suggestions and concerns of supervisors, managers, staff managers and other mid-level people are as deserving of respect as those of their direct reporting employees.
Those organizations that are embracing flatter reporting hierarchies and broader spans of control are redefining the role of the supervisor and mid-level manager in the process. This is a perfectly reasonable strategy. However it must be accomplished with a deep, abiding regard for the organization's values if it is to be optimally effective. If the organization purports to value its employees, if it advocates an open door/open mind policy, these beliefs must be evident in how it treats all its employees, even those whose jobs may be at risk.
Ultimately, an open mind is about respect. It is about listening. Too often organizations, or individual executives/managers within those organizations, forget to apply this simple principle. They concentrate on tapping the traditionally underutilized resources on the front lines and simultaneously neglect the supervisors and managers who are being affected as if magically and instantly these employees are no longer of value.
The remedy is simply to extend the respect, the valuing of employees, to all levels. Even when the issue is how to reduce headcount or redefine first and mid-level roles to establish a closer connection between the bottom and top of the organizational hierarchy, listening to the concerns and suggestions of those very same first and mid-level employees is critical.
The problem is that, just like their employees, senior managers can feel threatened when first and mid-level people have concerns and/or suggestions that are of value. Insecurity and ego are not the exclusive domain of the first level or mid-level supervisor. The need to be reaffirmed as superior and the fear that concerns and suggestions from below may make one 'look bad' are just as real among higher level managers as they are among front line supervisors. These are human responses to a perceived threat and any implied criticism or suggestion for improvement can be perceived as a threat especially when in one's own mind, it has been 'my job' to see these things in the past.
The organization's responsibility for making open door equate to open mind starts at the top. Like most values, this is a leadership issue. Starting at the top and extending down throughout the organization every 'supervisor' must demonstrate commitment to the open-mindedness implied in the value of respecting and valuing employees.
This means that we all must be more attentive, more effective and more respectful listeners. We must all recognize and accept the wisdom in being open to the perceptions and ideas of others. We must learn to grow beyond the fears that we are somehow diminished if someone sees or knows something which we do not. We must come to the realization that in today's complex world the successful leader values those who have the courage and insight to offer the better alternative, to shine a light on the blind spot and to supplement the finite knowledge we all bring to the workplace. Unless and until we can accept that others are of value we will not be able to move to the point where our doors and minds are both open.