Hacker News Reader

Comment by bumby | Hacker News Reader

I used to think so too, until I heard Cy Wakeman's perspective. Too often an open door policy turns into a venting session or, in her words, "a portal for drama." I got to witness this first-hand when I had an office across the hall from my former boss.

https://hrdailyadvisor.blr.com/2017/09/25/hr-department-reth...

View on HN

I think that the open door policy needs all of the other layers of trust.

What Cy Wakeman experienced was an open door policy independent of any other culture change.

Yes, people don't just vent because the boss's door is open, they vent because some pressure has been built up. Closing the door doesn't make the drama go away, it just buries it underground were it will continue to make certain groups of employees who are unable to ignore it continuously more uncomfortable and less dedicated to their jobs.

Again, the link is not against an open door policy. It’s saying an open door policy itself won’t fix anything without focusing efforts towards a solution. Without that nuance it risks creating a toxic culture of endless complaining and limited accountability.

This feels like a clickbait framing. She says at the end that she didn't shut the door, just tried to drive the conversation in a helpful direction rather than letting people engage in unlimited unstructured venting. I'd still call that an open door policy.

Yes, I meant that an "open door policy" isn't sufficient. It also needs the framing to avoid the drama and focus on solutions. Relating back to my personal experience, an open door policy without those elements just wastes everyone's time. I didn't mean to imply that open door policy is bad per se, but just often badly implemented/understood. The title of the article is about "rethinking" open door policy, not getting rid of it. Adding nuance to a point shouldn't be conflated with being against it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com