Brant's Open-Door Policy

Introduction

As a human resources (HR) leader or practitioner situations like Brant’s play out on a regular basis in the workplace. HR leaders must address and resolve these situations so they don’t propagate out of control and become a litigation concern. But the question remains on how does someone effectively achieve resolution when there is such a divide between the staff member and the leader? Simple, the organization’s leadership needs to have an intentional focus on improving the employee voice for the department. This focus can be accomplished through the development of a leadership open door policy, enhancing training and development for leaders with an employee voice focus, and values or policies which support transparent communication

In Brant’s situation, the supervisor lacked the appropriate skill set or training to deliver an emotionally charged message that was going to alter Brant’s daily work and financial situation. Having the appropriate skill set is important because one study found a strong relationship between staff’s performance and a leader’s behavior (Deter & Burris, 2007). The same study also showed once staff felt comfortable voicing their comments and suggestions it could improve the organization’s ability to get pass critical performance struggles (Deter & Burris, 2007). An open-door policy is a tool leaders can maintain to approach and resolve a staff member’s struggles. It also allows them to maintain a safe psychological environment by giving staff an option to voice their opinion or concerns regarding their daily work without fear. For this situation, the HR leader involved needs to sit down with the supervisor and develop an open-door policy for the department. Once it is developed they can work on a communication plan that would notify the entire department of the change. Taking no action will result in further division and concerns with the staff

In this situation, it’s obvious Brant’s supervisor lacked the skills and ability to handle this conversation appropriately. Instead, Brant was belittled and taken on an emotional journey that will leave him bitter, angry, and his performance will deteriorate quickly. The disconnect in the situation is the leadership didn’t understand the implications from mishandling the situation. Research on communication and the employee voice have proven when these are flowing positively there is a positive correlation with the effectiveness in the department (Deter, Burris, Harrison & Martin, 2013). The HR leader involved in this situation needs to look at developing training options that focus on creating an awareness within the leadership team about the employee voice. If the internal training options are not adequate the HR leader should seek out a strong third party vendor who can provide spot training for problematic leaders while the internal training is developed. This could add cost to the organization but would be far cheaper than responding to a litigation