A twist on the “open door” policy

Having an open door policy in a company has traditionally meant the bosses are open to employees’ suggestions and ideas. The purpose of an open door policy is to encourage open communication, feedback, and discussion about any matter of importance to an employee.

Companies adopt an open door policy to develop employee trust and to make certain that important information and feedback reach managers who can utilize the information to make needed changes in the workplace. A more dynamic workplace, a more efficient operation, a more satisfied customer base, all leading to higher profits are among the fruits of an open door policy.

Well, that was yesterday. Today it has come to mean that managers are afraid of one-on-one meetings with female employees who might level false sexual harassment charges against them. Thus, they don’t want to meet with any female employee unless all doors in the room are wide open and there are plenty of witnesses who will be available to help refute such an accusation.

In today’s New York Post, Why powerful men now hide behind closed doors, Naomi Schaefer Riley writes:

Feminists have managed to create an employment atmosphere where men walk around on pins and needles wondering when something they say might be taken out of context or when a woman might decide to ruin a man’s career with a false accusation.

Surely there are plenty of male bosses guilty of boorish behavior. But there are also plenty of women who believe that a sexist joke or even a compliment on one’s outfit is enough to create a “hostile work environment.”

And so rather than engaging in a “he-said, she-said” deposition, many bosses would rather make sure they have witnesses to every interaction.

Of course, the notion that female staffers are being prevented from certain kinds of interactions with their bosses has provoked outrage from predictable quarters.

Not only do staffers report that these policies make their jobs “significantly harder to do,” but it also makes it harder for these women to climb the professional ladder.

Predictably, feminists are going to use men’s attempt to protect themselves from false allegations by suing them. Riley also says:

There’s no doubt treating male and female employees differently is illegal, and a case could probably be made that these male bosses are discriminating.

Those “fences” have been built by the legal environment we live in. Once again, feminists have managed to turn women into helpless victims.

As she says at the end of her piece, the chickens have come home to roost. Newton’s third law of motion (For every action there is an equal and opposite re-action) helps explain social organization as well as the physical universe.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Subscribe to Blog via Email

%d bloggers like this: