Your Open-Door Policy Might Be Undermining Your Managers

"I'm always available. My door is always open."

Law firm owners say this with the best of intentions.

They want employees to feel comfortable talking to them.

They want to know what's happening inside the firm.

They want people to raise concerns.

They don't want to become the kind of managing partner who is disconnected from the team.

Those are all good things.

But there's a point where an open-door policy stops creating accessibility and starts undermining your management structure.

An employee doesn't like the answer their manager gave them.

They go to the managing partner.

An employee disagrees with a new process.

They go to the managing partner.

Their manager denies a request.

They go to the managing partner.

There's a disagreement between two employees.

Instead of working through their manager, someone goes to the managing partner.

And because the managing partner's door is "always open," the managing partner listens.

Maybe they give advice.

Maybe they offer a different answer.

Maybe they say they'll look into it.

Maybe they solve the problem.

It feels supportive.

But something else just happened.

The employee learned that their manager isn't necessarily the final authority.

And the manager learned that they can be bypassed.

Do that enough times and eventually you don't really have managers.

You have people with management titles operating underneath the real manager:

You.

An Open Door Shouldn't Become an End-Run Around Management

I'm a big believer in accessibility.

Employees should feel like leadership listens.

People should be able to raise concerns.

Managing partners shouldn't intentionally build walls between themselves and the rest of the organization.

But accessibility and lack of structure are not the same thing.

As a law firm grows, there has to be a normal path for communication and decision-making.

If an employee reports to a manager, most routine issues should start there.

That's what the manager is there for.

If employees can bypass that person whenever they don't like an answer, you've created an appeals process for ordinary management decisions.

And employees figure that out very quickly.

Employees Learn Your Real Org Chart

You can create whatever organizational chart you want.

Employees will figure out how power actually works.

The chart may say:

Managing Partner → COO → Department Manager → Employee.

But if the employee knows they can walk directly into the managing partner's office and get a decision changed, that's not the real org chart.

The real org chart is:

Employee → Managing Partner.

Everything in between becomes optional.

This is why decision rights and accountability matter so much in a growing law firm.

If you've given a manager responsibility for a department, that manager needs appropriate authority to manage it.

And then leadership has to respect that authority.

Otherwise, the structure exists only on paper.

"Have You Talked to Your Manager?"

This is one of the simplest and most powerful questions a managing partner can ask.

An employee comes into your office.

They explain a problem.

Before you solve it, ask:

"Have you talked to your manager about this?"

If the answer is no, and it's something their manager should reasonably handle, the next step may be very simple:

"Start there."

That doesn't mean you don't care.

It means you're reinforcing the management structure you've intentionally created.

If the employee has already spoken with their manager and there's a legitimate reason the issue needs to escalate, that's different.

But the managing partner shouldn't automatically become the first stop simply because they're available.

Every Time You Solve It, You're Training Them to Come Back

This is the part owners sometimes miss.

Behavior gets reinforced.

An employee has a problem.

They go around their manager.

You solve it.

What did they learn?

Going directly to you works.

The next time there's a problem, where do you think they're going?

Back to you.

Then managing partners tell me:

"Everyone comes to me for everything."

Sometimes my response is:

Why wouldn't they?

You've trained them to.

If bringing a problem directly to you gets a faster answer, a different answer, or more attention, employees are behaving rationally when they keep doing it.

You can't complain that everything comes to you while continuing to reward everyone for bringing everything to you.

Managers Notice When You Undermine Them

Even when they don't say anything.

Imagine you're managing a team.

You make a reasonable decision.

An employee doesn't like it.

They go directly to the managing partner.

The managing partner hears their side of the story and changes the decision without speaking with you.

What just happened to your authority?

Or maybe the owner doesn't formally reverse the decision.

They simply say:

"I don't see why that would be a problem."

The employee walks away knowing the managing partner agrees with them.

Now you get to enforce a decision that your boss just implicitly undermined.

That's not a great position for a manager.

Do it repeatedly and eventually the manager learns something too:

I don't actually have authority here.

You Can't Hold Managers Accountable While Constantly Taking Their Authority Away

This connects directly to something I see often in growing firms.

Leadership tells managers:

"You need to take more ownership."

But every significant decision gets second-guessed.

Managers are expected to hold employees accountable, but employees can appeal directly to ownership.

They're expected to enforce processes, but the managing partner grants exceptions.

They're expected to lead, but everyone knows the owner can overrule them.

Then leadership becomes frustrated because the managers aren't strong enough.

Before assuming you have a management problem, look at whether you've actually allowed your managers to manage.

Accountability without authority doesn't work.

Sometimes the Employee Isn't Looking for a Solution

They're looking for a different answer.

This distinction matters.

Someone may say:

"I just wanted to make sure you were aware."

Maybe.

But sometimes what they really mean is:

"I didn't like what my manager told me, and I'm hoping you'll tell me something different."

That's not necessarily malicious.

It's human.

People escalate when they think escalation might produce a better outcome.

Your job as the owner isn't to punish them for asking.

It's to recognize what's happening and reinforce the appropriate decision-making structure.

If the manager made a reasonable decision within their authority, you don't need to reopen the case simply because someone appealed it.

Your Employees Shouldn't Get Two Chances at Every Answer

This is especially important with exceptions.

PTO.

Remote work.

Schedules.

Expenses.

Work assignments.

Internal processes.

Deadlines.

An employee asks their manager.

The manager says no.

Then the employee asks the managing partner.

The managing partner wants to be nice, doesn't know the full context, or simply sees no reason not to approve it.

So the answer becomes yes.

Now you have two problems.

First, you've undermined the manager.

Second, you've taught the rest of the organization that "no" doesn't necessarily mean no.

It means:

Ask someone higher.

Your employees should always have a safe way to escalate a serious concern. They should not have a second chance at every answer they don't like.

This Doesn't Mean Employees Should Never Go Around Their Manager

This is where nuance matters.

There are absolutely circumstances where employees should be able to bypass their direct manager.

If the concern involves the manager themselves, obviously telling the employee to "talk to your manager" may not be appropriate.

Employees need a safe escalation path for issues involving things like:

• harassment

• discrimination

• retaliation

• ethical concerns

• serious misconduct

• threats or safety concerns

• significant financial or organizational risk

• inappropriate conduct by their direct supervisor

There may also be situations where an employee has repeatedly attempted to resolve something through the appropriate chain and isn't being heard.

Those are legitimate reasons to escalate.

A good management structure doesn't trap employees underneath a bad manager.

But that's very different from allowing every routine disagreement to bypass the normal reporting structure.

Escalation Is Not the Same as Bypassing

Healthy organizations have escalation paths.

An escalation path answers:

What happens when something cannot or should not be resolved at the current level?

That's good governance.

Bypassing is different.

Bypassing says:

I don't like the answer at this level, so I'll keep moving upward until I find someone who gives me the answer I want.

One protects the organization.

The other undermines it.

Law firms need to know the difference.

Your Longest-Tenured Employees May Be the Hardest Adjustment

This can become particularly complicated as law firms grow.

An employee has worked with the managing partner for 15 years.

When the firm had five people, they went directly to the owner for everything.

That's the relationship they've always had.

Now the firm has 25 people.

There's a COO.

There are department managers.

The employee technically reports to someone else.

But they still walk directly into the managing partner's office whenever they have an issue.

And the managing partner allows it because:

"We've worked together forever."

I understand the relationship.

But the organization changed.

A strong relationship can remain strong without preserving an outdated reporting structure.

As I've said before:

Loyalty should earn trust—not veto power.

It also shouldn't create a permanent exemption from the management structure everyone else is expected to follow.

Your New Managers Are Watching What You Do With Legacy Employees

This is particularly important.

You hire a capable manager.

You tell them:

"This is your department."

Then an employee who's been with the firm for 12 years disagrees with them and comes directly to you.

What you do next matters.

If you immediately step in, you've just communicated something to the new manager:

You manage this department unless one of my longtime employees disagrees with you.

That's not authority.

That's conditional authority.

And it's very difficult to build a strong management team that way.

Sometimes the Managing Partner Likes Being Needed

This is the part owners may not love hearing.

Sometimes everyone goes to the managing partner because the managing partner has inadvertently encouraged it.

And sometimes they've encouraged it because being needed feels good.

You're the founder.

You're the person who knows the history.

You're the person who can solve the problem.

You're the person everyone trusts.

Someone comes into your office with an issue, and within five minutes you've fixed it.

That's satisfying.

It's also one of the ways founders become bottlenecks.

Because every time you demonstrate that the fastest path to a solution runs through you, you're reinforcing dependence on you.

Being the Best Problem-Solver Can Become a Leadership Problem

Many managing partners built successful firms because they're excellent problem-solvers.

That's part of what made them successful attorneys.

See problem.

Analyze problem.

Solve problem.

Move on.

But leadership requires a different instinct sometimes.

Someone brings you a problem.

Instead of solving it, you may need to ask:

Who should solve this?

That's a very different question.

And it's one of the transitions founders have to make as their organizations grow.

Don't Confuse Accessibility With Personal Involvement

You can remain accessible without personally resolving everything.

You can listen.

You can ask questions.

You can show concern.

You can make sure the person feels heard.

And then you can say:

"This sounds like something you should work through with your manager."

Or:

"I'm glad you raised this. I'm going to make sure the appropriate person addresses it."

Or:

"This is something your manager has authority to decide, and I'm going to support their decision."

You're still accessible.

You're just not taking the work back.

What If the Manager Made the Wrong Decision?

Then manage the manager.

This is another important distinction.

Suppose an employee comes to you and you realize their manager handled something poorly.

That doesn't automatically mean you should fix the situation directly with the employee.

Sometimes the better approach is to speak privately with the manager.

Understand what happened.

Coach them.

Determine whether the decision should change.

Then let the manager go back to the employee and handle it.

Why?

Because you're developing the manager instead of replacing them.

If every mistake causes the managing partner to step in and take over, managers never get better.

Support Your Managers Publicly. Coach Them Privately.

This doesn't mean blindly backing bad decisions.

Managers will make mistakes.

They need feedback.

They need coaching.

Sometimes their decisions need to be reversed.

But whenever possible, preserve their ability to lead.

If a manager makes a reasonable call within their authority, support it.

If you disagree with how they handled something, address that directly with them.

Don't casually undermine them in front of the people they're expected to manage.

Because once employees learn that leadership doesn't trust their manager's judgment, why should they?

Your Open Door Can Also Destroy Accountability

There's another unintended consequence.

Imagine an employee is underperforming.

Their manager addresses it.

The employee is unhappy.

They go directly to the managing partner and explain why the expectations are unreasonable.

The managing partner empathizes.

Maybe they soften the message.

Maybe they make an exception.

Maybe they tell the manager to give the employee more time.

Now the performance issue becomes significantly harder to manage.

The employee has learned that accountability is negotiable if they can get access to someone higher in the organization.

This is how well-intentioned leadership behavior can quietly undermine a performance culture.

The Managing Partner Shouldn't Be the Firm's Supreme Court

Growing firms need an escalation structure.

They don't need every management decision litigated all the way to ownership.

If every employee disagreement eventually reaches the managing partner, the organization isn't really distributing authority.

It's distributing recommendations.

The owner still makes the final decision.

That model may work at eight employees.

It becomes increasingly difficult at 20.

And incredibly inefficient beyond that.

The Bigger the Firm Gets, the More Discipline This Requires

This is one of the uncomfortable realities of scaling.

Some behaviors that made you a great owner at five employees become counterproductive at 25.

When the firm was small, personally helping everyone made sense.

Knowing every issue made sense.

Making every important decision made sense.

As the organization grows, leadership has to become more intentional.

Not colder.

Not inaccessible.

More structured.

You have to trust the leaders you've put in place.

You have to let them make decisions.

You have to let them manage.

And sometimes you have to resist the urge to solve a problem simply because you can.

If You Don't Trust Your Managers, Solve That Problem

There's an obvious question here.

What if the reason employees come directly to you is that you don't trust the manager?

Then that's the problem.

Maybe the manager needs development.

Maybe decision rights haven't been clearly defined.

Maybe they need better information.

Maybe they're in the wrong role.

Maybe they shouldn't be managing people at all.

Address that.

But don't create a shadow management structure where someone has the title while you quietly retain all the authority.

That's confusing for everyone.

An Open Door Needs Guardrails

You don't need to shut your door.

You don't need to tell employees they can never speak with you.

You don't need to become distant from your team.

You need clarity.

Employees should understand:

What should go to their manager?

What can be escalated?

Where do serious concerns go?

What happens if the concern involves their manager?

What decisions belong to whom?

And leaders need the discipline to reinforce those boundaries.

That's what allows accessibility and organizational structure to coexist.

Great Leaders Don't Need to Be the Answer to Every Question

There's a version of leadership where being indispensable feels like success.

Everyone needs you.

Every important decision requires you.

Everyone trusts you to solve the problem.

It can feel flattering.

But if you're trying to build a scalable law firm, indispensability is eventually a liability.

The goal is to build leaders who can make good decisions without you.

Managers who can manage.

Employees who know where to go.

An organization that doesn't stop moving when you're unavailable.

That requires more than hiring managers.

It requires letting them lead.

Before You Say "My Door Is Always Open"

Keep saying it.

Just make sure everyone understands what it means.

It should mean:

You can raise a serious concern.

You can tell me something I need to know.

You can escalate when the normal process isn't working.

You can speak up when something is wrong.

It should not mean:

If you don't like your manager's answer, come see if I'll give you another one.

Accessibility is good leadership.

Undermining your own management structure isn't.

Your managers can't be accountable for leading people if you repeatedly take their authority away.

So keep the door open.

Just stop letting everyone use it to walk around the leaders you've asked to lead.

If your law firm has managers on the org chart but every employee issue, decision, and disagreement still finds its way back to the managing partner, the problem may not be the org chart itself.

It may be how leadership is operating within it.

I help growing law firms clarify decision rights, strengthen managers, establish meaningful accountability, and build leadership structures that don't require the managing partner to remain everyone's unofficial direct supervisor.

Because the goal isn't to make leadership less accessible.

It's to build an organization where accessibility doesn't come at the expense of authority.