“He went to the director”: when an employee bypasses their direct manager

The rota wasn’t working, so Tomek went higher up

Tomek told the director that the duty rota was being changed at the last minute and the team did not know who was responsible for staffing. The director asked Agnieszka, Tomek’s direct manager, for an explanation. “Why did Tomek come to me with this and not to you?” he asked.

Agnieszka felt angry. She had talked to Tomek about the rota twice, but she remembered his comments as passing remarks, not an urgent problem. She wanted to tell him: “That’s not how things are done. You’re undermining me behind my back.” Tomek felt that his earlier warnings had achieved nothing.

In the meantime, upcoming shifts really did need cover. Agnieszka had to establish what was going on with the duty rota and, at the same time, answer the question of why the employee had chosen a different route.

What really happened

The word “bypassing” describes the route the communication took, but it does not explain Tomek’s motives. He may have thought the director was the only person with any influence over the rota, he may not have known how to raise the matter, or he may have dreaded another fruitless conversation. Agnieszka does not have to accept any of these hypotheses as true. She should check the sequence of events: what Tomek raised, what response he got and whether what was agreed was actually carried out. The core problem concerns staffing the duty rota; the manager is experiencing a separate problem to do with trust. If she says “disloyalty” straight away, the employee will probably start defending the way he escalated the matter instead of presenting the facts about the rota. It is also necessary to choose the right route: an ordinary organisational comment is not the same as a report of a breach of the law or a complaint about the manager’s own behaviour.

What research says about raising problems with managers

In an interview-based study, Detert and Treviño described how the behaviour of immediate and more senior managers affects employees’ willingness to speak up. In her review of the literature on employee voice and silence, Morrison highlights the importance of whether speaking about difficulties seems worthwhile and safe. This research helps you frame questions, but it does not show why Tomek chose to go to the director. In a Polish organisation, you also need to distinguish between an ordinary operational escalation and a report covered by special procedures. The 2024 Act on the Protection of Whistleblowers (ustawa o ochronie sygnalistów) concerns specific breaches of the law, not every dispute about how work is organised. Reports that require confidentiality and protection from retaliation should not be handled like an ordinary personal conflict. When the manager is herself the subject of the complaint, an independent channel may be particularly important.

Why the manager hears a threat to her authority

Agnieszka is responsible for the team and wants to know about problems before the director hears about them. That is an understandable management interest. It does not, however, give her the right to treat every report made higher up as an attack on her. In this situation, two matters overlap: Tomek is flagging a difficulty with staffing the duty rota, and the director is asking about how effectively Agnieszka manages. So she may first try to defend her position instead of looking into the causes of the problem. If she opens the conversation with “Why did you go over my head?”, Tomek may conclude that the substance of his concern does not matter and that what counts is obedience. It is worth reversing the order. First topic: “Which rota changes are genuinely putting staffing at risk, and what are we going to do about them?” Second: “Which earlier conversations didn’t lead to a solution?” Only third: “What route for communication will we treat as effective in future?” This sequence makes it possible to tell managerial responsibility apart from wounded pride.

How to approach it

Agnieszka starts with the data: she compares the rota, the shift changes and Tomek’s earlier requests. She tells the director: “First I’ll check whether the problem is really ongoing and which channel is the right one for resolving it.” If the matter is part of ordinary management, she invites the employee to talk: “I’ve heard that you raised this problem before. What did you say, and what happened afterwards?” If he says “I’ve already told you twice”, she can reply: “I understand that, from your point of view, nothing has changed. Let’s look at both occasions.” Only later does she set out the rules: “For urgent rota issues, you can reach me here and here; if the matter concerns me or a serious breach, you also have other channels.” She must not create an obligation to ask permission before raising any concern. If the issue is a formal complaint or a protected report, the manager passes it on to the authorised people and does not conduct a private interrogation.

How to set up an escalation route that actually works

Every team needs simple rules: where to report a rota change, when to expect a reply and what to do if no reply comes. For shifts that are at risk within the next 24 hours, the channel has to be faster than for planning the following month. In practice, this might mean logging the issue in the system, confirmation from a coordinator and a contact number for emergencies. The manager should not, however, design a rule that says “everything goes through me and only me”. Some matters require an independent route, especially when they concern the manager, a breach of the law or safety. For ordinary matters, it is worth making sure every report is seen through to the end: who received the concern, what they checked, when they will come back with an answer and what they will do if the problem cannot be fixed straight away. Tomek does not have to like the new procedure. He does have to be able to use it and see that it works – including when he is reporting something uncomfortable.

Bypassing a manager tells you something about the route the communication took; it is not a ready-made diagnosis of disloyalty. Agnieszka should first verify the problem with the rota, and then establish why the earlier warnings did not lead to a solution. Clear response times, escalation routes and protection for formal reports matter more than declarations that “from now on, everything is reported to the manager and no one else”.

How Empatyzer and Em can help

Agnieszka begins her conversation with Em with her own reaction: “I felt undermined, but I want to focus on the duty rota, not on my wounded pride.” Em helps her prepare calm questions, three possible responses from Tomek and a way of agreeing a plan to put things right. She practises the sentence: “What matters to me is that the problem gets solved. Let’s check why our earlier conversations didn’t get results.” She also prepares a short summary for the director that does not pass judgement on the employee’s intentions. If it turns out that the matter belongs in a formal reporting channel, Agnieszka does not replace that with a one-to-one meeting. In a typical operational case, Em can help her establish the language of accountability: who corrects the rota, when they will report back and how the employee can flag the next difficulty. In this way, the manager has a chance to show that people can come to her, instead of demanding a declaration of loyalty. An effective organisation solves the problems people raise, rather than controlling who heard about them first.