Most SharePoint Permissions Are Built On Myths

You've heard it a thousand times: just break inheritance and your
SharePoint permissions headache is solved. But what if I told you
that's the start of a bigger nightmare?Today, we're busting the
top myths about fine-grained permissions, and revealing the real
risks hiding behind that so-called 'quick fix.' Sound familiar?
Let's unpack what actually happens behind the scenes—before you
break something you can’t put back together.


The Inheritance Illusion: Why Breaking the Chain Feels Good (But
Isn’t)


If you’ve ever handed out unique permissions in SharePoint to
solve one request, thinking it’s just a quick patch, you’re in
familiar company. The break inheritance button is almost like a
panic button for busy admins—it’s there, it’s easy to use, and it
feels like it fixes the problem on the spot. Someone needs access
to a folder, but not the rest of the site? Click, break
inheritance, grant the permission, and you’re done. On paper,
it’s a solved ticket, a happy user, and you move on. But what if
that instant sense of control is setting you up for an even
bigger mess?There’s a reason breaking inheritance is the go-to
for a lot of SharePoint admins. The UI makes it simple. It looks
surgical—a precision job for the one unique need that crops up.
But the convenience is deceptive. There’s an underlying myth that
by breaking permissions at the item or folder level, you’ll keep
things more organized, more precise, and therefore, more secure.
In reality, what you’re doing is splitting the wiring behind the
walls and hoping it all works out in the end.Let’s put this in
real-world terms. Picture a public library where, instead of a
single system to unlock the stacks, every book gets its own
lock—each one with a slightly different key. When there are only
a few special books, maybe the librarian can keep track. But give
it some time, and there are keys all over the place, requests for
replacements, lost keys, and a librarian who’s trying to keep a
spreadsheet just to remember who can open what. What started as
an attempt at tighter security turns into chaos. Anyone who’s
been on the admin side of a SharePoint site knows this feeling:
you start off with a plan, but then one exception leads to
another, and pretty soon, every folder has its own independent
set of rules.This isn’t just a hypothetical mess, either.
Research into SharePoint adoption in enterprise environments
shows a clear pattern: as the number of unique permissions grows,
mistakes increase. People get added to libraries they shouldn’t
see, while urgent requests get stuck in ticket limbo because
nobody knows why a document isn’t visible. Microsoft’s own best
practices repeatedly warn that breaking inheritance should be a
last resort, precisely because it multiplies the chance of
permission errors and accidental data exposure. The audit trail
becomes a maze—every unique permission is another path you have
to track and, eventually, explain.Here’s where it really starts
to spiral. Each unique permission means extra complexity for
SharePoint’s security model. Instead of pulling from a
streamlined, inherited structure, now the platform has to check
for special exceptions every time someone clicks a file, runs a
search, or requests access. The more you do it, the heavier the
burden on both admins and the platform itself. Finding “who has
access to this document?” turns into a detective case, because
the answer might be hidden under layers of broken inheritance and
leftover test accounts.There’s also a reporting nightmare
brewing. Permissions reports lose clarity, especially as unique
items pile up. A quick export of site permissions might only tell
half the story, since broken inheritance separates those
sub-items from overall visibility. This fragmentation doesn’t
just complicate audits; it erodes your ability to manage risk.
Internal reviews bog down in details, department heads start
flagging files they can’t access, and IT spends more time
investigating mismatched access than delivering real value.If you
think these unique breaks are rare, think again. Most admins
underestimate just how fast this scatter effect grows. It starts
with a single urgent request—then a manager wants to share a
subfolder with a vendor, someone else needs access for a week,
and suddenly, the number of unique permissions triples before
you’ve even had your second coffee. The growth is exponential,
not linear. And unless someone audits regularly, the sprawl goes
unchecked. It’s only when a compliance review rolls around—or,
worse, when something slips through the cracks—that the true
scale becomes visible.Microsoft’s advice isn’t just written for
compliance teams. They’ve built their own systems around the core
principle of inheritance because it scales, it’s transparent, and
it’s built for auditability. Relying on groups and inherited
permissions isn’t just a “best practice”—it’s how you prevent
permission spread from turning into a security and maintenance
nightmare. Every time you press that “Stop Inheriting
Permissions” button, you’re chipping away at the clarity and
manageability of your site.So while it feels satisfying to
resolve a unique access ticket by cracking open permissions for
one person, each exception is a small step toward complexity you
can’t see—until it starts costing real time and creating real
risk. Maintenance gets trickier, support costs mount, and fixing
things after the fact becomes a major project rather than a small
adjustment. That’s the illusion: the supposed quick fix is
actually a risk multiplier and a ticking headache.And if you’ve
wondered what’s actually going on beneath the surface every time
you break the chain, you’re about to find out the costs most
people miss—especially when SharePoint starts acting up in ways
that are anything but random.


Behind the Curtain: Performance, Security, and the Hidden Costs


You don’t have to look far to find someone dealing with a slow
SharePoint site or dealing with permissions gone sideways. On the
surface, these problems might seem random—just another glitch in
a big platform. But underneath, every broken inheritance chain is
adding strain. SharePoint doesn’t just store files; it checks
permissions on nearly every action. Each unique permission means
a special rule that needs to be tracked and enforced, and the
more unique permissions you throw into the mix, the bigger the
drag on the entire system. From the admin view, it’s easy to
create a few one-off exceptions and move on. Five folders with
unique permissions doesn’t feel like much. Maybe you grant a VP
access to a sensitive folder, or a vendor gets a peek at just one
document library. All good, right? But then one project turns
into two, the sales team requests isolated spaces for each
client, and before long, those one-off decisions multiply.
There’s a moment when things just break bad—a tipping point where
the platform goes from brisk to sluggish, and the headaches start
rolling in.Performance hits aren’t just guessing games; Microsoft
lays out hard numbers for how SharePoint handles unique
permissions. According to their documentation, when a list or
library crosses about 5,000 unique permission items, you’re
officially out on thin ice. That doesn’t sound like much, but
consider how fast you can reach that if you’re responding to
exceptions left and right. A single team site with folders for
each project, subfolders for each client, and special permissions
along the way can rack up hundreds of unique items in no time.
Most admins don’t notice the threshold until files start taking
ages to load, permission checks grind, or users start opening
more tickets about missing content.Let’s drop into a real-world
scenario. Picture a finance team’s SharePoint site. For years,
they managed access using inheritances and groups—until a big
audit forced them to clamp down on who could see what. The fix
was to break inheritance on every quarterly report folder, then
on every archived set, and before long, every document batch had
its own exceptions. For a while, nobody noticed anything wrong.
Then one quarter, reports started timing out. The search indexer
lagged behind, showing old versions or missing files entirely.
What changed? Nothing dramatic—just a creeping buildup of unique
permissions until the system could barely keep up with itself.
The site hadn’t grown in size, but suddenly, every file access
required SharePoint to zigzag through a maze of exceptions before
displaying a result.Security complications crop up at exactly the
same time. It’s one thing to have a handful of unique
permissions—easy to spot, simple to check. But multiply that out
across dozens or hundreds of sites, and mistakes are almost
guaranteed. The more exceptions, the higher the chance someone
gets access to something they shouldn’t. Maybe it’s a former team
member who should’ve lost permissions months ago, or a partner
who only needed access for a week but still has it. Sometimes the
only way anyone discovers the issue is after a sensitive document
lands in the wrong inbox, or an auditor flags files surfaced in a
search that should’ve been locked down. These aren’t edge cases.
In organizations with sprawling SharePoint use, these incidents
show up with uncomfortable regularity.Auditing turns into pure
detective work. On a clean site, pulling a permissions report is
routine. With broken inheritance scattered everywhere, it’s more
like piecing together a crime scene. Some users have access from
direct assignments. Others get in through nested groups. Some
folders follow inheritance, others don’t. Even PowerShell
scripts, which should offer clarity, start timing out or throwing
errors when the permission landscape gets too irregular. There
are admins who spend days—or weeks—mapping out who has access to
what, without full confidence they’ve found every path.All this
constant fire-fighting forces IT teams into a reactive corner.
Instead of planning for scalable growth or focusing on security
improvements, time gets chewed up with access reviews, chasing
ticket trails, and writing explanations for each unique
exception. Users lose trust along the way, as requests take
longer and longer to resolve. The site doesn’t just feel
slower—it is slower, and far harder to manage at scale.Every time
you break inheritance, you save a few minutes in the moment, but
someone—often you—will pay it back with hours of investigation
later. It’s not dramatic right out of the gate. The issues creep
in slowly—a search here, a permissions check there—all stacking
up until normal operations feel sluggish and convoluted. So, if
unique permissions aren’t giving you control, but actually sowing
confusion and instability, where should you focus? The real
difference comes down to how you use groups—both inside
SharePoint and through Active Directory. Most admins think these
are interchangeable, but that misconception has its own set of
traps. The next step is figuring out how these group models stack
up, and where most strategies go off track. Let’s break down what
happens when you put groups to work the right way—and when you
don’t.


Groups vs. Granularity: The Permission Model Most People Get
Wrong


Let’s get real about groups—because this is the junction where
most SharePoint security models go off the rails. A lot of people
see SharePoint groups and Active Directory groups as two sides of
the same coin, but the way they behave behind the scenes is
totally different. And skipping groups altogether, just piling
permissions onto specific people or folders, usually lands you
right back in unique permission disaster territory. Picture
yourself as a building manager. You could hand out a separate key
to every staff member for every office (it’ll work, technically),
but at scale, you’d drown in keyrings and confusion. That’s where
SharePoint groups come in—they’re your master keys. Compare that
with unique permissions, which are like those single-use keys you
instantly regret making after your twelfth trip to the hardware
store. SharePoint groups were designed for site-level control.
When you assign a group to a site or library, you keep things
tidy—easy to audit, easy to manage as team members shift. But
here’s where the confusion starts: some IT teams default to AD
groups, thinking they’ll simply reflect what’s happening across
the whole organization. Problem is, those AD groups are usually
maintained by a completely different team. They’re meant for
roles that span departments—think “All Marketing” or “Compliance
Reviewers.” If you use AD groups for project work or temporary
access, your SharePoint site ends up stuck with out-of-date
memberships and permissions that lag behind changes on the org
chart.On the other hand, some SharePoint admins shy away from
groups, calling them too broad, and go back to the “just this
folder, just this person” routine. The result? You’re once again
dealing with unique permissions, only now you’ve created a double
headache. The security model fragments, you have to update
permissions one-by-one as people come and go, and reporting
becomes a spreadsheet nightmare. Meanwhile, the original promise
of groups—easy onboarding and offboarding—gets lost.If you look
inside your SharePoint permissions, you’ll probably see both
group types at work: SharePoint groups listed right next to AD
groups. But SharePoint doesn’t handle them the same way.
SharePoint groups live locally at the site collection level and
update instantly; AD groups depend on syncing that might not
always be up-to-date. This sync isn’t just about speed; it’s
about accuracy. If a user leaves a team, an IT admin has to
remember to remove them from the AD group, and then wait for the
next directory sync before the change filters down into
SharePoint. If you’re using both but skipping formal reviews and
updates, you end up with “ghost” access—you think someone’s
locked out, but they’re wandering through your files anyway.The
technical differences get even deeper. SharePoint caches
permissions for groups differently based on type. Changes to
SharePoint group membership take effect immediately, which is
great for swift access changes in fast-moving projects. AD group
membership changes, especially for cloud-only users, might see
delays as directory synchronization works through its cycle. In
smaller teams, that lag is just an annoyance; at scale, it
creates audit blind spots. At audit time, you’ll have to check
two systems for every user: did you get them out of the AD group,
or just out of the SharePoint group? Is the sync caught up? Now
imagine you try to automate reporting—and you start getting
inconsistent results where some scripts see the live SharePoint
group, others pick up old AD memberships.Plenty of admins run
into trouble mixing SharePoint and AD groups for the same site.
Maybe you set up site owners as an AD group, members as a
SharePoint group, and start granting direct access for external
vendors. It sounds harmless. But then, when the membership of one
group changes, nobody’s quite sure who actually has access. A
user who leaves the company might get removed from the SharePoint
group but not the AD group, or vice versa. The responsibility to
update access gets divided across IT, project leads, and maybe
even HR—so it’s easy for holes to open up.That’s why best
practice isn’t a secret handshake; it’s the discipline of
deciding which group goes where. Use SharePoint groups for
anything that’s project-based, temporary, or local to a specific
site. That means every time you launch a new project space or
collaboration hub, you create a group within SharePoint to handle
members, visitors, or owners. For access that stretches across
multiple sites or the entire organization, like company-wide HR
or all-staff groups, use AD groups. Always avoid handing out
permissions directly to individuals, unless you fully expect to
track and remove each of those assignments one by one.Temporary
access? That should go through groups, too. Set up a process
where access requests are reviewed and expire on a schedule—not a
break inheritance quick fix that you forget about after the
project ends. And when you get this right, something practical
happens. Audits become routine; onboarding and offboarding take
minutes instead of days; nobody’s digging around for a lost set
of keys when someone leaves the company.Now, if your environment
is already buried under years of unique permissions and scattered
group assignments, don’t panic. The next step is figuring out how
to unravel the mess and rebuild a model that actually works,
instead of hoping no one asks too many questions at your next
audit.


Rebuilding Trust: Recovering from Permission Chaos


If your SharePoint permissions look like a box of tangled
charging cables with mystery adapters no one remembers owning,
you’re not some rare outlier. Plenty of admins open up the
permissions panel and have that moment of “where do I even
start?” Most of us have inherited at least one site where the old
admin used direct user permissions like a fix-all, broke
inheritance on entire folder trees, and left documentation
sitting in an offline OneNote file from three years ago. The urge
to flatten everything and start over is real. But let’s talk
about what actually works when you walk into a scenario like
this, where the line between what’s accessible and what’s lost is
starting to blur.It’s easy to underestimate how deep these
problems go until you’re asked a simple question: “Can you show
me who has access to all the files in Legal?” Suddenly, the
weight of every past exception crashes down. The site has grown
by adding users directly, granting quick access for seasonal
staff, and, inevitably, the old “let’s just break inheritance
here for that one request” move. Some permissions were granted
two mergers ago, some as a one-off for an urgent board meeting,
and now nobody knows what’s left over. Teams panic when sensitive
audit documents are harder to locate than they should be. And
when users do notice their access has shifted or vanished, trust
in IT starts to erode. If they see names on the permissions list
they don’t recognize—and can open private files—they’re
rightfully skeptical about how protected their data really
is.You’re not facing this alone, either. Many environments live
with broken inheritance on everything from document libraries
down to single PowerPoint files, and there’s almost never a
straightforward map. The problem compounds with every hand-off.
Each admin brings their own habits, and by the time that third or
fourth round of “temporary” breaks has landed, the current team
gets left with a patchwork quilt of one-off decisions. Nobody
documents the reasoning behind these ad hoc fixes, so untangling
why one vendor still has access to Q1 invoices can take more time
than just recreating the whole folder.So how do you start to fix
it? First step: shine a bright light on every unique permission
lurking in the shadows. SharePoint provides some tools here, but
you’ll probably need to dip into PowerShell or a reporting tool
built for this purpose if you want more than a list of high-level
sites and libraries. Scripts like Get-SPOUniquePermissions can
surface every broken inheritance point, but just remember, these
lists can get long fast—especially if nobody ever pruned old
project folders. Once you’ve surfaced the unique permissions,
you’ll almost always see patterns crop up. Maybe a certain
business unit loves direct library access. Maybe the finance
department treated every budgeting round as a separate security
zone. This is your starting point, not the fix—it’s a way to see
the boundaries of the problem.Once you can see the landscape, the
rule is to remove direct user permissions wherever you possibly
can. Each direct permission you replace with a group is like
tossing out one mystery key and introducing a master key with a
logbook you actually control. Nobody wants to spend afternoons
tracking down ex-contractors who still have access to their
SharePoint folder because someone missed a single checkbox. By
grouping access around business needs, you anchor permissions to
the dynamics of teams, not to which person was filling which seat
two years ago. It’s a realistic way to get back in control, and
it means that onboarding, offboarding, and role changes stop
creating surprise access issues long after the fact.This process
is not invisible. People will notice when their access shifts,
even if what you’re doing is long overdue cleanup. It’s important
to communicate what’s changing and, more importantly, why.
There’s no need for drama, but transparency will save you
flurries of help desk tickets and let users know their files
aren’t just being shuffled around on a whim. Phrase it around
increased protection and easier management, not doom and gloom
over past mistakes. Reinventing the permission structure is the
goal, not calling out where the old one failed.Nobody wants to do
this every year, so set up a schedule for regular permission
reviews. It doesn’t need to be elaborate, but it does need to be
consistent. Quarterly or biannual checks help catch drift before
it piles up. Use PowerShell scripts or built-in Microsoft 365
compliance tools for the grunt work—those will surface changes
since the last review, helping catch oddities before they become
real problems. Some third-party solutions even automate much of
this, offering dashboards that make it easy to spot outliers at a
glance.You can work your way back from permission chaos. It’s a
grind, especially at the start. But the actual payoff isn’t just
tidier permissions or smoother audits. It’s recovering trust from
end-users and your own IT teammates who realize new problems
aren’t going to appear every time someone requests a file. You
end up with a model that’s transparent, auditable, and able to
scale up as your business adds new sites or projects. Underneath
it all, the best fix isn’t just technical—it’s creating a culture
where thoughtful permission management is the default, not an
afterthought. And when everyone expects reviews and group-centric
access, the risks slip way down and nobody’s digging through old
emails to answer the next “who can see this?” anymore. Keeping
that culture alive is what sets sustainable SharePoint
environments apart—because it prevents the same chaos from
building up all over again. If it feels like a lot, just
remember: each small fix is another step toward getting your
environment back under your control.


Conclusion


The biggest misconception is that a quick fix for permissions
will do the job. Every time you use a shortcut—like breaking
inheritance or handing out direct access—you’re adding cleanup
work for later. If you want SharePoint to work for your
organization and not against you, focus on building with groups
and keeping regular permission reviews on your calendar. Break
inheritance only as an absolute last option. Every access
decision you make sends a signal to your users—and to your future
self—about how much you value sustainable security. Keep your
model simple, auditable, and aligned with how your teams actually
work.


Get full access to M365 Show - Microsoft 365 Digital Workplace
Daily at m365.show/subscribe