Workplace Investigation Pitfall: Failure to Establish a Protocol to Promote the Maximum Amount of Objectivity
Related to my previous post on Failure to take the Complaint Seriously, is the premise that once an investigation is taken seriously, the organization skimps and cuts corners in order to expedite the resolution of the issue, or otherwise bury the issue under the rug in order to avoid embarrassment or protect an important party in the organization. Examples of this are found when witnesses are permitted to control the timing and length of investigatory interviews because of their “busy schedules.” At times, individuals controlling the purse strings do not want to call attorneys or retain outside experts to conduct investigations for fear of spending money. Again, the 20/20 rule cited before will likely come back to haunt the organization.
Delegating the task of conducting an investigation to the supervisor in charge of the area, either for expedience or convenience sake, will likely by questioned for its perceived lack of objectivity and on the presumption that the supervisor lacks sufficient training to conduct a workplace investigation. Interference also compromises the investigation when the investigator is not given unfettered access to evidence and witnesses. While these limitations may not be overtly stated, internal investigators often are hindered in their ability to be objective merely as a result of their own reporting relationship. In one example, the human resource manager reported to a senior financial officer. There were glaring missteps and omissions in his initial investigation. When later questioned about them, he indicated that he would never question something that happened in his boss’ area of responsibility.
For more, see my book: Workplace Investigations: Discrimination & Harassment
