Over the years (and occurring more recently), we have been asked:

What is the difference between a Workplace (or Environmental) Assessment and a Harassment or Discrimination Investigation?

The difference often begins with how concerns are brought to the employer’s attention. With an assessment, employers will usually hear of a variety of conflicts (both big and small) through various sources (speaking with employees, anonymous complaints, exit interviews), yet they will not have someone stepping forward with a formal complaint. Employers want to collect information to see if there is a fire where they see smoke.

With a formal investigation, employers will receive a complaint (either verbal or written) that alleges specific wrongdoing from a respondent (or multiple) toward a complainant. The investigation process involves a more formal structure, a finding of fact, and a finding of potential policy breaches.

An assessment focuses on conclusions and recommendations for restoring the workplace to a properly functioning unit. 

A few core principles ought to be followed in an assessment. Core concepts include:

• Confidentiality
• Transparency
• Responsibility
• Forward focus 

When we begin consultations about an assessment, I often point out to clients that unless there is a firm conviction from leadership to move forward transparently, the very act of conducting an assessment may make an environment worse. Imagine being asked to talk about all your issues and concerns and then hearing nothing back, as the environment often worsens. Not good!

So what do we do? 

1. We select the entire group identified as the area of concern for interviews. Allowing people not to participate can skew the data.
2. We assure employees that the interview contents are confidential between us (except for serious concerns such as criminal activity, harassment, violence, etc.).
3. We ask that the employer share the full report with all participants.
4. We consult with the employer on which recommendations fit best within the structure.

Lastly, throughout the interviews and the reports, we focus on what changes everyone can make to improve the environment. Yes, leadership is examined, but individual actions are also detailed. 

When there is a desire to improve an environment by all within it, coupled with honest feedback and a transparent process, and topped with employer buy-in and follow-up, we genuinely have a chance to shift a workplace culture in a positive direction!

Dylan

“When are you done?”

This question often comes up both when I’m training and investigating. And yes, this question sometimes rattles around in my mind as I consider a case.

My latest technique to help answer this question involves starting with the final report. When concluding interviews and finalizing statements, I like to start building the Evidence Compilation. The Evidence Compilation helps me visualize the data collected to date. With this data, I can start seeing holes. The earlier, the better, because a hole seen is a hole repaired – at least it should be!

As you near the end of your interviews, you should have a nearly complete Evidence Compilation. At this point, go ahead and start the report. Make potential conclusions as you go. If something is obviously a breach, go ahead. If something is irrelevant or not in scope, label it. 

Now, when reading through a section, you may have questions that pop up in your mind. Or, you may sense that you’re going out on a limb or stretching to find the proper conclusive wording.

When this comes up, I’d suggest a couple of strategies:

1. Take a break, grab a coffee and come back to it later. Maybe it’s just brain fatigue.
2. If a break does not work, look for opportunities to double or triple-check what individuals have shared. Look for the essence paragraph – is the essence covered? Are there holes? Is someone’s name mentioned and you didn’t interview them? Is there a hole in what the complainant or respondent said?

In my experience, if I’m having trouble writing a conclusion, what’s usually required is a redirect question aimed at one of the parties. Redirect questions will help fill holes and lead you toward a firm conclusion.

Dylan

I was out to dinner with a lovely group of friends who have attended my training, both years ago and as recently as this week and I was asked, “What’s the difference between level 1, 2, and 3?”

The person who asked had not attended any of the training and the rest of the table had various levels completed. I have been asked this question before and usually provide some details that I think people will find relevant as an easy way to differentiate. I have also thought about the question and how to answer it better for people. Here is my attempt today.

Level One of our Harassment Investigation course begins an introduction into a methodology and a mindset. I have structured the class (and all the other levels) to begin with a base of theory. We then transition into the practice of doing, something I feel provides the strongest insights and learnings. In our classes, you will be greeted (confronted?) by a variety of professional actors, playing various types of personalities common in investigation work. The cases we train on are the cases we have worked on, no make believe here. Once we have “done”, we analyze, discuss and learn best practices. Templates and ideas abound as I draw the three-day level one to a close.

Level Two comes only for those who have attended Level One. My workshops are fast-paced, and this two-day program does not have time to introduce the methodology and mindset. We jump into another true case, this time in the middle. We prepare tools we introduced in Level One, including an essence paragraph (my personal fave), and a detailed list of “Things we want to know”. Note this is not a list of verbatim questions. I challenge the group to interview professional actors with a conversational approach, with an eye to the subtleties of witness reactions, and discussion on how to develop multiple interview strategies. Yes, there’s homework, you’re welcome! Day two of this class brings us to the business of a re-direct interview. You will see the complainant and respondent at the end of the case, and we expand on the principles and strategies for the end of the investigation.

Level Three is our latest offering, and we have yet another case – this time reflecting some of the current trends we see emerging. Again, you are asked to prepare for interviews. This time, I have also prepared and we will compare lists and talk about refining preparation. Like Sarge always said: “Proper Preparation and Planning Prevent Poor Performance”. We interview multiple parties and have access to evidence. The final day is spent preparing a final report, and defending your reasoning and decision-making to yet another professional actor, this time playing your supervisor.

That’s the bones of it. As I was formulating my answer last night it struck me that we move down levels of complexity, and subtlety both with ourselves and the people we interview. In my opinion, almost anyone can interview someone they understand and “vibe” with, it is entirely another level to interview someone who does not share your sensibilities, successfully, so that they feel heard and know that the process was a fair one. This is what I’m trying to get at.

Hope to see you around the way,

Dylan