Let’s face it, being a part of an investigation is not on most people’s wishlists. Whether you are a complainant, a respondent, or a witness, chances are that you will experience anxiety, stress and discomfort related to being involved.

For the past 35 years at Hill Advisory, we have been focused on conducting formal investigations that are complete, reasonable and based on best practices.

I believe that two core practices of a well run investigation ought to be: 

1. Honest and transparent
2. A conversational approach

Over the years I have seen that a formal investigation in the workplace can be a new experience, for many, and with that comes a lot of uncertainty. We put a lot of effort into the concept of honesty and transparency, both in practice when we investigate and in training.

I am a firm believer that everyone involved in an investigation ought to know what the process is, where their information will go, and where their information could go – before answering the first question that I have. Additionally, I feel it is important that I be open to (and able to) answer any question that they may have about the process. It can be difficult to anticipate every question we may receive. 

Another commonality in investigations is the manner in which we speak to those we interview. An artificial, stiff approach to asking formal, verbatim questions, without regard for the flow of a conversation ultimately makes people feel less comfortable. Less comfortable people share less information. Less information in an investigation can cause some real problems when trying to reach the appropriate conclusion.

So, we teach (and practice) a conversational approach. It is the difference between a question like: “Please elaborate as to the actions of the respondent on May 25, 2022, in your own words” and “What happened?” One allows for a familiar, conversational pattern and one can build discomfort.

I believe that not only does an investigation seek to deliver the appropriate conclusion, based on the evidence, but also it should be done in a way that minimizes the negative impacts that are likely to occur to all those required to participate.

Managing the process with a calm, transparent, conversational approach can minimize negative impact for all.

Dylan

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