Two Critical Mistakes That Undermine Workplace Investigations

At the May HRPA HR Law Conference in Toronto, workplace investigations emerged as a dominant theme, and for good reason. Among all HR responsibilities, few generate as much uncertainty and stress as conducting a thorough, fair workplace investigation.

HR professionals consistently report feeling overwhelmed by workplace investigations. Even experienced investigators often finish cases wondering: "Did we capture everything? Could this have been done better? What's our remaining risk exposure?" These concerns aren't unfounded,

investigations that appear thorough on the surface can contain critical gaps that could undermine their validity and expose organizations to legal liability.

Based on insights from experienced employment lawyers and investigators, two critical mistakes consistently undermine workplace investigations:

Mistake 1: Failing to Provide Adequate Disclosure to Respondents

Many investigators operate under the misconception that withholding details creates a "gotcha moment" that reveals truth through surprise. This television-drama approach fundamentally misunderstands the purpose of workplace investigations, which is fact-finding, not interrogation.

Providing respondents with sufficient detail about allegations serves several important purposes:

• Enables meaningful responses: Vague accusations produce vague denials, while specific details allow for substantive responses

• Supports procedural fairness: Natural justice requires that individuals understand what they're being asked to address

• Improves investigation quality: Prepared respondents can provide more accurate timelines, identify relevant witnesses, and recall specific details

  
  

Of course, disclosure must also consider confidentiality obligations and witness safety. The goal is providing enough information for a meaningful response without compromising other participants or creating additional risks.

Judging credibility based on immediate reactions or stress responses is inherently unreliable. People respond to accusations differently based on personality, cultural background, past experiences, and cognitive processing styles. A thorough investigation relies on corroborating evidence, not behavioral interpretation.

Mistake 2: Inadequate Follow-Up on Contradictory Information

Investigations often uncover conflicting accounts or new information that requires follow-up, yet many investigators fail to circle back with participants. This creates gaps that can fatally undermine an investigation's credibility.

Why follow-up matters:

• Resolves contradictions: When stories don't align, additional questioning can clarify misunderstandings or reveal new facts

• Tests reliability: Inconsistent details may indicate memory issues rather than dishonesty

• Ensures completeness: New information can identify additional witnesses or evidence

Best practices for follow-up:

• Review interview notes within 24-48 hours to identify gaps or inconsistencies

• Develop specific, targeted questions rather than general re-interviews

• Maintain confidentiality while seeking clarification ("Can you help me understand the timeline around (event/date etc.)?")

• Document the rationale for follow-up decisions

  
  

Example scenario: A respondent claims they weren't at work when an incident allegedly occurred. Rather than simply noting this denial, an effective investigator would:

• Verify attendance records

• Ask the complainant about memorable events that day to confirm dates

• Check if other witnesses recall the respondent's presence

• Explore whether the incident could have occurred on a different day

  
  

Additional Considerations for Effective Investigations

While avoiding these two mistakes significantly improves investigation quality, several other factors contribute to successful outcomes:

Documentation standards: Maintain detailed, contemporaneous notes and preserve all relevant evidence. Poor documentation can render even well-conducted investigations legally vulnerable.

Bias awareness: Recognize that investigators bring unconscious biases to their work. Structured interview protocols and diverse investigation teams can help mitigate these influences.

Legal requirements: Understand jurisdictional requirements for workplace investigations, including timelines, reporting obligations, and standard of proof expectations.

Interim measures: Consider whether temporary measures are needed during the investigation to protect participants or preserve evidence.

Workplace investigations remain one of HR's most challenging responsibilities, and avoiding these common mistakes can help the process and significantly reduce any undesired aftermath. Remember that investigations are fact-finding exercises requiring patience, thoroughness, and attention to procedural fairness. When done well, they protect both individual rights and organizational interests while fostering a culture of accountability and respect.

The investment in proper investigation techniques pays dividends in reduced legal risk, improved workplace culture, and greater confidence in HR decisions. For organizations lacking internal expertise, engaging experienced external investigators can be a worthwhile investment in complex or high-stakes situations.