When a workplace concern arises, one of the first decisions an employer must make is who should conduct the investigation.
Whether the issue involves allegations of misconduct, bullying, harassment, discrimination, whistleblowing concerns, poor performance, or a formal grievance, the quality and credibility of the investigation can significantly influence the outcome.
A well-conducted investigation helps establish the facts, supports fair decision-making, and reduces organisational risk. However, even the most robust investigation can be undermined if the wrong person is appointed to lead it.
So, who should conduct a workplace investigation? The answer depends on the circumstances, complexity, and sensitivity of the matter.
A workplace investigator’s role is to establish the facts. Importantly, they are not usually responsible for deciding the outcome of the case. Their role is to gather the information necessary for a separate decision-maker to determine whether further action is required. This separation helps maintain procedural fairness and objectivity throughout the process.
In many organisations, workplace investigations are conducted by managers.
This can be appropriate where the issues are relatively straightforward and the manager has no prior involvement in the matter, so there would be no perceived conflict of interest. They will usually be trained and experienced in sufficient investigation skills and experience.
Managers often have valuable knowledge of the organisation, its policies, and its operational environment. However, there are risks. Many managers conduct workplace investigations infrequently and may have limited experience in interviewing witnesses, gathering evidence, assessing credibility, or preparing investigation reports.
Workplace investigations can also be time-consuming, requiring managers to balance investigative responsibilities alongside their existing workload.
A manager should not conduct an investigation if they are a witness to the events being investigated and have been directly involved in the matter. If they have already expressed a view about the allegations or have a have a close personal relationship with one of the individuals involved they could be could reasonably be perceived as lacking impartiality so this would discount them being the investigator.
Even where a manager believes they can remain objective, the appearance of bias can be just as damaging as actual bias. If employees do not trust the investigator’s independence, confidence in the entire process can quickly be undermined.
A useful question to ask is: Would an independent observer consider this investigator to be impartial? If the answer is uncertain, an alternative investigator should be considered.
Human Resources professionals often play an important role in workplace investigations. They may advise on process and procedure, ensure policies are followed, provide guidance on employment law considerations and support managers throughout the investigation.
In some organisations, HR professionals may also conduct investigations directly. This can be appropriate where resources are limited and the individual has the necessary skills and independence.
However, HR teams can sometimes face the same challenges as managers. Employees may question their independence, particularly where the allegations involve senior leaders, organisational culture, or previous management decisions.
The key consideration remains impartiality.
One of the most common challenges in workplace investigations is managing perceptions of fairness.
Employees involved in an investigation may ask questions such as “How can this investigation be impartial?”, “Does the investigator already know the people involved?” or “Has the outcome already been decided?”
These concerns can arise even when internal investigators are acting entirely appropriately. An independent investigator can help remove these doubts. By bringing in someone with no prior involvement, organisations can demonstrate that the investigation is being conducted objectively and fairly. This often increases confidence in both the process and the outcome.
Many organisations choose to engage an external workplace investigator to avoid concerns about actual or perceived bias, such as when:
The matter is particularly sensitive and allegations involving bullying, harassment, discrimination or whistleblowing.
When senior employees are the subject of allegations internal investigators may find it difficult to demonstrate complete independence.
In smaller organisations where investigators may know the individuals involved personally or work closely alongside them or resources are limited.
Or if specialist expertise is required such as advanced interviewing skills, evidence analysis, report writing, and an understanding of procedural fairness.
Bringing in external support allows managers and HR teams to remain focused on running the business while the investigation proceeds.
An external investigator provides more than just additional capacity and they can help reduce the impact on workplace relationships. Some benefits include:
Objectivity – Independent investigators have no personal stake in the outcome and no existing relationships with those involved).
Specialist experience – Experienced investigators understand how to gather evidence, conduct interviews, assess credibility, and produce defensible reports.
Credibility – Employees, representatives, and external stakeholders are often more likely to trust an investigation conducted by an independent professional.
Reduced risk – A robust and impartial investigation helps organisations demonstrate that decisions were based on evidence and reasonable process.
Preservation of working relationships – Internal managers and HR professionals may need to continue working with those involved long after the investigation concludes.
Choosing the right investigator is one of the most important decisions an employer will make when concerns arise. An experienced and impartial investigator can help establish the facts, reduce organisational risk, and provide confidence that decisions are based on evidence rather than assumptions.
If you’re considering whether to conduct an investigation internally or engage independent support, contact Kraft HR Investigations to discuss the options available to your organisation.
Support to consider this crucial decision, including:
What is a workplace investigation?
How to conduct a workplace investigation
Who should investigate?
Suspensions during investigations
Interviewing witnesses
Confidentiality
Gathering evidence
Writing reports
Timescales
