By: Ted Panagiotoulias
Many people picture a workplace investigation as a straightforward path: a complaint is made, an investigator gathers facts, and a report reveals the truth. The reality, from my perspective as an investigator, is rarely so linear. It is less like following a map and more like navigating a complex landscape in real time, with unexpected terrain and difficult choices at every turn.
The work goes far beyond simply asking questions and writing a report. It involves navigating power dynamics, human emotion, and organizational risk, all while maintaining a commitment to a fair and impartial process. Here are some of the complexities we regularly manage from the trenches.
1. The Executive Question
One of the most delicate situations we face is when a complaint involves a C-suite executive. The usual playbook may not apply. The central question for the organization becomes: What do we do with the executive during the investigation?
On one hand, leaving them in their role can create a palpable chill. Witnesses may be hesitant to speak openly, fearing direct or indirect reprisal from a person who holds significant power over their career. The integrity of the investigation can be compromised before it even begins.
On the other hand, placing a key executive on administrative leave can cause significant operational disruption. It can create a public relations crisis, shake shareholder confidence, and leave a critical leadership vacuum. The organization has to weigh the risk to the investigation against the risk to the business itself. There is no easy answer, and the decision often involves a careful, strategic discussion about interim measures, communication plans, and managing the perceptions of all involved parties.
2. When the Mandate Expands
An investigator is given a specific mandate: to investigate allegations of harassment by Manager A against Employee B. But during the interviews, the investigator hears credible information about potential financial misconduct in a different department, or learns that Manager A’s behavior is part of a much larger, systemic issue within their team.
What happens now? An investigator cannot simply ignore this information. But expanding the scope of the investigation without a clear mandate from the client is also improper. This is a frequent complication. The process requires pausing to have a confidential discussion with the client, presenting the new information, and creating a plan on potential next steps. It often leads to a decision about whether to launch a separate, concurrent investigation or to formally broaden the scope of the current one. It is a critical judgment call that impacts timelines, budgets, and the overall direction of the inquiry.
3. Beyond ‘He-Said, She-Said’
It is a common misconception that an investigation is unwinnable when there are no direct witnesses and the complainant and respondent have conflicting accounts. Many of the most serious allegations occur behind closed doors.
In these situations, our work is to find and analyze corroborating or contradictory evidence. This is not always a smoking gun email. It can be found in many other places:
- Digital Forensics: Examining email patterns, chat logs, and access records can provide timelines and context that support one account over another.
- Circumstantial Evidence: Did the complainant’s work performance suddenly decline? Did they start avoiding certain meetings? Did the respondent’s behavior change around others? These details can form a larger picture.
- Credibility Assessment: This is not about determining who seems more believable. It is a structured assessment of factors like the internal consistency of each party’s account, whether their story has changed over time, their demeanor, and the plausibility of their narrative when compared against the established facts.
A lack of direct evidence does not mean a lack of all evidence. It means the investigator’s work must be more methodical and analytical.
4. The Report is a Beginning, Not an End
Submitting the final report can feel like the end of the process for the investigator, but for the organization, it is just the end of the beginning. The findings, whether substantiated or not, will have consequences.
If allegations are substantiated, the organization must make difficult decisions about discipline, which can range from coaching to termination. If they are not, the challenge is often to reintegrate both parties into the workplace. In either scenario, trust has been broken and teams have been disrupted.
This is where the work shifts from investigation to resolution. We often find ourselves in discussions about restorative practices, team coaching, policy revisions, and leadership training. A great investigation does not just answer the question of “what happened?” It can provide the clarity an organization needs to answer the much harder question: “What do we do now to move forward and be better?” This is the ultimate goal: to not only resolve a specific issue but to help the organization become a stronger, healthier workplace.
These examples represent only a fraction of the judgment calls an investigator makes. The work is a constant balance between procedural fairness, human sensitivity, and organizational reality. Navigating these situations effectively requires not just a knowledge of the law, but a deep understanding of workplace dynamics and the subtle currents of influence that run through every organization. It is less about following a checklist and more about applying seasoned judgment to unique and often volatile circumstances.
When the stakes are high, particularly when leadership is involved or the culture of a team is at risk, an external perspective is a critical component of a defensible process. If your organization is facing a complex or sensitive workplace issue that requires this level of careful navigation, our team at SWL is equipped to help. Contact us to discuss how we can provide the clarity and strategic support you need to manage the situation effectively and reinforce the foundation of a great workplace.
