Investigating an Allegation

This is another topic about which I’ve written previously.  If I recall correctly, the last time was when an executive I knew was accused of creating a hostile work environment.  When I reviewed all the documents in the case, including all the interviews by the investigator, it became clear to me that the investigation was poorly conducted with the investigator looking only for those things that supported the allegations and rejecting any information that would support a finding of innocence, or mis-understanding.

When I do the investigation/evaluation, I take the time to do a thorough process and have saved several people’s jobs and helped to avoid several wrongful termination lawsuits by finding more realistic solutions to the problem (let the punishment fit the crime!)

It happened again recently.  Instead of due process, or even listening to the point of view of the person being accused, all people conducting the investigation parroted the information received by the first person (an amateur) who did the investigation.  Facts didn’t matter.  Truth didn’t matter.  A job was lost because of really poor investigation processes.

So, my advice again:  BE NEUTRAL.  Be prepared to listen to the reasoning of the person being accused.  Often the “crime” is merely a mis-understanding that can easily be corrected, or a mis-interpretation of the facts.  Don’t over-react.  Don’t be so sure that the beginning information is the complete story.  Don’t assume the worst.  BE NEUTRAL. Be careful.  Be thorough.  Give the people involved the benefit of the doubt and full due process.

Investigating an Allegation: Being careful and neutral

Investigating an Allegation

This is another topic about which I’ve written previously.  If I recall correctly, the last time was when an executive I knew was accused of creating a hostile work environment.  When I reviewed all the documents in the case, including all the interviews by the investigator, it became clear to me that the investigation was poorly conducted with the investigator looking only for those things that supported the allegations and rejecting any information that would support a finding of innocence, or mis-understanding.

When I do the investigation/evaluation, I take the time to do a thorough process and have saved several people’s jobs and helped to avoid several wrongful termination lawsuits by finding more realistic solutions to the problem (let the punishment fit the crime!)

It happened again recently.  Instead of due process, or even listening to the point of view of the person being accused, all people conducting the investigation parroted the information received by the first person (an amateur) who did the investigation.  Facts didn’t matter.  Truth didn’t matter.  A job was lost because of really poor investigation processes.

So, my advice again:  BE NEUTRAL.  Be prepared to listen to the reasoning of the person being accused.  Often the “crime” is merely a mis-understanding that can easily be corrected, or a mis-interpretation of the facts.  Don’t over-react.  Don’t be so sure that the beginning information is the complete story.  Don’t assume the worst.  BE NEUTRAL. Be careful.  Be thorough.  Give the people involved the benefit of the doubt and full due process.

When lifestyles clash in the workplace

What happens when a small team of workers reports serious conflict because one of among them is very religious and is horrified about the lifestyle of the others. When HR investigates they discover that the conversations of the others on the team (all of whom work in very close physical proximity to each other) would be considered within the normal range by most people.

For example: One woman is delightedly reporting the progress she and her lesbian partner are having with their plans to adopt a child. A man, who won a bunch of money gambling last weekend in Las Vegas is sharing his joy at his good luck. Another woman in the group recently divorced is talking about meeting some men and having new dates - just dates.

If you were HR how would you handle this matter? Clearly this is a clash of beliefs and your investigation disclosed that there was nothing untoward in the conversations and looking at "the reasonable person" standard, the conversations did not rise to the level of "hostile work environment."

Assume that this group must continue to work together and to stay in close proximity.