Six Common Missteps in Workplace Investigations
Earlier this year, I wrote about the four principles that should guide every workplace investigation: neutrality, fairness, thoroughness, and timeliness. Those principles are the foundation. This time, I want to look at what can still go wrong in practice even when a capable HR leader or manager is under pressure, short on time, and making a call that seems perfectly sensible in the moment. It is usually only later, sometimes months later, that the cracks open and the investigation they thought was behind them re-emerges.
For the past 15 years, the Cenera Workplace Investigation team has been helping organizations in Calgary and beyond work through these sticky situations. We've sat across the table from nervous complainants, frustrated respondents, and leaders who aren’t sure of the right next step. And along the way, we've seen the same handful of mistakes happen over and over.
1. Waiting to see if it blows over
I understand this instinct. The people involved are good at their jobs, the complaint feels minor, and everyone is busy. The misstep is assuming that waiting is a neutral choice. Details fade, accounts shift, and the person who spoke up may reasonably conclude that the organization is not taking the concern seriously. Alberta’s Occupational Health and Safety legislation also requires employers to provide a safe workplace free of harassment and violence, so the better first step is a prompt assessment: determine what has been raised, what immediate protections may be needed, and when weighed against the applicable standards, whether a formal investigation or another response is appropriate.
2. Picking an investigator who's too close to it
An investigator has to be impartial, and the people involved have to trust that. A manager who supervises the Complainant might be completely fair and still have their findings questioned. The same goes for an HR leader who works closely with the Respondent every day. Internal investigations can work well in the right circumstances, but when relationships are tangled or the stakes are high, choose the investigator carefully, considering whether the right fit is an impartial internal investigator, someone at arm’s length from another department, or external support.
3. Jumping in without a plan
Investigations tend to grow if you let them. One allegation leads to a side issue or counter-complaint, then another, and before long nobody is sure what is being investigated. Before the first interview, set out what you know about the allegations, the policies or standards that may apply, the information needed to assess each allegation, the people who may have relevant evidence, and a realistic timeline. Also decide how genuinely new issues will be handled if they arise. That written plan does not lock the investigator into a rigid process; it provides a disciplined starting point and a record of why the scope changed if it later expands.
4. Failing to define the allegations clearly
Start by being clear about what is actually being investigated and what information you need from the Complainant. To investigate properly, you need as much relevant detail as they can provide: what happened, when and where it occurred, who was involved, and whether there are witnesses or documents that may help. That detail also matters for procedural fairness. The Respondent needs enough information about the allegations to understand them and respond meaningfully. Be upfront with the Complainant that they will ordinarily be named. There may be situations where a genuine risk of harm, such as retaliation, calls for a different approach, but that concern must be weighed carefully against the need for a fair and thorough investigation.
5. Treating interviews like a chat
This is where we see the most damage done. Leading questions, sharing personal opinions, nodding along in a way that reads as agreement, or only jotting down a few vague notes can all come back to haunt you. Good interviewing takes practice; ask open questions, stay neutral, write things down carefully, and make sure each person has a real chance to tell their side.
6. Thinking the report wraps things up
Organizations underestimate this step more than any other. Finishing the report feels like crossing the finish line. But for the people involved, it's often when the hardest part starts. They want to know what happens next. Trust has likely taken a hit, and whatever the findings, what you do next tells your employees whether you take having a safe and healthy workplace seriously. That means a clear follow-up and restoration plan: how you'll share the outcome, act on recommendations, and support the individuals and teams who have to keep working together. Done promptly and thoughtfully, this is how trust gets rebuilt, and it goes a long way toward keeping the same problems from coming back.
Real people are at the centre of every investigation
Every investigation involves real people during one of the more stressful periods of their working lives. Handled with skill and care, it shows that you live your values, even in the most difficult situations.
How we can help
If you're dealing with something right now, or you'd like to feel more prepared for next time, we’re here to help. We conduct impartial investigations, help you sort out what to do when a concern first comes up, and work with you to update your processes. Once an investigation wraps up, we can help you build and carry out a follow-up plan that supports your people as relationships and the workplace recover. We also help managers and HR teams sharpen their own investigation skills.
