The FAIRER workplace investigation process– preventing the rogues

I don’t know if you’ve noticed but the Home Office is to introduce a new system of regulation for private investigators to protect the public from unscrupulous activity. The idea is to prevent rogue investigators unlawfully infringing on the privacy of individuals.

Workplace investigations are luckily not dogged by such rogue individuals but it does sometimes feel as though organisations do not put a high priority on supporting and quality assuring their investigators in what is a complex, risky role.

I’ve recently distilled People Resolutions’ vast experience of workplace investigation into the FAIRER model and I hope this will help those of you who are assigned to investigating workplace grievances, disciplinaries, bullying and harassment allegations and other matters.

This is how it works. First the FAIRER acronym captures the spirit of the central value of effective workplace investigation. Investigators need to be demonstrably fair – recognised as fair by a range of stakeholders, parties and their representatives in their management and recording of the process, in their verbal exchanges, treatment and respect of the parties, and in any written material they process or produce.

Fairness isn’t just in the head or heart. It involves preparation, following designated structures and principles and rigorous attention to detail. Policies give some guidance on process and many organisations do have maps, templates and model documents to help investigators act consistently across a range of situations with a range of stressed, demanding parties often with polarised perceptions.

The structure of thinking and working provided by the FAIRER model supplements and dovetails well with workplace policies and procedures.  

F- Find out – what is to be investigated and agree the terms of reference (investigation plan), what are the issues and allegations, what is the evidence, what happened and what can help understand and assess what happened

A– Analyse – apply objective, impartial, rational consideration to reflect and begin to structure what you have and begin to weigh it up against the allegations

I – bring Insight – consider the weight, type of evidence, levels of proof required, utilise external guidance, definitions, seek more information and clarification if required

R- Report – pull together evidence, conclusions, findings* in a detailed, structured report according to policy requirements and the terms of reference

E – Evaluate - explain and get feedback on the report and findings / recommendations with key parties, check in with commissioning person for feedback as appropriate

R - Reflect on learning emerging from the investigation and disseminate as appropriate.

John Crawley

*If Required 

All female conflicts at work perceived as more negative – implications for workplace mediators and investigators

If you are about to mediate or investigate an all-female conflict at work, watch out for a tendency to view it harshly. New research from the University of British Columbia's business school suggests men and women perceive conflict between two women co-workers as being more harmful and doing more irreparable damage than conflicts between men. (1)

Participants were asked to make judgements on a scale of one to seven on the likelihood that the two managers would be able to repair their relationship going forward, and the extent to which the conflict would affect their job satisfaction and commitment to the company.

Participants rated those involved in all-female conflicts as also being more likely to let the argument negatively influence job satisfaction than male-female or male-male quarrellers.

The study also found that female experiment participants were just as likely as males to see the all-female conflict as more negative.

"I think people perceive female conflict negatively because it violates the way they think women should be," researcher Leah Sheppard told CBC News in an interview. "We want them to be always nurturing and kind and supportive."

It's an assumption that people don't impose whenever men deal with each other, even in a hostile way, she says.

"We are hard-pressed to think of a term comparable to 'catfight' that is regularly used to label conflict and competition between two men," she notes. "This term is troubling because it dehumanizes women and suggests that competition and conflict between women is akin to a disease when, in reality, moderate amounts of same-sex hostility are natural and expected across [men and women.]"

We all have our hooks which make it difficult for us to see things as they are and remain impartial. What do you think? What implications does this have for training workplace mediators and investigators? Do we concentrate too much on the technical side and not enough on the pitfalls of human bias?

We would love to hear your view. Get in touch. 

John Crawley

(1)http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2013/02/25/business-sauder-female-conflict.html   

‘A manager reluctant to investigate a disciplinary issue’ – I'm not surprised!

‘Can we compel a reluctant manager to investigate’ asked a Federation of Small Businesses member to the legal team in the FSB magazine ‘First Voice.’ In a recent edition of the FSB magazine Contact the People Resolutions Team for more on improving investigation capacity. The reluctant manager apparently felt he had not been trained for this role.

The FSB legal team suggested that this could be a disciplinary matter as the manager may be seen to be refusing to do ‘any additional duties that are suitable and appropriate for his role.’ Sensibly though the FSB legal team recognised that it was much more important to ensure that the investigation is conducted correctly and not by someone who could later be alleged to be incompetent or biased.

In many small or large businesses investigations continue to challenge even the most skilful and experienced manager. It is one of those responsibilities that people acquire and it comes with great expectations is hugely challenging. Just imagine if you suddenly put in the position of investigating whether or not a college who you had been working with years was a ‘bully’ or not? A team member alleges that they are. You need to interview witnesses, write up notes, put a report together, maintain confidentiality.

We all possess investigative skills to some degree and could not survive if we could not gather verbal information from the people around us, collect documentary evidence, draw conclusions, feed back our information and recommendations to others (say about an area we are thinking of moving to).

In the workplace though people’s livelihood and well being can depend on the skills of an investigator if someone raises a grievance, or makes an allegation of wrongdoing against them. I can see why a manager might be reluctant but I would not then want to compel them to do it, rather support them and their colleagues in ensuring that they did it fairly, rigorously and well.

Contact the People Resolutions Workplace Investigation team about investigation training, outsourcing the most complex, senior investigations, investigator mentoring. If you are a small business contact John Crawley about ‘Investigation Pooling’.